This is really sad...
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915
Sad? You're getting soft in your old age Gunny. Its INFURIATING.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 26, 2012, 10:12:10 PM
Sad? You're getting soft in your old age Gunny. Its INFURIATING.
I'm beyond that even...I'm trying to be nice. :-X
This is a stunning example of tax dollars being wasted on a social program.
Here is another model citizen...
"I've got 15 children and somebody needs to pay...somebody needs to be held accountable..."
Check it out at the 2:18 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E)
Disgusting...
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 26, 2012, 09:26:47 PM
This is really sad...
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=15915
Why are you watching Judge Judy? I'm with JH here, you must be getting old. ;)
I don't get any county money... where is MY county money? Who knew there was county money to be had!
I even study medieval counties! Shouldn't I get a county counting count of money?
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 26, 2012, 10:57:39 PM
Here is another model citizen...
"I've got 15 children and somebody needs to pay...somebody needs to be held accountable..."
Check it out at the 2:18 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E)
Disgusting...
Somehow, I can't manage to stop banging my head against my desk.....
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 26, 2012, 11:44:15 PM
Why are you watching Judge Judy? I'm with JH here, you must be getting old. ;)
I didn't know who she was until the link was forwarded to me....
Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I'd rather not know where the money was going since there's not a damned thing we can do to stop it.
This is basically no different than Jersey Shore, Survivor, or any other reality TV crap. They air the dregs and worst examples of humanity to tell a narrative to affirm what people already believe.
Don't waste your time or mental energy on this crap.
i am a little bit disappointed by the American justice system this time...
i thought the Judge would
- first give that sucker a fine every time he didn't acted respectful while talking to the Judge (coped in a lot)
- second, because he misused the money he will either get prosecuted for defraud (a bluff)
or accept the 'deal' that he 'volunteers' to do so many hour community-service equal the value of the rent money
spend
on behalf of the sucker
why didn't he just said: Your Honor, i used the money to pay the rent in cash, and i always earned it back a few hours later for sexual-services i provided to that hosting fat ugly bitch. ;-)
Mike, Judge Judy is no longer a real judge and she does not represent the American justice system. She is a "reality" TV show, sort of like the "People's Court." She mediates small claims conflicts between people who neither wish to hire a lawyer or appear in actual court. It's all legal pantomime.
QuoteThis is basically no different than Jersey Shore, Survivor, or any other reality TV crap. They air the dregs and worst examples of humanity to tell a narrative to affirm what people already believe.
Don't waste your time or mental energy on this crap.
I agree wholeheartedly.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 11:40:06 AM
Mike, Judge Judy is no longer a real judge and she does not represent the American justice system. She is a "reality" TV show, sort of like the "People's Court." She mediates small claims conflicts between people who neither wish to hire a lawyer or appear in actual court. It's all legal pantomime.
Do her rulings have any force?
Quote from: Gusington on February 27, 2012, 10:10:47 AM
Sometimes ignorance is bliss. I'd rather not know where the money was going since there's not a damned thing we can do to stop it.
Bah humbug. There is everything we can do about it. Starting with sending this video clip out to all our friends and family.
It's our government.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on February 26, 2012, 10:57:39 PM
Here is another model citizen...
"I've got 15 children and somebody needs to pay...somebody needs to be held accountable..."
Check it out at the 2:18 mark.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bavou_SEj1E)
Disgusting...
Well I know who is accountable for all those children and who should pay her for them: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOZ-Etb0k0Q
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 27, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 11:40:06 AM
Mike, Judge Judy is no longer a real judge and she does not represent the American justice system. She is a "reality" TV show, sort of like the "People's Court." She mediates small claims conflicts between people who neither wish to hire a lawyer or appear in actual court. It's all legal pantomime.
Do her rulings have any force?
The show basically trolls small claims courts and offers to pay the settlement to the small claim in exchange for "judging" on TV. So, no - the rulings have no force, the claim has been paid. It's just reality TV.
I tried clicking in the link in the OP, but I just get "Sorry Video not found".
Perhaps that's for the best, though?
Quote from: Martok on February 27, 2012, 03:12:32 PM
I tried clicking in the link in the OP, but I just get "Sorry Video not found".
Perhaps that's for the best, though?
Imagine this: somebody gets income assistance to pay the rent. But he's living with his girlfriend so he doesn't pay rent. So he blows that cash on stuff (N.B. the dude is constantly sniffing his nose - the cynic might suspect coke use). Said dude doesn't understand that you aren't supposed to take money for rent if you don't have to pay the rent. Oh, and he's spent three years in college (to the tune of $22k/year - presumably also from the state). Money misspent? We report, you decide.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 27, 2012, 03:27:44 PM
Quote from: Martok on February 27, 2012, 03:12:32 PM
I tried clicking in the link in the OP, but I just get "Sorry Video not found".
Perhaps that's for the best, though?
Imagine this: somebody gets income assistance to pay the rent. But he's living with his girlfriend so he doesn't pay rent. So he blows that cash on stuff (N.B. the dude is constantly sniffing his nose - the cynic might suspect coke use). Said dude doesn't understand that you aren't supposed to take money for rent if you don't have to pay the rent. Oh, and he's spent three years in college (to the tune of $22k/year - presumably also from the state). Money misspent? We report, you decide.
Of the two, the woman with 15 children saying that "someone needed to be responsible" while pointing her finger at you and me is both maddening and depressing. I mean, seriously....culture war? I think we've lost already. And when the 40% of us who pay for damn near everything run out of money....watch out.
Yeah, I think I was blissful in my ignorance. *sigh*
Ah well. If having unhappy knowledge being foisted upon me is the price I pay for hanging out with you guys, it's one I willingly pay. :)
Quote from: Martok on February 27, 2012, 04:20:21 PM
Yeah, I think I was blissful in my ignorance. *sigh*
Ah well. If having unhappy knowledge being foisted upon me is the price I pay for hanging out with you guys, it's one I willingly pay. :)
Yeah, since since I started hanging with you guys, I've gotten so smart I can hardly stand it anymore!!! Fortunately, beer dulls the pain...... 8)
its funny in an ironic way, only rich nations can afford to help its poor, but in doing so a nation propagates the problem
Quote from: Windigo on February 27, 2012, 04:59:53 PM
its funny in an ironic way, only rich nations can afford to help its poor, but in doing so a nation propagates the problem
Yes. If you were interested I could draw you some economic graphs that explain that ;)
Quote from: Bayonet_Chris on February 27, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 27, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 11:40:06 AM
Mike, Judge Judy is no longer a real judge and she does not represent the American justice system. She is a "reality" TV show, sort of like the "People's Court." She mediates small claims conflicts between people who neither wish to hire a lawyer or appear in actual court. It's all legal pantomime.
Do her rulings have any force?
The show basically trolls small claims courts and offers to pay the settlement to the small claim in exchange for "judging" on TV. So, no - the rulings have no force, the claim has been paid. It's just reality TV.
I thought that the "litigants" sign a contract that they will abide by her rulings. So, in effect, she is a televised mediator.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 07:45:41 PM
Quote from: Bayonet_Chris on February 27, 2012, 02:32:49 PM
Quote from: Smuckatelli on February 27, 2012, 12:09:22 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 11:40:06 AM
Mike, Judge Judy is no longer a real judge and she does not represent the American justice system. She is a "reality" TV show, sort of like the "People's Court." She mediates small claims conflicts between people who neither wish to hire a lawyer or appear in actual court. It's all legal pantomime.
Do her rulings have any force?
The show basically trolls small claims courts and offers to pay the settlement to the small claim in exchange for "judging" on TV. So, no - the rulings have no force, the claim has been paid. It's just reality TV.
I thought that the "litigants" sign a contract that they will abide by her rulings. So, in effect, she is a televised mediator.
If by "abide by" you mean they go home not having paid a single dime out of their pockets, then I suppose so.
Huh, I thought there was at least some contractual obligation. Funny...
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 27, 2012, 11:01:24 PM
Huh, I thought there was at least some contractual obligation. Funny...
My understanding, from reading the fine print at the end of the show once upon a time, is that there is a pool of money (3k I think) which starts off divided 50/50 by both sides...BUT...the loser in the trial has his/her share of that pot reduced by whatever amount the judge ends up ruling. So if the loser is ruled against for a thousand, then the winner takes home 2.5k of the pot, the loser gets $500. It's how they get losers with no self-esteem or pride to share their overly-dramatic lives with daytime TV viewers. :P
Quote from: LongBlade on February 27, 2012, 06:54:12 PM
Quote from: Windigo on February 27, 2012, 04:59:53 PM
its funny in an ironic way, only rich nations can afford to help its poor, but in doing so a nation propagates the problem
Yes. If you were interested I could draw you some economic graphs that explain that ;)
I prefer to use just my understanding of human nature, "self-entitlement infects us all"
Quote from: Windigo on February 28, 2012, 02:23:29 AM
I prefer to use just my understanding of human nature, "self-entitlement infects us all"
That works, too.
I'm not trying to goad you here (though I might have been above ;) ).
By drawing graphs it becomes apparent that no matter where you move the subsidy, as soon as it is introduced the is a band around which the defined "poverty line" where there is a disincentive to leave it. Once the entitlement is introduced you are inviting a certain level of abuse.
Interestingly, the discussion of Constitution 101 lays out that our Founding Fathers intended to include some kind of state welfare, albeit severely restricted from what we see from today's out of control spending.
Economics is human ecology. It is irrational until you understand human behavior and that we will never be immune from our base nature/instincts.
a graph as you point out will just reinforce the base truth about self-entitlement and how it factors into human ecology
I absolutely agree that we should be independent and self reliant and that the system should start with that, but as our brother's keeper we do have a responsibility to help others..... to a point
Watching that video makes my blood boil - that form of self entitlement is what gives Harley's extreme positions some legitimacy (only some).
The interesting bit is determining what to do about it.....
Quote from: Windigo on February 28, 2012, 10:29:25 AM
The interesting bit is determining what to do about it.....
That's the problem. It's taken us nearly a century to get into this problem. It will probably take several generations to unravel it.
There are two alternatives, and both point toward the pendulum swinging in the other direction.
First is an epiphany on the part of the public that we have a problem and need to change. Circumstances suggest that is starting to happen, but they tend to get blurred in the daily tug and pull of politics in addition to vested political interests of all stripes being stacked somewhat against it. (Listen closely and you'll find the Tea Party is largely fiscally oriented and welcomes both left and right.)
The other possibility is unfolding in the Med right now: gradual overreach until the system collapses (a la Glenn Beck predicts). With Greece the people took more and more until there simply weren't enough people to tax to support all the people who took.
Either way the current projected path cannot continue. Change will come, it simply a matter of when and how.
I wish that the woman who points her finger at her twelve kids all tucked into a one-bedroom motel room and tells us that "someone needs to be responsible" was white. And I say this because the impact of that scene is so strong that it would make a helluva campaign ad in the upcoming Presidential election, illustrating why the welfare state is so destructive. As it is, to do so would immediately bring charges of racism, since she is black, and sidetrack the entire point. And that in itself is sad, because if you think the welfare state has helped any segment of society in the long run, regardless of color, then you are missing how self-perpetuating the welfare cycle has become.
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 10:59:26 AM
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Still true today, although when you look at it percentage-wise, it's not even close. A recent article claimed that California figures showed 84% of first generation latinos to be receiving some type of welfare, but what was alarming was that the third generation (which is where most immigrates start to pull up economically) was not doing so and was turning to gang life instead. Either way, when you have families going into their third generation (or fourth in some cases) of welfare dependency, it's obvious that we as a society aren't doing anyone any favors here.
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 10:59:26 AM
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).
I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.
I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.
For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).
So, it is a bit more nuanced.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 10:59:26 AM
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).
I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.
I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.
For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).
So, it is a bit more nuanced.
That's an excellent point and one that did not go unnoticed by me.
However, I think when we discuss (and rail against) "welfare" it is the more generic sense that our entitlement state is cranking out dependents rather than departures.
There is nothing wrong with creating some kind of safety net for people who are truly destitute and unable to care for themselves. It is quite another thing for a woman to have a dozen children and fail to understand that her own actions are responsible, and further, to create a system whereby she has a disincentive to a) stop making babies; b) get a husband to stabilize her family; and c) get out of poverty.
For some time we have known of generational poverty where one "welfare momma" teachers her daughters the ropes to perpetuate the cycle.
While we may not be arguing about the specific merits of WIC or AFDC or whatever the current programs are, the general criticism holds: the system is fcuked and needs to be dismantled.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 10:59:26 AM
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).
I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.
I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.
For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).
So, it is a bit more nuanced.
SoM, just to be clear, I am not attacking poor people nor using buzzwords for any race (not that you suggested that I was doing either!). I believe that some sort of social protections are necessary and the mark of a civilized society. I do think the video in question points out the absurdity of individuals who have come to rely on the nanny state to such a degree that there are no longer any feelings of responsibility to self or to others. This woman has fifteen children and her anger is directed towards society! Really? That's why I said I wish she was white....because she is a poster child of exactly what is wrong with aspects of our welfare state.
Speaking of which...one of my earliest memories is of my grandmother sweeping hell out of the cement floors in the housing project we were living in in Houston. By the time I entered kindergarten, we were living in a rented house with wooden floors. By late elementary, we were in a home we owned. My family and my wife's family came from hard economic circumstances...but each generation has done better. That's what we need to focus on as a society when it comes to social help....deal with the immediate needs, but for God's sake...don't destroy later generations by making welfare a generational thing and glorifying single motherhood. We're destroying families here. Makes you wonder what the future holds for that woman's fifteen kids.
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 11:33:31 AMWe're destroying families here. Makes you wonder what the future holds for that woman's fifteen kids.
That was on my mind, too. I doubt the story ends well, though out of twelve or fifteen, the odds of at least
one of them doing something remarkable begin to get a little better.
^Good posts.
Not so long ago there was such a thing as "workfare" where those who had no reason to not work were given jobs in exchange for their benefits. I know for a time a workfare program exited in NYC. Do they still exist?
Quote from: Gusington on February 28, 2012, 11:40:13 AM
^Good posts.
Not so long ago there was such a thing as "workfare" where those who had no reason to not work were given jobs in exchange for their benefits. I know for a time a workfare program exited in NYC. Do they still exist?
IIRC that was a joint effort of Clinton and Gingrich.
I have no idea what happened, but given the current circumstances it was probably overwhelmed by successive waves of spending. Of which Bush II probably owns a decent share.
There should be A LOT more "workfare."
QuoteSoM, just to be clear, I am not attacking poor people nor using buzzwords for any race (not that you suggested that I was doing either!). I believe that some sort of social protections are necessary and the mark of a civilized society. I do think the video in question points out the absurdity of individuals who have come to rely on the nanny state to such a degree that there are no longer any feelings of responsibility to self or to others. This woman has fifteen children and her anger is directed towards society! Really? That's why I said I wish she was white....because she is a poster child of exactly what is wrong with aspects of our welfare state.
Obviously you realized that my post was not directed at you, or anyone in particular and that is good. I'm glad you all agree that we need to think of these issues in as much detail as possible. Money comes from all sources and flows to all destinations in social service arenas. I would go so far as to say a lot of what I dealt with on the local level was State money. Now the state got some of this money itself from the Federal government. The layers are byzantine.
That video was sensational. I don't know how much stock I would put into it. I've never been a big believer in the economic argument of a "culture of entitlement" with the unworking poor. It didn't hold water in the 19th and early 20th centuries and it doesn't seem any more accurate now. Or, to be more specific, I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
I don't have a point here, nor a political argument, nor a solution, nor even a clear statement of what I see as a problem. I'm just basically pontificating for no purpose. 8)
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 10:52:45 AM
I wish that the woman who points her finger at her twelve kids all tucked into a one-bedroom motel room and tells us that "someone needs to be responsible" was white. And I say this because the impact of that scene is so strong that it would make a helluva campaign ad in the upcoming Presidential election, illustrating why the welfare state is so destructive. As it is, to do so would immediately bring charges of racism, since she is black, and sidetrack the entire point. And that in itself is sad, because if you think the welfare state has helped any segment of society in the long run, regardless of color, then you are missing how self-perpetuating the welfare cycle has become.
since when is colour an excuse to not tell someone (who desperately needs it) they are stupid and selfish and frankly in need of a spanking???
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 11:18:47 AM
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 10:59:26 AM
IIRC most welfare recipients used to be white. Probably is the same today, but it was 20 years ago when I took a semester econ course on poverty.
Would that not depend upon your definition of "welfare" and what level you were looking at (county, state, federal)? The big error I see in the economic talk of this thread is that is lumps "welfare" into some catch-all definition and tends to push that toward the federal level. The guy in the Judge Judy video was getting county money for rent, and likely federal or state money for tuition. Different things, different jurisdictions. The woman in the Youtube news clip will likely get local aid first, then possibly go higher up (and maybe get social service aid, which comes from state grants).
I worked for 3 years in a social service agency while I was in college. When I see people discuss "welfare recipients" and "welfare programs" in such a broad way, it seems to me that it is an argument from ignorance. I'm not trying to goad or insult when I say that - just that the way in which the media characterizes social programs leads to inaccurate views on the subject.
I'm not speaking from a political standpoint here on the efficacy of welfare and the creation of a culture of entitlement (although I will say the wealthy have their own sense of self-entitlement, it is not just a poverty issue). What I am saying is, if there is a problem in the system we need to be detailed in our understanding of the different LEVELS of the system and where the money comes from and where the money goes.
For example, the social service agency I worked for ran a number of programs (head start, nurses aids, etc.) some were state funded, others private funded, others funded by local fund-raisers. We had a heating program to help people with winter heating. The money came from the state, but it would run out quickly. So I was in charge of answer the phone to tell people we had no money to help with heating and that they should check with their local commissioners (something similar to parish heads).
So, it is a bit more nuanced.
nuanced smoo-anced. It is still people receiving financial assistance from a benevolent public and that should never ever be taken for granted
every once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
I've been re-editing my dissertation the past 10 days. Can you tell what one of my theoretical arguments might be? ;) I'm debating if we should have a NYC trip of the jokers here to my defense (Gus is already in). But I wouldn't want LB to leap up and declare the room communists (room full of academics) or for Smuck to start an anti-contraception rally (Catholic University). Is it sad that I actually think you, Steelie, would be the best behaved? ;D
Quoteevery once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.
Personal experience has a way of changing perspective. Although, in America, you would be surprised at the number of people who got their start with their parents on welfare programs, who grow up to rail against welfare programs. My generation is particularly weird about it...
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 02:37:49 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
I've been re-editing my dissertation the past 10 days. Can you tell what one of my theoretical arguments might be? ;) I'm debating if we should have a NYC trip of the jokers here to my defense (Gus is already in). But I wouldn't want LB to leap up and declare the room communists (room full of academics) or for Smuck to start an anti-contraception rally (Catholic University). Is it sad that I actually think you, Steelie, would be the best behaved? ;D
Quoteevery once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.
Personal experience has a way of changing perspective. Although, in America, you would be surprised at the number of people who got their start with their parents on welfare programs, who grow up to rail against welfare programs. My generation is particularly weird about it...
What can I say? I clean up nice. ::)
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
Kumbaya? Bah, humbug.
He'd be better off flying a Gasden Flag in his front yard than singing.
Jeez, Steelie, singing? You're starting to sound like a Commie, too!
Quote from: LongBlade on February 28, 2012, 03:14:02 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
Kumbaya? Bah, humbug.
He'd be better off flying a Gasden Flag in his front yard than singing.
Jeez, Steelie, singing? You're starting to sound like a Commie, too!
Well, you know they're all about infiltration, right?
Only with SoM and me....who's infiltrating whom....hmmmm.....and why does that sound dirty?
Quote from: Windigo on February 28, 2012, 02:08:24 PM
every once in a while I truly get all uppity about the level of taxes I pay.... and then I realize that Daniel is alive, fed, cared for and engaged in a meaningful way - all at the benevolence of public taxes and largess. My large tax payout becomes more meaningful when seen that way to me.
Caring for those who truly need it is a legitimate function of government.
Encouraging a poor, ignorant woman to have fifteen kids? That's a broken system.
QuoteOnly with SoM and me....who's infiltrating whom....hmmmm.....and why does that sound dirty?
Let's agree to never speak of this again.
Agreed and agreed to the previous two posts....
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
I had a mini-rant about this subject queued up last night, but after a few deep breaths I backed out. Basically, the bureaucratic mess that is state and federal government has all of the same problems with large corporations, the main difference being that large corporations can get away with a lot more (governments can't really lay people off, although I suppose cutting funding to social services meant to target "undesirable populations" is pretty close).
Regardless, we suck a problems like these because we, as a people and a government, focus too much on the methodology and not enough on the actual goal or objective. Ideological or philosophical ideals get in the way of solutions (much like process gets in the way of solutions within a massive bureaucracy). Instead of incompetent middle managers and project managers, we get politicians who are ignorant about the problems and quite happy to offer a solution regardless.
Everyone has their own interests that they seek to protect. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is way out of whack. The "solutions" we end up with aren't really geared to solving a problem as much as placating various interests so they appear they're doing something without actually taking a risk. Again, this is so much like working in a large corporation it's laughable.
Quote from: Bayonet_Chris on February 28, 2012, 03:58:15 PM
Quote from: Steelgrave on February 28, 2012, 01:59:35 PM
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 01:52:27 PM
I don't believe that ONLY the poor has a culture of entitlement - the wealthy and middle class has their own interests they want protected by the government (or authorities). History is marked and often driven by the clashes of interests between different groups for support of the ruler/ruling class/government.
That's pretty difficult to argue against. Good point, SoM. Damn, this keeps up and we will be singing "Kumbaya" and roasting marshmellows by the campfire.
I had a mini-rant about this subject queued up last night, but after a few deep breaths I backed out. Basically, the bureaucratic mess that is state and federal government has all of the same problems with large corporations, the main difference being that large corporations can get away with a lot more (governments can't really lay people off, although I suppose cutting funding to social services meant to target "undesirable populations" is pretty close).
Regardless, we suck a problems like these because we, as a people and a government, focus too much on the methodology and not enough on the actual goal or objective. Ideological or philosophical ideals get in the way of solutions (much like process gets in the way of solutions within a massive bureaucracy). Instead of incompetent middle managers and project managers, we get politicians who are ignorant about the problems and quite happy to offer a solution regardless.
Everyone has their own interests that they seek to protect. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is way out of whack. The "solutions" we end up with aren't really geared to solving a problem as much as placating various interests so they appear they're doing something without actually taking a risk. Again, this is so much like working in a large corporation it's laughable.
Good encapsulation, Chris.
IMHO the wholesale cut is the best method. Hand out a 10% budget cut across the board and tell each Secretary to come back in 45 days with a solution. Let them figure out if we really need to be giving Maine money to study blueberries or not.
Do that for a couple of years and we'll get where we need to be.
The solutions will probably suck, but we will fix the overall problem. Then we can figure out how to clean up the rest of the mess.
QuoteEveryone has their own interests that they seek to protect. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is way out of whack. The "solutions" we end up with aren't really geared to solving a problem as much as placating various interests so they appear they're doing something without actually taking a risk. Again, this is so much like working in a large corporation it's laughable.
Welcome to the echo chamber of the modern age. ;) You didn't have to worry about that signal to noise ration in the middle ages.
I'm also not a big believer in the objective or goal centered solutions in politics (not to contradict you B_C). The reason - too many goals and whose goals do you put as prime? You hit that problem with the statement above - it is impossible to achieve a goal when everyone makes every variation of his or her goal heard and known. Worse yet, there are so many people who have no intrinsic goals, so they mimic (and often poorly) the goals of others. The media has become a powerful tool of goal assignment without being a tool for goal-based education (saying YOU WANT THIS, but not YOU WANT THIS BECAUSE OF...).
I think the problem we have is that we don't listen to historians or learn from history. We have been here before folks, this isn't all new territory.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 04:20:24 PM
QuoteEveryone has their own interests that they seek to protect. Unfortunately, the signal to noise ratio is way out of whack. The "solutions" we end up with aren't really geared to solving a problem as much as placating various interests so they appear they're doing something without actually taking a risk. Again, this is so much like working in a large corporation it's laughable.
Welcome to the echo chamber of the modern age. ;) You didn't have to worry about that signal to noise ration in the middle ages.
I'm also not a big believer in the objective or goal centered solutions in politics (not to contradict you B_C). The reason - too many goals and whose goals do you put as prime? You hit that problem with the statement above - it is impossible to achieve a goal when everyone makes every variation of his or her goal heard and known. Worse yet, there are so many people who have no intrinsic goals, so they mimic (and often poorly) the goals of others. The media has become a powerful tool of goal assignment without being a tool for goal-based education (saying YOU WANT THIS, but not YOU WANT THIS BECAUSE OF...).
I think the problem we have is that we don't listen to historians or learn from history. We have been here before folks, this isn't all new territory.
No, you're absolutely right. I don't think you're contradicting me either. I tend to find a lot of humor in life, often in unexpected (or unwanted, depending on who you ask) places. The Law of Unintended Consequences is one of my favorites. Solving problems through hard-line, strict ideological goggles often results in hilarious disaster due to this. Kind of like the mass exodus of migrant workers from Alabama in response to their strict immigration laws causing an economic hit to the agricultural sector because no one could harvest the crops.
There is some conflict over what goals to choose, no doubt. The problem is that, to quote a half-vampire character, "Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill". People will rail against their own interests time and time again in response to some imagined fear or taboo. Democracy is wonderful and messy. The diversity and variance that gives it strength is the same thing that can bring it crashing down in a self destructive panic.
Going with a hierarchy of needs model, people will always fall back to basics (food, water, shelter) and security when threatened, whether or not the threat is real. It's the oldest trick in the book.
Quote from: son_of_montfort on February 28, 2012, 03:17:37 PM
QuoteOnly with SoM and me....who's infiltrating whom....hmmmm.....and why does that sound dirty?
Let's agree to never speak of this again.
it looks dirty too