President Bush Jr's Scorecard

[Ming]

And the money is also being spent on tons of other projects... while the Defense budget is an easy target, you really can't say that we don't need some defense.

Plus... what about all the other pork out there. needless highways, needless research projects, needless farm subsidies (tobacco is a classic example)
Tons of crap... you make it sound like for a few less airplanes, we can feed all the poor and get them jobs.

Not true by a long shot...

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming
People should live in poverty if they make the choice to do so.

Very few do. Assuming that no harsh assumptions are made concerning people who are having a genuinely hard time, I agree.

I have no problem with my tax money being spent on helping people who will use that help and try to improve themselves by making he right choices. If they don't want to do what is needed to pull themselves out of poverty, I don't see why the government should have to drag by the neck... it is their choice.

Again... I have no problems there. That's a big jump from "if you don't make the right choices, it isn't MY fault". People deserve a second chance to contribute to society.

I know a poor black single mother... her boyfriend got her pregnant and left. She went on welfare... learned typing skills... became a secretary and used much of her salary on day care... in her spare time she studied for her real estate license... and started doing some on the side. She is now a very successful real estate agent, living in a beautiful home in the upscale northern suberbs of Chicago... She is her own boss and now spends tons of time with her child.

That's a great story, and an ideal success story for welfare. Obviously it shouldn't be a permanent income source... but it should be there when needed.

Now please tell me why others can't make those same choices... There are many paths to success... it's not that hard to find one.

In fact, I agree with you. I think we're finally on the same page.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming
And the money is also being spent on tons of other projects... while the Defense budget is an easy target, you really can't say that we don't need some defense.

Plus... what about all the other pork out there. needless highways, needless research projects, needless farm subsidies (tobacco is a classic example)
Tons of crap...

Agree here too. There are better things to spend money on. Though, it is a pet hypothesis of mine that the US economy would collapse if defence spending was cut dramatically, and as a result, the government needs to find justifications... But, let's not go into that...

[Ming]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Again... I have no problems there. That's a big jump from "if you don't make the right choices, it isn't MY fault". People deserve a second chance to contribute to society.

No it isn't a big jump from "It isn't my Fault"...
Because it isn't my fault if somebody else makes a mistake... And I never say they don't deserve a second chance.
Unlike some of the more militant ones here, I have no problem with WELL run welfare programs... programs designed to HELP people, not just feed them.

I give money to charities that do just that.

I'm a firm believer of the ole line... "teach a man to fish..."

I'm simply appauled by how much we spend on welfare programs, and how little people get from them.

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man


Forget moral responsibility.

Couldn't agree more wrt governmental responsibility.

It makes much more sense, from a strictly economic point of view, to give people a living income and training so that a) they'll spend, and be a contributing to society in that sense, b) not need to resort to crime, which is VERY expensive for a society, and c) they can hopefully return to a working class lifestyle level like the majority of the population.

If economic reasons and moral reasons aren't good enough, what is good enough?

I've already conceded re-training is a worthwhile endeavor. I don't necessarily think it is the entire province of the governement to provide said training. But for the moment, we'll say retraining is a within the scope of government afterall public school systems by and large are Federally funded so why not occupational training right?

But provide a living wage?? For what purpose other than to reduce crime? Are you talking an entitlement here? For what duration? What qualifications apply? Are you simply saying if your poor/below poverty line you get a nice juicy check from the gov.? Is this in relation to unemployment (which is nothing more than insurance and I have no issue with)?

I also see the key word above is "give". One lesson I've learned in life is being given something always lessens its import rather than earning something. The expectation grows with every gift that more and more largesse will come. The prob as I see it is everyone expects something for nothing or next to nothing. Where does personal responsibility come into play?

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming
I'm simply appauled by how much we spend on welfare programs, and how little people get from them.

Reform is definitely needed. Unfortunately, that takes money, and here we go again...

It's the meanspiritedness that I see from Americans - and yes, Canadians and others, too - that is the most frustrating for me. We've all known someone who was unemployed. The vast majority of unemployed people want nothing more than to get out of that position ASAP. And yet, the idea of the welfare cheat holds so much sway in the public eye - in spite of welfare cheats being a failure of the overseers of the program, not of the program itself.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Reform is definitely needed. Unfortunately, that takes money, and here we go again...

Not really... take a look at food stamps... a good program in theory. But a lot of the money is wasted in the execution... getting the stamps to people... the redemtion system... fraud... people selling the stamps to other people and using the money for gambling... drugs... booze... A simple picture "credit card" system would reduce the cost of the program and dramitcally reduce the fraud and illegal use... While I don't remember which newspaper I read this in, the savings were in the range of 20 to 30% not counting the lesser fraud

And that's what I'm talking about... WHY ISN'T THIS IN PLACE EVERYWHERE NOW!

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by Ming

And that's what I'm talking about... WHY ISN'T THIS IN PLACE EVERYWHERE NOW!

Probably because someone(s) in the bureaucracy is lining his/her/their pockets through the present system.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Probably because someone(s) in the bureaucracy is lining his/her/their pockets through the present system.

Come on... if this was a Civ Game... Democracy means no corruption And the same game designers also say that fundementalism wipes out all unhappiness

[Lars-E]

I have a close relative who has lived in the USA for about 20 years. All the time in business - most of the time his own business.

He said that corporate America is corrupt from top to bottom (before the scandals). His business could have been much more expansive if he had taken kickbacks.

So much for hard work. All you need is amorality to succeed in America. Exploiting the workers is also good. Right Chairman Chegitz?!

[Lord Merciless]

What about socialist governments like the one in USSR or China? Corporate corruptions in America couldn't possibly measure up to their levels.

[Lars-E]

I dunno. There are many good qualities about the USA of course, but you need to deal with your issues. And corruption seems to be one of them.

Mercy!

[Ogie Oglethorpe]

I don't suppose a one data point with questionable motives (i.e. sour grapes that his business isn't bigger) is reason for condemnation of all businesses in the US. Naah your right Lars.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The idea is that you'd would save a lot more in the long run by curing a lot of societal ills. Probably the income supplements would amount to about half the money spent on defence contracts. Priorities, priorities... guns or butter?

We kinda need guns, owing to the world situation. I'm not entirely sure you'd like how the world looks if the US wasn't there to protect certain countries *cough*Canada .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Lord Merciless
What about socialist governments like the one in USSR or China? Corporate corruptions in America couldn't possibly measure up to their levels.

Those were authoritarian Communist governments. Not Social Democracies. Please read history.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yet they called themselves socialist and held up Marxism-Leninism, and he never called them Social Democracies. Please read posts .

[Sava]

Originally posted by Ming
I always love how they try to make it sound that only 2 to 5% of the people win under Capitalism... Tell that to the middle class... you know, the ones with their beautiful homes... their SUV's... and send their kids to good schools... There are poor in every country... no matter what form of government.

So that's your excuse for not trying to fix the problem? Weak... classic conservative answer. "It's always going to be broke, so let's not try to innovate and fix it".

[Sava]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Yet they called themselves socialist and held up Marxism-Leninism, and he never called them Social Democracies. Please read posts .

I can call myself a pink-elephant, but that doesn't make me one. I originally said "Social Democracies". He was referring to one of my earlier posts. So take your own advice. It's really annoying when people comment on discussions when they don't read earlier posts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did he quote your post? He was replying to Lars-E.

My, the ego on you.

And the 'communist' countries of USSR and China are really socialist states, which is why they refered to themselves as such. Communism is the Paris Commune and the communes in the Spanish Civil War. It is impossible for a state to perform that way. The USSR is socialism, just as Marx's idealised vision is socialism.

And you can ask che, but Social Democracies aren't truely socialism. They have market economies with heavy government interference, so they are mixed economies.

[Sava]

I never said I wanted a true socialism. You certainly pulled that out of your ass. Lars-E was only arguing the same thing as me . But then again, leave it to a conservative to dodge the issue and argue semantics.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
So that's your excuse for not trying to fix the problem? Weak... classic conservative answer. "It's always going to be broke, so let's not try to innovate and fix it".

I've always said that a few minor changes would help. But I like Capitalism... it's a better system than any of the miserable liberal stuff that you sprout all the time

[Imran Siddiqui]

I never said I wanted a true socialism. You certainly pulled that out of your ass. Lars-E was only arguing the same thing as me

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit!

By saying the USSR was not socialism, you were talking about true socialism.

And Lars-E was saying the system was corrupt, which was responded by saying 'and other systems' are better.

You can keep fibbing to make yourself look better, but it won't help. Leave it to a liberal to make a stupid statement and then when confronted call it 'semantics', because we all know that liberals make up definitions for words.

[Sava]

Please, stop making up stuff... every time you make up stuff I need to correct you and that wastes forum space. I said the USSR was not a Social Democracy.... I never said anything about true socialism...


Ming... the system I want is one that provides free health care, education/job training, and enforces current business regulations. How would that be worse than what we have? Basically, I want to keep things the way they are, only decrease the amount of people in poverty. I fail to see how that is bad.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
Ming... the system I want is one that provides free health care, education/job training

If it looks like socialism... If it smells like socialism... If it sounds like socialism... IT IS SOCIALISM.

Again... I like capitalism far better than any of the miserable liberal stuff that you sprout all the time

[Imran Siddiqui]

I said the USSR was not a Social Democracy.... I never said anything about true socialism...

You said, and I quote "PLEASE READ HISTORY". Go ahead, read history. USSR is socialism. Lord Merciless NEVER said anything about Social Democracy. If you truely want to read history, NOTHING is socialism except pure socialism.

Social Democracy can call itself socialism, but as you said it can call itself a pink elephant, doesn't make it one.

Please Read History.

Game. Set. Match.

Basically, I want to keep things the way they are, only decrease the amount of people in poverty. I fail to see how that is bad.

And who will pay for this, oh smart one?

[Ming]

The government already does a bad job spending the money I give them. Their welfare programs are all a joke... poorly managed, and provide little value for the money spent.

AND YOU WANT THESE BOZO'S RUNNING OUR HEALTH CARE SYSTEM TOO!

Before I would even consider giving them more of my money, I would like to see them try first to do a better job of what they already take. Maybe then, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO TAKE MORE OF IT.

[Jac de Molay]

The success stories for welfare are few and far between because the support just isn't there. What about Day-care? Public transportation? I dont think we're spiralling into socialism by asking if the safety net is adequate enough, especially since congress passed the biggest piece of pork in American history.

Welfare to work was pushed upon onto a lot of people in the 90's without an adequate network of support. And when follow-ups were conducted, the number on the rolls decreased, but those same people also practically disappeared off the face of the earth. No one could gauge if their standard of living really improved or not.

[Ming]

It's really a matter of how big that safety net should be, how much will it cost, and who is going to pay for it.

I think everybody here (with few exceptions) sees the need for providing for the needy. The big difference is on how much, and how it is managed.

[Sava]

That's the thing about Democracy... if someone isn't doing a good job, you vote them out. No, I don't want any of the "bozos" in there right now running our health care system. It is possible to have a market economy AND provide free health care/education without government waste.

Plus, I don't see you complaining about the wasted government money when it comes to defense spending. Look at how much is being wasted today. One smart bomb runs about 5 million dollars. And how many of those were wasted in Afghanistan? After 9/11 we were spending about a billion dollars a day bombing some desert rats. And what did the Afghan campaign accomplish? Nothing... Yet I only see you ripping on the left when it comes to government waste. The fact is, welfare programs WORK! Only about 10% of the people who are below the poverty line are chronically poor. The other 90 percent are people who fall under tough times, receive welfare, and pull their lives together. And I don't see you complaining about wasting money on corporate welfare... look at the bailout the airline industry received. That was the biggest anti-capitalistic action you could possibly concauct (sp?). In capitalism, if a business fails, it fails, there is no bailout.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Sava
The fact is, welfare programs WORK!

And what fantasy land do you live in...
I guess we just have a different definition of the term "works"...

And you seem to forget that I have pretty much called most government spending wasteful and inefficient in other threads... and I probably mentioned it again in this one too