msmith537, I’m not trying to say you talk nonsense all day long. You don’t. But there is more to this virtue-and-vice thing than I think you realize. That’s all. I’d really like to cure your ignorance. More tomorrow.
IOW, “America, love it or leave it”, right? That was a tired phrase in the 1960’s. Only now it’s coming from the left. No. Try again.
It is however a tangent to go from discussing multi-generational welfare families to how awful it is to not give those innocent babies every thing they possibly could need, and why in the world do I resist paying for it? This is your repeating answer to everything - we can’t let the children suffer. As if they aren’t already, as if all of the welfare that we already give all of these children has given them even a halfway decent life.
There are always going to be children living in poverty and squalor, because society doesn’t seem to see anything wrong with completely unsuited people having babies.
Yup. I and others have already said it - having a baby brings in far more aid than being childless. Yet you refuse to see the connection between that and babies born in poverty.
Except, it doesn’t work for far too many people. We still have a ton of poor people.
My situation is different because both of my parents worked and I worked, and we all therefore contributed to society. We all paid quite a bit in taxes as we got into our 40’s and 50’s. Having yet another baby, in poverty, is not contributing to society. It amazes me that you cannot see the difference here.
And? If I had a kid and for some reason that kid had “a series of finance-destroying events”, then I would have to take care of that, wouldn’t I? I brought that life into this world, so I am therefore responsible for it for as long as I live.
Actually, I have answered this question in several ways, in the pit thread, and you didn’t like any of it. Short version - one thing I would propose would be any baby born to someone who cannot afford it goes to an “orphanage” (it would probably have to be called something else). Another thing to consider is that children live on far less in other places in this world, so yes, it is emotional blackmail to keep bringing up the poor innocent children as if the lack of a pile of benefits will suddenly result in them dying in the streets. Well, except for the drugs and the violence they live with. So, I think that benefits should be cut off after the first baby - no additional benefits for additional babies.
Well, there is this one right off the top of a Google. All you have to do is look.
How about the demand that we give them more medical benefits?
So, we should create a multi-billion dollar experiment because the economy is currently in the dumps?
It is here - we have plenty of people working who didn’t even finish high school, tho a pretty sucky jobs.
Do I need more what? More violins playing to convince me to pay out even more money, until I am back in that same situation? There will always be poor people no matter what you do. Some of them you can give a leg up and they will work their way out, others simply don’t have the ambition/skills/brains/whatever no matter what help/benefits you give them.
You don’t try to move up there, you save and go to trade school or something so you can get a better paying job. Of course that would require the desire to actually work your way up, which you probably don’t have to begin with if your current job is janitorial.
Money. There is only so much money available. Either you continue to feed these people or you spend that money to teach them to earn their own food.
Uh, cite? If you can promise me that no one just settles into food stamps, ADC and all that, a cite should be no problem right? Simply because you don’t think that is any way to live doesn’t mean that there aren’t people - a lot of people - who don’t mind it.
Or, the child support could be based on a salary that the father had at the time of the split and it hasn’t been reconsidered. Or, it could be that the father ended up with a pile of debt in order to get out of the marriage and this wasn’t taken into consideration. The courts are not always fair. I’m not really into forced child support anyway.
I don’t have to go any where near 1999. How about the movie Juno? Teen gets pregnant, decides to have the baby, finds adoptive parents in the Pennysaver, and its a comedy. On TV we have The Secret Life of the American Teenager, which includes a pregnant 15 year old who is more or less being supported by her parents in her decision to have the baby. For a little further back, we have the TV series Reba, where her teenage daughter gets pregnant, marries the father, has the baby and they all live with Reba and it’s all a comedy.
I think abstinence sex “education” is a seriously bad idea and a breach of the separation of church and state.
I’m sure if I spent some time Googling I could find out. Why do you think these teen mothers wouldn’t get anything other than Medicaid?
The taxpayer isn’t paying so I can keep my teeth. Keeping my teeth is not going to affect anyone elses life, particularly in any negative way such as if a teen ends up having to raise a baby on her own.
What makes you think that? A baby daddy is some casual guy that happened to sire your baby, but he isn’t your boyfriend or husband. These guys disappear, sometimes the mother isn’t even sure of his name, so there is no one to assign child support to. One of my friends has a daughter with a child sired by a baby daddy - he was a Marine, she has no idea where he is. The state supported her baby for several years, despite the fact she was living with her parents.
Those aren’t the same things. All of these programs to support babies and toddlers have been around for quite some time - who goes around and asks new mothers if they had their baby so they could get more benefits?
Don’t be ridiculous. I am not a school administrator, I cannot create curriculum. It would be nice if TV wasn’t full of non-real life situations that appear real life however.
I’m sorry but that doesn’t really deserve an answer. You don’t agree with my position so you wave it aside and say I have no solutions. Or you want me to do something like lay out school curriculum, as if that applies to the discussion.
I’m not asking you to love it. Just stop the the transparently false notion that the government’s constitutional right to tax and spend is somehow coercion. You are welcome to bitch all you want, and try to change legislation. But the fundamental ability of the government to tax and spend without your personal permission is not coercion.
Is that why the offices of Ernst & Young and KPMG are so full of roid-heads? This still makes absolutely no sense. I’ve worked in the business world for years and somehow I’ve managed to get by with a mere 5’10" 190lb build (which is about average size).
What has been a thousand times more important for my success is my intellect and my ability to work with and motivate other people.
Well then by all means cure it.
I’m not talking about “virtue” or “vice”. I’m talking about activities that increase your value vs activities that don’t. There is a thing called “opportunity cost”. It is the cost you incur by not doing something. If you are sitting around doing drugs all day you are not learning a skill that someone will actually pay you for. If you are not getting an education you are placing yourself at a disadvantage against people who are. If you hang out with idiots and losers you are not building a network of successful people who can help you.
When the government can imprison you, at gunpoint, for not paying taxes, it most certainly IS coercion.
You’ll probably agree that questions like ‘Is ambition a virtue?’, ‘Is ambition a vice?’, don’t have a binary yes-or-no answer.
Or not?
The solution I quoted you proposing had an educational bent. Maybe you should look into it 
Edit: I mean, creating curricula.
The government has a duty to imprison anyone who violates the law, at gunpoint if necessary. Criminals who whine that they are being coerced is just silly. That is what the law is supposed to do.
It’s what you do with your ambition that determines whether it is a virtue of a vice. But I can tell you that there is no virtue in laziness or apathy.
At what point do you think you are responsible for your own success or failure in life?
So how is paying taxes not coerced? It is forced by definition, unless you want to go to jail.
I like the screed about how “if we just help the poor with this (fill in the blank, child care, medical expenses, free housing) then their life will be so much better and we will “break” the cycle of poverty”.
I remember reading some young liberal idealists view of poverty. “Let’s just give them money. Then they won’t be poor anymore! Problem solved.” Yes, these people really are that naive and hopelessly idealistic.
These “poor” can’t care for themselves. They are basically adult children. IF you give them money, that will free up money for more cable TV, drugs, prostitutes, spinning wheels on their cars, etc.
As for education, the US spends the most educating (or trying to) per child in the world. Washington DC is something like 15,000 per kid per year. Yet half drop out? Whose fault is that? The taxpayers who are currently paying the huge bill, that’s who! Pay more! Come up with some new programs to keep the kids “entertained” so they won’t drop out! Bravo.
How about this. Work hard in school or life will be absolutely brutal. YOu’ll probably be very hungry, may end up on a chain gang, may see your kid hungry, may have no money whatsoever for life’s luxuries. If you want to effect behavior, you need to change the carrots and sticks. The idea that some people are paying taxes to give “subsidized housing” to other people makes me sick. I remember one of my co-workers when starting out was on a tight budget…so he cut cable TV. Later the politicians were complaining that people on welfare were so hurting that some could barely afford premium channels on cable! Imagine that. People working so that loafers can afford stuff the workers can’t.
If it were up to me the loafers would starve to death.
I remember growing up lower middle class (very lower) and my dad telling me that if I wanted to have a good life, it was up to me. Try hard in school and the world could be my oyster. Somehow I took that lesson to heart. Today’s lesson is that if you want something, you deserve it, and someone else (ie the gov’t) should pay for it. If you don’t get it cry racism or say that the poor are being disenfranchised or something. “No cable TV for the poor? What next? Shall we make them wear a Star of David of some kind or something”?
Tax evasion is a crime. Jail is a consequence, not coercion.
Should the children of these loafers also starve to death? Is it possible for a baby to be responsible for being born to lazy parents?
Law enforcement is coercion.
Regards,
Shodan
So your only distinction that if some rule or obligation is somehow enacted into a law, then avoidance of such is a crime? So MLK and his supporters should be thrown in jail for [delrepealing the coercion brought upon them by[/del] violating Jim Crow laws?
And, yet you***** freely call out coercion when someone doesn’t have the money to pay for the inflated price of whatever, no matter how artificial said inflating circumstance?
The fact of the matter is yes, when the government forces someone to do something under threat of jail/guns/etc., that is coercion, but we as a society want this to happen. It’s part of our basic social contract, the premise for any government, see Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau. If you want to argue that enforcement of natural rights is not coercion, you won’t hear any disagreement from me. Not being poor, the last time I looked, is not a natural right. If anything, it’s the natural state of being.
Anyway, back to the OP (I’ve been following along at airports, but I didn’t really feel the need to weigh in until now):
The role of the working poor, or just the poor in general, is to keep prices down and keep inflation in check, and to spur competition. The idea behind any capitalist is to increase his product reach and market to every body. However, in doing so, he risks commoditizing his goods and/or services, allowing others to undercut him and take over his market. Without doing so, conversely, he risks stagnation and obsolescence. The successful capitalist will choose competition. After all, he should be confident in his ability to create and a compete in a market thus far, and given the natural lack of resources in general, he knows that he has a larger market to tap into by selling to those with less means.
Being poor doesn’t have to mean eating only once or less times a day. It doesn’t have to mean wearing rags and begging. It should only mean that one’s current status is one of less value or wealth to offer. This argument has been phrased so many times and in so many ways that I am absolutely confounded that people still argue against it. Being poor 50 years ago literally meant that you were starving out on the street. Being poor now means not having cable tv and renting in a less desired neighborhood. At this rate, being poor 50 years from now will mean not having a smart cell phone and not owning a flying car (yes, I’m exaggerating a bit). Yet, people will always complain and will always want more.
***** – (I remember you posting something to this effect in some other thread, but if this is not you, my apologies in advance)
Nope. False analogy. Jim Crow was unconstitutional. The right of the federal government to levy income tax and spend that revenue according to the will of elected representatives has repeatedly been tested in the Supreme court and found to be constitutional.
The income tax is not coerced.
So coercion is good. Let’s hear no more about coercion as a negative with regard to collecting taxes.
Wasn’t it John Maynard Keynes who said “won’t someone think of the children?”
Technically it is coercion, however, we accept it so long as we are able to select individuals who will represent us in deciding how those funds are used.
I would cynically state that the role of the working poor is to provide a cautionary example to others. IOW, if you don’t study hard or train or find ways to add value to society, you will by default end up performing the least desirable jobs for the lowest wages.
No, that’s silly.
Come on, you’re better at debate than this.
Regards,
Shodan