Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The great Jimmy Carter
gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 17 of 77 (27009)
12-17-2002 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Minnemooseus
12-17-2002 12:11 PM


quote:
The Ronald Reagan who showed that the U.S. could better survive the flushing of vast amounts of money down the "military industrial complex" toilet.
Ah yes, the "military industrial complex". That is, companies that push the limits of technology for government contracts by making the US a safer place to live. Not to mention that we're giving some welder or technician or soldier a job with every dollar.
How terribly un-American.
Oh yes I'd rather see us dump lots of money into something more interesting than new toys for the military, like say, a manned Mars mission or more humanitarian like an AIDS vaccine (which may or may not be possible even theoretically) but the military needs those toys to keep enemy paratroopers out of my backyard.
We live in a world where two superpowers can annihilate each other in half an hour. I think SDI, if it worked, and if we could afford it, wouldn't be a bad idea.
[This message has been edited by gene90, 12-17-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Minnemooseus, posted 12-17-2002 12:11 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 18 of 77 (27012)
12-17-2002 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RedVento
12-17-2002 12:28 PM


quote:
North Koreans dropped their Nuclear Arms program on the spot.. Oops.. I guess they didn't.
No, Carter's trip there in 1994 seems to have only bought them time to advance their nuke program. Now, once again, they are getting ornery and making idle threats of war on the US ---- partly over a James Bond film no less!!!
I see Carter has done us lots of good over there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 12:28 PM RedVento has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 19 of 77 (27023)
12-17-2002 1:47 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by RedVento
12-17-2002 12:28 PM


quote:
Peace summit, sounds nice, too bad the mid east is in as much turmoil as it was before Jimmy Carter was there.
Are Egypt and Israel at war, 25 years after Camp David?
No.
Do these two countries enjoy lasting peace between each other?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 12:28 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 1:49 PM nator has replied
 Message 21 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 1:50 PM nator has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 20 of 77 (27024)
12-17-2002 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
12-17-2002 1:47 PM


Oh yea lasting peace with Egyption militants alive and active smuggling weapons to Palistine.
No at best all that happened is that they no longer openly attack each other, but I guess that is better than nothing...
And what no comment about North Korea?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 1:47 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 11:37 AM RedVento has not replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 21 of 77 (27025)
12-17-2002 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by nator
12-17-2002 1:47 PM


quote:
Are Egypt and Israel at war, 25 years after Camp David?
After Egypt's crushing defeat it is unlikely they would believe that war is in their best interests.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 1:47 PM nator has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 22 of 77 (27032)
12-17-2002 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by RedVento
12-17-2002 12:38 PM


[QUOTE]Originally posted by RedVento:
[B]
quote:
Ronald Reagan did his best to widen the gap between rich and poor people in our country.
He gave huge tax cuts to the richest Americans while increasing the burden for the average person.
He balooned the national debt to untold size with his economic policies. The debt increased by approximately 450% between when Reagan took office and when George Bush left office. We are still feeling the effects of that today.
Read this for a basic explination as to why tax cuts work :
http://www.ncpa.org/pd/economy/pdeco/aug97g.html
quote:
I am not sure what you do for a living, but many here are scientists who work for Universities. They work because of grants, grants given by the government, and by the private sector. Private sector grants made possible by increased revenue from tax cuts.
Now lets look at the democratic way.. Raise taxes. That lowers revenues, which in turn causes lay offs.. That does nothing to help the economy long turn.
The fact reamins that Reagan balooned the deficit through unrestrained military spending and tax cuts with no thought to a balanced budget.
I am not saying that the Democratic way is better. I am saying that Reagan put the country into enormous debt which we are still recovering from.
quote:
And while we are bitching about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer. Please let me know what percentage of US citizens are below the poverty line, and then compare that to the world average.
I don't care about how the rest of the world is doing.
The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.
quote:
Plus 90% of all tax revenue is paid by 5% of the US population that I assume is ok?
Source, please.
The Income Gap
"Although the benefits of overall economic growth should not be understated, broad indicators of prosperity obscure another, less encouraging economic trend of the past 25 years: a dramatic rise in income inequality. Indeed, by standard measures of real income and wages, the poorest and least educated Americans have experienced a falling standard of living since 1975. Meanwhile, the largest proportionate income gains have come to those in the top income and wealth brackets.
One intuitive measure of inequality is to compare "high-income" and "low-income" families. Suppose we define a high income level as income at the 90th percentile: that is, the income level higher than that of 90 percent of all families but lower than that of the top 10 percent. Similarly, we can define a low income level as the income at the 10th percentile.
During the early 1970s, a family at the 90th percentile had an income about six times that of a family at the 10th percentile. By the late 1980s, this ratio had risen to nearly 8-to-1, and it moved even a little higher during the early 1990s.
Rising inequality in family incomes reflects rising inequality in wages, the most important source of income for most Americans. Wage inequality has increased dramatically for both men and women, especially between 1979 and 1987. In 1996, the hourly wage of a worker at the 10th percentile was $5.17, about 14 percent lower than it had been in 1973 after adjusting for inflation. Meanwhile, the worker at the 90th percentile earned $23.01 per hour, an increase of about 6 percent in real terms since 1973.
Many of the lowest-paid workers are poorly educated. These workers have seen their real earnings fall dramatically over the past 25 years. A man without a high school diploma, for instance, now earns a wage that is worth about a third less than what he would have earned in 1973."
quote:
Would a flat tax be better?
No, because that penalizes poorer people.
15% of Bill Gates' income is much less of a loss to him than 15% of my income would be to me.
quote:
Or maybe big business should pay much higher taxes to subsidize everyone, I doubt that would work since those highly taxed companies would just leave or fire everyone to maximize its now meager profits.
We could try not paying CEO's obcene amounts of money, even when they do a bad job and leave the company.
Those which benefit the most should contribute the most.
He actively opposed labor unions and supported big business. [/quote]
quote:
As someone who was just threatened by a Union in NYC (MTU threatened to strike) and who has a friend who makes 80k a year working for a union(working MAYBE 20 hours a week) I feel no sympathy for unions what so ever.
I grew up in Western Pennsylvania. I know the hisory of the steel workers and coal miners before there were labor unions.
Unfettered corporate greed will always lead to oppression of the worker. Enron is a good example.
quote:
He didn't do squat to help the poor or disadvantaged. Programs that helped poor people, like housing subsidies and school lunch programs were cut disproportionally to others like Social Security.
quote:
Why is it the governments job to pay for the poor? When did that start?
LEt's see, back during the Depression, I think.
quote:
What ever happened to paying your own way?
When everyone in the country has a good education, enough food to eat, good healthcare, equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal work, then you might have a point.
quote:
The Federal Governments job is to protect its citizens. State Governments are free to pay for as much of the poor as they like, I know NYC has been paying for the poor for so long that we are now facing a deficit larger than any STATE, let alone any other city.
You will find no sympathy for the underprivelaged from me. I came from a poor family, worked my ass off in school, got an education and got a job. My mother worked her ass off to give my sister and myself the opportunity to be better off than she is. We never felt the need to take handouts from the government, and while I know there are situations that require it, that is no excuse for doing nothing to better your situation.
Um, I'm glad that you were so fortunate, but why are you so against helping people who need it? Why do you hate poor people so much?
quote:
And while we are looking back at Reagans policies with 20/20 hindsight lets look at Carter's acomplishment with the same rose colored glasses.. Hmm his administration fully supported Iran, his administration wanted to pay zero dollars as restitution to Viatnam, his adiminstration supported numerous governments that had less than stellar track records.. Not even speaking of his failed Peace Summit, and failed North Korean talks. So while its convinient to apply one set of standards to Reagan be sure I will apply those same standards to your hero Carter. And remeber I never said Reagan was the best president of the century but you claimed he was the worse.
I still think Reagan was the worst president of the century.
I also never said that Carter was the best. I think he has done much greater things with his life post presidency.
[This message has been edited by RedVento, 12-17-2002][/B][/QUOTE]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 12:38 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by gene90, posted 12-17-2002 2:57 PM nator has not replied
 Message 24 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 3:31 PM nator has replied
 Message 25 by Percy, posted 12-17-2002 3:54 PM nator has replied

gene90
Member (Idle past 3823 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 23 of 77 (27048)
12-17-2002 2:57 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
12-17-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
I still think Reagan was the worst president of the century.
I don't agree, but I don't think he was as great as the Right props him up to be.
quote:
I think he has done much greater things with his life post presidency.
I will agree that Carter is better as an ex-President.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 2:08 PM nator has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 24 of 77 (27055)
12-17-2002 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
12-17-2002 2:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by schrafinator:
The fact reamins that Reagan balooned the deficit through unrestrained military spending and tax cuts with no thought to a balanced budget.
I am not saying that the Democratic way is better. I am saying that Reagan put the country into enormous debt which we are still recovering from.
It is the only way to continue to protect the nation and stimulate economic growth. Clinton came into office with a SURPLUS created by tax revenues made possible by the tax cuts and overspending of Reagan. I guess thats a bad thing.
quote:
I don't care about how the rest of the world is doing.
The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.
Unfortunatly we don't live in a socialist society where everyone is equal. Well fortunatly if you ask me. But its not my job to pay for someone else. I became educated and got a job, I didn't sit on my butt, collect welfare, have more kids I can't support and then expect the government to pay for it.
So those who work hard are rewarded, and I am sure there are plenty of poor who worked hard, provided what they could for their children and then had children who did the same for their children. And now live comfortable lives without draining resources.
I was way off on my estimates of tax contributions..
These are the actual numbers as taken from : http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)
quote:
No, because that penalizes poorer people.
15% of Bill Gates' income is much less of a loss to him than 15% of my income would be to me.
That's not the issue.. 15% of his 10 Billion would be 1.5 billion a year, while 15% of your 50k would be 7500.. That is what is more important.
quote:
We could try not paying CEO's obcene amounts of money, even when they do a bad job and leave the company.
Those which benefit the most should contribute the most.
He actively opposed labor unions and supported big business.
Those who benifit the most DO pay the most.
quote:
I grew up in Western Pennsylvania. I know the hisory of the steel workers and coal miners before there were labor unions.
Unfettered corporate greed will always lead to oppression of the worker. Enron is a good example.
Please explain how enron "oppressed" its workers...
Unions have caused untold good in the workplace, they have been nothing more than political tools for the last 20 years however.
quote:
When everyone in the country has a good education, enough food to eat, good healthcare, equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal work, then you might have a point.
Too bad that would make us a socialist society. And socialism doesn't work. Or we can someone how change human nature, I'm not sure about you, but I want to be better off than my neihbor.
quote:
Um, I'm glad that you were so fortunate, but why are you so against helping people who need it? Why do you hate poor people so much?
I don't hate poor people at all, I hate poor people who take advantage of a system set up to let them wallow. I am for welfare reform. Get them educated and in the workplace to contribute something to society. NYC has had major Welfare Reform and the number of welfare recipients has been dropping for the first time in 30 years..
quote:
I still think Reagan was the worst president of the century.
I also never said that Carter was the best. I think he has done much greater things with his life post presidency.
I'm not seeing what greating things he has done since he was president, infact all I see is him spouting the same rhetoric he spouted as president. It didnt work then and still doesn't.
{Fixed a quote box - AM}
[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 2:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 12:02 PM RedVento has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 25 of 77 (27058)
12-17-2002 3:54 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by nator
12-17-2002 2:08 PM


schrafinator writes:
The fact reamins that Reagan balooned the deficit through unrestrained military spending and tax cuts with no thought to a balanced budget.
I am not saying that the Democratic way is better. I am saying that Reagan put the country into enormous debt which we are still recovering from.
You're stretching pretty far back in time to assign blame, and it's unclear that there is anything for which to blame anyone. After all, we just went through a decade of unprecedented prosperity, our debt-to-GNP ratio is not at historically high levels, and the current economic climate seems to be just another recession. While the political parties will always blame the other side for economic downterms and take credit for the good times, the actual truth is that we don't yet know how to smooth out the boom/recession economic cycles.
The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.
As countries become richer, what were once privileges gradually become entitlements, and individual responsibilty gives way to state responsibility. A richer country always sets a higher minimally acceptable living standard. Had you claimed lack of universal health insurance for the poor as a shameful lack a hundred years ago no one would have thought you sane, but today, because of our great wealth and because so many people already have it, it sounds reasonable to us that even the very poor should have it. But it is important to understand that this attitude is a function of our wealth and does not make health insurance an inherent entitlement of the poor.
Now, I'm by no means against health insurance for the poor. In fact, I'm for it. But even after we provide this there will still be lines to be drawn. For example, why should only the relatively well-off have access to elective surgery for such things as Lasik eyesight correction, while the poor get only eyeglasses. Don't laugh - as we get richer (and we will) there will be those who bemoan this inequity.
The truly big problem with helping the poor is understanding how to actually do things that provide help. It ain't as easy as it sounds.
During the early 1970s, a family at the 90th percentile had an income about six times that of a family at the 10th percentile. By the late 1980s, this ratio had risen to nearly 8-to-1, and it moved even a little higher during the early 1990s.
This trend is inevitable and unavoidable in any economically growing country. The income level and wealth of the poor cannot drop very much below zero. Only the wealthy have the means to achieve spectacularly negative incomes and net worth - the poor have no such options. On the flip side, the wealth and income of the rich has no fixed upper limit. In any growing economy the ratio of the incomes and wealth of the top 10%, where no limits apply, to the bottom 10%, where 0 is about as low as you can go, will always increase.
This is not to say we shouldn't help the poor, but the puzzle of how to help the poor is a difficult one. The legacy of the welfare era is that of ever increasing spending with ever increasing numbers of poor. Generous welfare programs gradually become victims of their own generosity because those who excel at taking advantage of the system are far more adept, and pro-active, at gaining benefits than the truly needy, plus there are the disincentive effects.
Whenever discussions turn political there's always the tendency to look at situations you're unhappy with and assign blame to politicians you don't like. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Nixon in the sweepstakes for the 20th century's worst US president - wage/price controls, the first oil boycott and Watergate come to mind. How about Eisenhower and the rise of the military/industrial complex? Or Roosevelt and the initiation of permanent entitlements? Or Hoover, who raised taxes and imposed tariffs going into the deepest and longest depression of modern times.
I guess my point is that while these are important issues, assigning blame for them seems pretty much beside the point, and demonizing those you believe villains does not turn those you like into saints. Carter's success or failure as president does not enhance or diminish his subsequent accomplishments, which are substantial and of long-standing.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by nator, posted 12-17-2002 2:08 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by nator, posted 01-02-2003 8:23 AM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 26 of 77 (27366)
12-19-2002 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by RedVento
12-17-2002 1:49 PM


quote:
Originally posted by RedVento:
Oh yea lasting peace with Egyption militants alive and active smuggling weapons to Palistine.
No at best all that happened is that they no longer openly attack each other, but I guess that is better than nothing...
And what no comment about North Korea?

I'm waiting for you to comment on the rest of my post regarding Reagan. You only addressed a couple of the dozen or so points I raised.
How about commenting upon the 30 close Reagan aides which went to prison on various corruption charges?
Or what about Iran-Contra?
How about the gutting of environmental laws?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 1:49 PM RedVento has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2170 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 27 of 77 (27369)
12-19-2002 12:02 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RedVento
12-17-2002 3:31 PM


quote:
Clinton came into office with a SURPLUS created by tax revenues made possible by the tax cuts and overspending of Reagan. I guess thats a bad thing.
Ummm, can you please explain exactly how putting this country deep into debt, debt that took years and years to climb out of, was good?
quote:
The fact that the richest country in the world has millions of citizens, many of whom are children, that do not have decent housing or enough food to eat or any health insurance is shameful.
quote:
Unfortunatly we don't live in a socialist society where everyone is equal. Well fortunatly if you ask me. But its not my job to pay for someone else. I became educated and got a job, I didn't sit on my butt, collect welfare, have more kids I can't support and then expect the government to pay for it.
The money we spend on individual welfare is miniscule compared to the ENORMOUS corporate welfare program in this country.
People are dying from starvation and you don't want to help them? How very macchiavelian of you.
I can't remember, are you supposed to be a Christian?
quote:
So those who work hard are rewarded, and I am sure there are plenty of poor who worked hard, provided what they could for their children and then had children who did the same for their children. And now live comfortable lives without draining resources.
What kind of fantasy, discrimination-free universe do you live in?
quote:
I was way off on my estimates of tax contributions..
These are the actual numbers as taken from : http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/
An enormous percentage of taxes are payed by a minority of Americans:
The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes.The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes.
And this is as it should be, when the top several percent of the people hold the vast majority of the wealth.
quote:
Our tax system is not so much progressive as it is confiscatory -- Frederic Bastiat called this phenomenon "legal plunder." A progressive tax is based on the premise that those with more income can afford to pay more taxes, and conversely, those with little or no income should pay no tax. However, a quick look at Graph 1A below shows that the U.S. tax system has become far beyond progressive. Fully half the taxpayers contribute almost nothing in individual income taxes.
The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.
Furthermore, the Top 1% are shouldering a roughly 50% higher proportion of the overall income tax burden than they did in 1977.
The argument most oft used against tax breaks are that they benefit only the wealthy. It is clear from even a cursory look at the numbers below that the 'wealthy' will receive the majority of any income tax reduction because they pay a disproportionately huge percentage of the income taxes! To structure a tax break such that those in upper income brackets are excluded would constitute nothing more than transfer of wealth from those who have it to those who don't (i.e. legal plunder.)
Except that wealthy people paying a larger percentage of their income as taxes still leaves them with plenty of money.
Like my Bill Gates example; 50% of his annual income is a HUGE amount of money, but he could still afford to live in a very luxurious manner. 15% of my annual income is not a large ammount of money, but it would impact my lifestyle very detrimantally.
quote:
No, because that penalizes poorer people.
15% of Bill Gates' income is much less of a loss to him than 15% of my income would be to me.
quote:
That's not the issue.. 15% of his 10 Billion would be 1.5 billion a year, while 15% of your 50k would be 7500.. That is what is more important.
No, the impact upon the individual is what is most important.
Taking $7500 of my money is palpable to me. I notice that it is not there. It prevents me from doing certain things in my life.
Taking a million dollars from Gates will not be felt by him at all. That's why the rich should pay more; they benefit the most, they should contribute the most.
quote:
We could try not paying CEO's obcene amounts of money, even when they do a bad job and leave the company.
Those which benefit the most should contribute the most. The middle class pays much more in taxes if you take into account the impact it has on their lifestyle.
quote:
Those who benifit the most DO pay the most.
No, they don't.
quote:
I grew up in Western Pennsylvania. I know the hisory of the steel workers and coal miners before there were labor unions.
Unfettered corporate greed will always lead to oppression of the worker. Enron is a good example.
Please explain how enron "oppressed" its workers...
Replace "oppressed" with "abused".
It hid information about the tanking company stock to allow the big bosses to sell everything off, then left all it's employees to loose their life savings.
quote:
Unions have caused untold good in the workplace, they have been nothing more than political tools for the last 20 years however.
I disagree. My husband belongs to one of the strongest Graduate Student Unions in the country, and he gets very good health care coverage which I am govered under as his spouce. This is very uncommon, and the first two years of his attendence at another graduate school, we couldn't afford health insurance for me. Doctor and dentist bills were VERY expensive that year. It was very scary.
quote:
When everyone in the country has a good education, enough food to eat, good healthcare, equal opportunity, and equal pay for equal work, then you might have a point.
quote:
Too bad that would make us a socialist society. And socialism doesn't work. Or we can someone how change human nature, I'm not sure about you, but I want to be better off than my neihbor
That is bullshit. Helping others become better educated and better fed and better paid reduces crime and violence and drug use.
Living a completely self-centered life is sad and definitely goes against human nature.
quote:
Um, I'm glad that you were so fortunate, but why are you so against helping people who need it? Why do you hate poor people so much?
quote:
I don't hate poor people at all, I hate poor people who take advantage of a system set up to let them wallow. I am for welfare reform. Get them educated and in the workplace to contribute something to society. NYC has had major Welfare Reform and the number of welfare recipients has been dropping for the first time in 30 years..
...and the food banks and soup kitchens have been overwhelmed ever since.
I agree with you about the education part, but how do you expect them to get an education or job training if they don't have any food or a place to live or someone to watch their kids while they get trained?
BTW, do you also advocate cutting all the corporate welfare that we spend on companies, which is many, many times what we spend on individual welfare?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RedVento, posted 12-17-2002 3:31 PM RedVento has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RedVento, posted 12-19-2002 1:18 PM nator has replied
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 2:04 PM nator has not replied
 Message 70 by derwood, posted 01-21-2003 11:45 AM nator has not replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 77 (27375)
12-19-2002 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
12-19-2002 12:02 PM


quote:
Ummm, can you please explain exactly how putting this country deep into debt, debt that took years and years to climb out of, was good?
By stimulating the economy you create long term increases in revenue. That is why. The phrase it takes money to make money is very true. By decreasing spending, increases taxes all you do is stifle the economy and in the long term wind up spending much much more.
quote:
The money we spend on individual welfare is miniscule compared to the ENORMOUS corporate welfare program in this country.
People are dying from starvation and you don't want to help them? How very macchiavelian of you.
I can't remember, are you supposed to be a Christian?
No I never said I didn't want to help them, I wholeheartily believe in some form of welfare program. Just not one that allows people to get something for nothing. Initial payments to cover food, health costs, and job training are what should be covered, then job placement. Not a system that rewards poor people who cant afford one child to have more.
quote:
What kind of fantasy, discrimination-free universe do you live in?
I live in NYC where people who work hard get rewarded every day. The man who does my lawn for example. Lived in the slums with his wife and child. He works his ass off and now lives a better life than I do. I am proud for him and of the system that allows that to happen. So while its easier to say everyone who needs help can't get it, its more realistic to say some who need help can't get it, but many are more likely to feel "entitled" to it. When infact we are entitled to nothing. Working hard(you know the thing that made this country as great as it is) is the one way to dramatically increase your chances to bettering your life, and while people may need help(and I have no problem with my tax dollars going towards providing that help) many are content to live off the work of others. That is what I have a problem with.
Btw I am not a christian. I have been educated in too many religions to be a part of any of them.
quote:
And this is as it should be, when the top several percent of the people hold the vast majority of the wealth.
So the people who work the hardest get hurt the hardest, no wonder there is such a poor problem in the country.. Why would anyone bother working hard when many people feel(yourself included it seems) that their hard work should reward those not willing to make any effort.
quote:
Except that wealthy people paying a larger percentage of their income as taxes still leaves them with plenty of money.
Like my Bill Gates example; 50% of his annual income is a HUGE amount of money, but he could still afford to live in a very luxurious manner. 15% of my annual income is not a large ammount of money, but it would impact my lifestyle very detrimantally.
So what you are saying is that if you make a lot of money you are responsible for everyone else? How very liberal. Do you also feel that poor people, or disadvantaged have no responsibility for themselves? That the government needs to tell them what is best for them? That most things can be blamed on video games and movies?
If I make a lot of money, I deserve that money, a small percantage going to help people is fine. But to be told that I am now responsible for those who feel entitled to the same lifestyle I gave myself is abhorrent. Again no one is entitled to anything. I have no problem helping people getting back on their feet, getting an education, getting food and medical coverage, but to pay for their existance is not my job, nor is it the governments job.
quote:
No, the impact upon the individual is what is most important.
Taking $7500 of my money is palpable to me. I notice that it is not there. It prevents me from doing certain things in my life.
Taking a million dollars from Gates will not be felt by him at all. That's why the rich should pay more; they benefit the most, they should contribute the most.
And they do. Just not enough for you it seems.
quote:
Replace "oppressed" with "abused".
It hid information about the tanking company stock to allow the big bosses to sell everything off, then left all it's employees to loose their life savings.
Can't really argue with that, but that is just one company. What about the Microsofts of the world that created tons of millionaire secretaries? Cant just take the bad, must take the good with it.
quote:
I disagree. My husband belongs to one of the strongest Graduate Student Unions in the country, and he gets very good health care coverage which I am govered under as his spouce. This is very uncommon, and the first two years of his attendence at another graduate school, we couldn't afford health insurance for me. Doctor and dentist bills were VERY expensive that year. It was very scary.
Ok, I should have limited that to civil servant unions. Like the transit workers, teachers unions, garbage men. Those are the unions I am familiar with, and ones that regularly try to blackmail the city(MTU threatening strike, Teachers not coming to work) or demand raises during a period of economic recession. Those that pay very little towards health or pensions(unlike those of us in the private sector) who have untold of job security regardless of performance or productivity. My friend who works for the DEP (think Norton from honeymooners) were going to strike because they wanted to make as much as people from the private sector (18-32 an hour) yet they work on average 2-5 hours a day, get paid for 8, get 1 1/2 time on sundays for 6 hours even if they work 2. Tell me one private sector job that allows that kind of thing to take place?
quote:
That is bullshit. Helping others become better educated and better fed and better paid reduces crime and violence and drug use.
Living a completely self-centered life is sad and definitely goes against human nature.
You are 100% right, but that was not your point.. You made it seem that we should be equal. We aren't. Those that work harder are better rewarded.
quote:
...and the food banks and soup kitchens have been overwhelmed ever since.
Actually not in NYC they aren't, not until the last year anyway when the homeless population is growing again(many homeless in NYC are not NYC natives however) Welfare reform is working in NYC. No more something for nothing. While getting training you get food, and money to keep a roof over your head, you also do civil work around the city (cleaning trash and stuff like that) and many of the welfare recipients are making it off of welfare, to get jobs and give back to the system (taxes). I have no problem with that, I applaud it.
quote:
I agree with you about the education part, but how do you expect them to get an education or job training if they don't have any food or a place to live or someone to watch their kids while they get trained?
BTW, do you also advocate cutting all the corporate welfare that we spend on companies, which is many, many times what we spend on individual welfare?

First, in NYC at any rate the food and money for a roof is taken care of by the city until the person is done with job training and is working again. Which I have no problem with.
2nd. Yes I do, there is no reason corporations should be able to collect any welfare at all. There is no reason to keep a company alive that can't make it on its own. That is the basic principle of a free economy. Don't mistake my pro corporation, pro-rich stance as an endorcement of all things corporate.. I have no patience for anyone not willing to work hard, OR for corporations looking for handouts. I think all the crooked CEOs should be doing hard time, but I feel no remorse for the sick kids who's mothers would rather have more kids than even TRY to better their situation.
Now, I didnt touch on the other points about Regean cause I think you are right. He did do some really screwed up things regarding enviormental issues and education. But I wasn't trying to say he was a great president, just that he is not the "worst" president of the century. And while he was wrong about somethings, he was right about others, and like most Presidents he was adaquate given that no president really has full control to get what he wants done.
[Fixed quoting. --Admin]
[This message has been edited by Admin, 12-19-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 12:02 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 01-02-2003 9:17 AM RedVento has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 29 of 77 (27381)
12-19-2002 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by nator
12-19-2002 12:02 PM


I think welfare to a large extent is a sham. It's not people being social but it's people giving money to the government so that they don't have to be social themselves. Often this money that is given through state social systems is just printmoney. They just print some money to give to people, which just increases debt, in stead of giving a share of their earnings through work, which wouldn't increase debt.
I think a larger share of the huge sums of social money should go through families, in a more organized way. All this talk of government schemes to help the poor are just from people who don't care about their extended family. They probably have nephews and nieces, aunts and uncles, who are in dire need, but don't help them themselves, but ask the government to do it for them. They probably don't even know who their nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts are.
A very interesting level of socio-economic activity, the extended family level, has been weakened by Carter and his counterparts in Europe. Family life used to be much richer (both in money and culture terms) in times past in Western countries.
Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable.
I think the exsessive social programmes is what most defined the times of Carters administration. But of course that was a movement much bigger then Carter himself inspired, he just presided over it, doing nothing much about it, presided over the developing malaise. It was inspired by a great many selfish baby-boomers who wanted to burden their children with debt rather then burden themselves, and selling out family life in some other ways too. (sexual promiscuity)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by nator, posted 12-19-2002 12:02 PM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RedVento, posted 12-19-2002 3:08 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 33 by Silent H, posted 12-24-2002 3:04 PM Syamsu has replied

RedVento
Inactive Member


Message 30 of 77 (27391)
12-19-2002 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Syamsu
12-19-2002 2:04 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Syamsu:
I think welfare to a large extent is a sham. It's not people being social but it's people giving money to the government so that they don't have to be social themselves. Often this money that is given through state social systems is just printmoney. They just print some money to give to people, which just increases debt, in stead of giving a share of their earnings through work, which wouldn't increase debt.
I think a larger share of the huge sums of social money should go through families, in a more organized way. All this talk of government schemes to help the poor are just from people who don't care about their extended family. They probably have nephews and nieces, aunts and uncles, who are in dire need, but don't help them themselves, but ask the government to do it for them. They probably don't even know who their nephews and nieces, uncles and aunts are.
A very interesting level of socio-economic activity, the extended family level, has been weakened by Carter and his counterparts in Europe. Family life used to be much richer (both in money and culture terms) in times past in Western countries.
Lacking state social security, familylife is richer in Indonesia, then it is in the Netherlands. Obviously I can't say that social arrangements are good enough in Indonesia, because people in Indonesia are sometimes still starving, but to have a social-security system like in the West that weakens family structure is also unacceptable.
I think the exsessive social programmes is what most defined the times of Carters administration. But of course that was a movement much bigger then Carter himself inspired, he just presided over it, doing nothing much about it, presided over the developing malaise. It was inspired by a great many selfish baby-boomers who wanted to burden their children with debt rather then burden themselves, and selling out family life in some other ways too. (sexual promiscuity)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think a lot of it has to do with some people who feel they know what's best for all of us, and then take up the cause. I am taking a stab at this date, but pre-1960's I assume that most people had strong feelings of personal responsibility. Hardships were overcome through personal achievment more than by government handouts. There was not as much of a feeling of "I deserve this" as there seems to be today. Rather we have people who feel the government owes them a livelyhood.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Syamsu, posted 12-19-2002 2:04 PM Syamsu has not replied

zipzip
Inactive Member


Message 31 of 77 (27465)
12-20-2002 6:13 AM


Generally don't like political stuff, but here is my personal impression of the last 20 years, different in some ways from others' for perspective only.
1) Agree Jimmy Carter was not an effective president, had some crappy policies. But also seems like a man with a good heart and a desire to change the world in a positive way, whether or not you happen to agree with all of his methods. I read his latest book and was impressed with him personally; all in all I think he is a decent, honourable man.
2) Liked Reagan. From all that I have heard and read about him, he was personally a genuine, honest, and caring man who took the responsibility of the presidency very seriously (like Carter). Obviously had different policies and ideas about what he thought was good for the country. I do think his economic policies made sense although with decreased rather than increased government spending.
I think both men did what they did because they honestly thought it was in the best interest of the country. I respect them both a great deal and think they did their personal bests to serve their country through some very tough times.

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by Syamsu, posted 12-20-2002 11:07 AM zipzip has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024