New McCain Doctrine: Preemptive lying

What, then, is the solution for the poor?

Look. Nobody is entitled to anything, whether good or bad.

I’m going to say it again.

Nobody is entitled to anything. The best we have is the entitlement to “certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness…”

My father was born dirt poor, seventh of the family, to righteous and Godfearing folk. His father was a brilliant inventor who was doublecrossed more than once by his partners and fed his family by working as a stonemason. My father helped his father work hard in the Texas sun, pushing wheelbarrows full of concrete and learning the craft of it all. Dad made it, more than any of the rest of his family: he joined the military, stayed in for thirty years, and makes a nice almost-upper-class living as a database programmer. He’s a fine example of a man who pulled himself up by the bootstraps, who made something from nothing. I am intensely proud of him. He has a lot of intelligence, a lot of drive, and a hell of a lot of luck.

What if he’d been injured in Vietnam, though? What if he’d never married my mother? What if the truck that plowed him over when he was ten (True story. Dad has almost none of his own teeth) crippled him?

It seems to me that these sorts of conservatives have only one answer for the unfortunate: “Make it better yourself.” They give the answer and they turn away. They say “I shouldn’t be forced to pay for your mistakes.” They say “Suck it up. Nobody owes you anything.” And that’s all true.

But what happens afterward? They don’t seem to care. The person disappears, becomes irrelevant, unimportant, another statistic to which they do not belong. There is not even a twinge of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’. There is only “You got yourself into the situation, you get yourself out.” And if it was only hard work that could pull someone out of poverty and into a three bedroom house in a nice suburb, I might agree, but when the deck is stacked so steeply against you, when you’re starting from further down the cliff than the person telling you this, when things come easier when you have money and connections, it’s a bullshit answer.

What to do for the illiterate, Spanish-speaking illegal immigrant mother who gets sick and can’t keep working as a housekeeper? What to do for the man crippled by lax safety standards who does not have the education or understanding to apply for worker’s compensation? What to do for the abused children who take their frustrations out on all the people who seem to have it so much better, stealing cars and breaking windows and catching a few stolen moments with their drug of choice, be it alcohol or pot or sex? What to do with their pregnant girlfriends? Should you just shrug and say it’s not your problem and you shouldn’t be forced to deal with it because you made the right decisions?

Denying responsibility for the problem does not make it go away.

You can walk away, but they will still be behind you. Saying “It’s not my problem” is about as pointless as looking at a broken-down car and saying “Hmm. It shouldn’t be smoking like that.”

This is what pisses me the hell off about the economic crisis. Millions of people in the US are too poor to afford health care or decent food or decent housing in a neighborhood where their kids aren’t in danger of being shot, but this isn’t a crisis. Suddenly a few very rich people are in danger of becoming very poor because of dishonest business practices and it’s time to save them from the poorhouse? Their downfall was inevitable and they knew it, but they milked the system for all it was worth and escaped with platinum damned parachutes. Their actions caused a crisis, but there will be poor always, so they can get fucked. If you look away, you don’t have to see them. If you don’t walk in that part of town, you’re much safer. Just avoid trouble.

LPN, you’ve made the case for why poor people need money and why giving it to them may be a good thing, but you haven’t touched on why it is ok or desirable for the government to take money by force from some to give it to others, which in my view is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Would you prefer the government to print it?

ETA: Our congress exists to determine the proper tax rate. Therefore taxes are not robbing you or taking money by force. They are taxes agreed upon by your government. You folks have had your way for quite a while dealing with a government that I sure didn’t want. Now it’s going to be your turn. Democracy is tyranny of the majority, although it tries to accomodate the minority, usually (Bush excepted). You’re just going to have to accept it. The economy didn’t collapse under Reagan or Clinton, and it won’t collapse under any taxation that Obama would institute, unless this financial crisis ends up requiring back-breaking taxation. Which I don’t think it will.

Taking money from some and giving it to others IS government. Besides enforcing criminal laws, that is. Which by the way, they ALSO take money from some and give it to others to accomplish.

Where do you propose your tax dollars go? What is the government for, if not to protect and improve the lives of its citizens?

The United States works so well for a whole variety of reasons. Among them is our wealth of resources and our ability to spread them across the country (This sounds batty, but I have a point here). Idahoans aren’t restricted to potatoes and venison, Georgians can wear more than cotton, and movies made in California spread everywhere. Some states are more of a ‘drain’ on the American coffers than others, but only the most staunchly libertarian believe they should sink or swim on their own merits. New Jersey pays for Alaska. Texas has one of the lowest tax burdens in the country despite being second-largest in both size and population.

Here in Texas, though I’m not benefiting from state or federal welfare programs, I am stealing the money from your wallet (assuming you do not live in, say, Alaska. Or Nevada. Otherwise I am giving money to you and not complaining about it much).

You ask why we should be forced to pay for the poor to get a step up. I ask why we should be forced to pay for the greed of the rich.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious: I am saying that private charity (and charitably minded individuals) are the proper persons to provide money to poor people, not the government. So, I was asking why the government should provide for the poor, not about how the government was supposed to get the money to give to the poor.

I’m with you on “protect,” but not so much on “improve.”

Also, your argument proves too much. My life would be improved if I had a Cirrus SR22. Should the government be required to purchase one for me?

I guess you were going for pith more than substance with this one. Rich people got rich because they created something that other people were willing to buy from them. They added value.

You may now quote the above setence and cite the current financial “crisis” and gloat as if (i) you understand what is currently going on (BTW, I’m not saying I do; I think no one can understand it fully yet) and (ii) it was caused by “greed.”

Well, I guess that’s right if you want to look at it that way. But taking money from some and giving it to others should be a means to an end, not the end itself. OK, I guess you could argue that giving money to poor people is a means to the end of “increased social justice” or somesuch, but I think that is an illegitimate end.

“increased social justice” is an illegitimate goal? I wish more of you “conservative” idiots would come out and admit you feel this way. Unfortunately most “conservatives” are smart enough not to.

There will never be enough charity to cover it all. And by no means all rich people earned it. Often it is inherited, and in many, if not most other situations, wealthy people got where they are as much by luck as by any particular skill - they happened to be in the right place at the right time and met the right people. Of course, in all but a few cases, that depends on having had parents that had enough money or at least priorities to ensure that you could and would want to go a decent college for a start.

Rand, we’ve established repeatedly that trickle down, or supply-side economics just doesn’t work all that well for the economy at large. It may well drive the stock exchange up, but what the heck does that actually matter? What matters is making sure that everyone who wants and is able to hold a job can find a job to hold, and that it pays enough to support themselves and their families. For that, we’re better off with bubble up economy, whereby people at the low end of the economy have more money to spend on consumer goods, which drive increased profits for the companies making goods and providing services. Money at the top far more often gets invested in the financial markets, which produce nothing of value and employ comparatively few people.

No one holds a gun to your head. If you don’t want to live in a country where there is a progressive income tax, you’re welcome to leave. But the fact is, one of the great contributing factors that preceded the Great Depression was an incredible widening between the incomes of the wealthy and the poor, and that’s what we’ve seen over the past eight years. Hoover didn’t create the Depression. He just handled things so badly that what might have been saved was not. But it was the administration of Coolidge, as I understand it, who really set up the conditions for Black Monday, 1929. I don’t know; maybe you’d rather see a Great Depression over a return to your tax level in 1985 or something like it. If so, IMHO you’re a fool.

Not sure why I bother, but anyway . . .

  1. Cite? 2. How is this an argument that government should step in?

Cite? Care to guess at the percentage of millionaires that inherited any part of their wealth? The group of people that inherit wealth that so often get brought up in these sorts of discussions is very very small.

We meaning the SDMB?

So, in furtherance of this policy, you want the government to do everything possible to discourage those who start businesses that provide jobs.

Cite? You sure you don’t have that backwards?

Those who won’t admit it are trying to get morons to vote for them. I’m not. The problem is that “social justice” can mean whatever someone who wants a new program passed wants it to mean. I don’t think the government should be concerned with that, let society sort it out.

I think I answered this, but I’ll do it again: while I understand this argument, it amounts to trying to fill the Grand Canyon by pissing in it. It would be a jolly happy time if Caritas could feed every hungry person and Habitat could house them all, but even with millions given to charities AND millions given to the government, people are still left in the cold, in the lurch, jobless, uneducated, without much hope.

What is meant, then, by “promote the general welfare”?

First off, that thing isn’t going to fit in your driveway, I don’t care where you live. :wink:

That’s a damn silly question, though, and you know it. Handing someone a bag of cash doesn’t improve their lives any more than handing you an airplane would improve yours. Providing better, targeted resources and education to people in need is not passing out SR22s.

You got me there.

That’s an extreme oversimplification, and all I have to do is point at Kenneth Lay to make the point that there is no inherent virtue in wealth.

Few rich people create something that other people are willing to buy, in my understanding. What they do is sell it, market it, encourage people to buy it, and see how cheaply and/or how well they can manufacture it. Engineers are not, by and large, super-wealthy.

Me, gloat?

My understanding of the current financial crisis is this, ubersimplified: people who sell things are greedy. People who buy things are greedy. People who sell things wanted to sell MORE things, so they started selling people things they couldn’t afford, hoping they’d find the money somewhere. People who buy things suddenly didn’t have as much money as they thought and lost their vastly less valuable stuff.

Okay, slightly higher than kindergarten level:

Deregulation in the 1990s made it easier for people previously incapable of buying new houses to get mortgages approved. Banks were more willing to approve risky loans because they could then sell those loans off in parcels that would, in turn, get added to investment packages. Assuming enough people didn’t default all at once – a gamble at the best of times and an extra gamble when so many mortgages were being given to people who couldn’t manage to pay them – the banks would make money and the investors would make money.

It worked for a while, too. But (and here’s where things get a little fuzzy for me) a lot of stuff happened in eight years. America started two wars an didn’t finish them, losing billions through possibly well-intentioned (I’m being generous here) mismanagement. Our foreign investors stopped seeing us as, well, a good investment. The dollar devalued. Gas prices rose. Consumer confidence shrank, so we encouraged people to buy more and more to boost unemployment. Tax rebates encouraged people to spend more and more. Banks were all too willing to extend credit to people with good-enough credit histories.

But because consumer confidence was down, people didn’t get the raises they expected. They overspent, they racked up debt, and their variable-rate mortgages started varying higher than they could manage.

Meanwhile, all those little mortgages here and there started to crumble. As payments got later and later and fees got higher and higher and the bank either couldn’t afford or couldn’t be bothered to prevent foreclosures (they had their money, after all, having sold the mortgage off to an investment firm) the portfolios suddenly started looking like Swiss cheese. The big numbers were assuming that people were paying their debts at previous rates, that food would not be three times as expensive to cart around, that the war would eventually end, that everything would continue to be okay.

Or, failing that, that the people who really mattered would come out of it without losing their shirts.

I’m no financial analyst; most of this I just got from paying attention and listening to the news for the last eight years. Finance was a little less depressing than the Iraq war.

The ‘end’ would be less crime, less crushing poverty, less malaise, and more productive citizens. We’ve been outsourcing all our low-qualification jobs to China and India and Mexico and such; what do you expect the ignorant and stupid to do? Apart from move to China or India or Mexico.

How many panhandlers would there be if not a single person ever gave a single dollar to a panhandler?

excerpt, Report from the Recording Angel, Mark Twain.

And heaven knows they wouldn’t need money, either. That’s just what your average panhandler probably thinks: “Darn. I beg, but nobody’s giving. Guess I’ll go put in an application at Arby’s.”

Because charities and government are already working, and we still have enormous numbers of the poor. The government has already stepped in. What Obama et al are suggesting is that the government add more stuff to help people to get out of needing help.

Read what I wrote next time. I didn’t just say “inherited their wealth.” Go back and read the paragraph I wrote; I’m not going to waste my time copying and pasting it here.

Here are the wiki entries on trickle-downand supply-side economics. While there is no universal consensus, it would certainly seem that the general feeling among economists is not supportive of this general theory, to the point where people who believe in it call it something else to avoid being tarred with the brush.

Well, you found us out. The Democrats are deliberately plotting to eliminate as many jobs as humanly possible in the next eight years, and make sure no one starts new businesss. :rolleyes:

What, you think greater income disparity prevents a Depression? I don’t think so. At best, it has no impact.

Here’s the Wiki pageon the Depression. This one quote in particular I think is of interest:

  1. Beckoning Frontiers: Public and Personal Recollections, 1st (in English), New York: Alfred A. Knopf

Hey LPN, how old are you if I may be so bold to ask?

About to turn 29 for the first time, why? (I know, I know, I’m a kid.)

And I’m 52. What’s your point?