I work with people who use these programs everyday...it isn't a scientific study, but I can tell you from my experience more people take advantage and have the mind set of "what else do I get" than are thankful for what they get and move on. Just go to a liquor store on the first of the month . . . and see what happens.
When they are no longer eligible for services they are not in a better place becuase they have not been taught or pushed in the direction of how to get their own. The idea that "i got mine - so fuck you" is not a libertarian idea. it is just a difference in philosophy. I don't want to live in a place where we don't take care of each other, but we definitely have a differing opinion on how to do that.
Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly with me. The drunks are not necessarily welfare cheats. I know, I've been there.
The problem is that because of the Republican ponzi schemes of tax breaks for the rich, deregulation and cutting back government, we now have a system where the rich are getting richer and the poor are continuing to suffer more and more, and worse, the middle class is eroding. As I said earlier, the way to get rid of your imaginary welfare problem is to offer people across the board, living wage jobs. Even if the old welfare system was still in place, why should anyone on welfare be induced to leave when all the jobs they can get are flipping burgers for minimum wage?
There is no "right" way to run the government, if you look at my last statement you would realize that we differ in philosophy, I do not call you wrong. I could just as easily call you wrong and then state an opinion. Far more went into coming out of the depression than just the government providing some jobs.
What we saw over the last 30 years is a WRONG way to run government. It's cyclical - the conservatives take over and run the economy into the ground, then the adults come back and fix it. It's really not that hard to prove, all you need to do is look at history.
Call me wrong if you want, as long as you can back it up.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Starfall--- you are right, the whole world and its problems are all the republicans fault. Keep on blaming them. Then the adults can come in and clean up...
Personally, I am not even talking about republicans and democrats, I am talking about GOVERNMENT in general. You always just assume since someone wants less government and less handouts and less control of people lives, that they are republican. Not me, I am a registered democrat
Again I said earlier, I understand the need for social programs. just think people who get the stamps and other benefits should have to earn them. Nothing wrong with that.
And yes I do know what the WPA and CCC are and did. at its base, the WPA essentially was a welfare program where people earned money for providing a service, something you seem to be against... I am confused by your touting of it as a program and then saying making people earn their welfare by providing a service to the state is wrong. And if you think WWII had nothing to do with America's economic recovery after the depression and recession of 1938 than you are wrong.
it seems as though you firmly believe that government being larger and the people being more dependant on it is a good thing. I don't. so keep blaming republicans and praising democrats, when you should be blaming them both. Government is the problem, not a party within. But keep calling me a republican and blasting me for not thinking the exact same way you do. you can even point to policies from 75 years ago and say they will work today, and you know what, you may be right...the problem is with the current government and both parties acting like children we will never know. You are right though, the adults do need to come in and clean up, I just think you are putting your eggs in the wrong basket all together. You keep on filling up the government basket when it has proven time and time again that there is a whole in the bottom.
And seriously quit acting like a prick and start just having a discussion, smarmy answers and a condescending approach is not a good way to get any point across.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Starfall--- you are right, the whole world and its problems are all the republicans fault. Keep on blaming them. Then the adults can come in and clean up...
The adults? LOL. Every time Republicans have gotten power since Reagan was President, they've spent money like drunken sailors, engaged in wars of aggression, committed war crimes, and ran up the deficits and national debts. Why don't you actually lay blame where blame is due, instead of defending their practices?
Personally, I am not even talking about republicans and democrats, I am talking about GOVERNMENT in general. You always just assume since someone wants less government and less handouts and less control of people lives, that they are republican. Not me, I am a registered democrat
I don't give a rat's ass what your registered affiliation is. I'm more concerned about what you actually express.
Besides, the concept of limited government isn't limited to Republicans, or conservatives. We liberals believe in it too. Such as government not having the right to spy on our personal phone calls without a warrant, or that each branch of government has to deal with checks and balances from the other two.
At least I'm consistent.
Again I said earlier, I understand the need for social programs. just think people who get the stamps and other benefits should have to earn them. Nothing wrong with that.
So how are people going to "earn" them when nobody has jobs, and nobody can get them, as what happened in the 1930s and this past few years?
And yes I do know what the WPA and CCC are and did. at its base, the WPA essentially was a welfare program where people earned money for providing a service, something you seem to be against... I am confused by your touting of it as a program and then saying making people earn their welfare by providing a service to the state is wrong.
Now you're obfuscating my points. Shall we go back to the points of argument?
You said: for every job the government "creates" there is a job in the private sector that is taken away. Remember that. If the government decides it is going to put wifi hot spots all over the country, and then create a department to do that, sure people who are out of work might get jobs, but a company that has been doing that work now will be out of a job. There is always give and take. Why don't we just pay people to sit on the corner and count something. Why don't we all just give everyone everything? Because if no horrible evil corporation is making money, then there is no money for the government to pay for all these JOBS they are going to CREATE.
To which I replied: When FDR created the WPA and the CCC in his first year, he put millions of Americans to work, and none of them had been employed. So what private sector jobs did the WPA and CCC take away?
You're confusing the need for social programs with the plain old fact that when the private industry is incapable or unable to provide jobs or run the economy, the government becomes the employer of last resort - which is the point I was making. I would appreciate it if you kept your arguments logically consistent.
And if you think WWII had nothing to do with America's economic recovery after the depression and recession of 1938 than you are wrong.
You're putting words into my mouth again. The massive government spending during World War II FINALLY brought us out of the Great Depression, but there's two points you're missing. One, is that FDR was very cautious in adopting Keynesian economics, and he could have done a lot more but either didn't, or was stymied by the Supreme Court for the first few years. The second point is that in 1937, FDR listened to "fiscal conservatives" and cut back on New Deal spending, bringing on another recession that delayed final recovery.
Since WW2 got in the way, we will never know if the New Deal would have been successful in completely bringing us out of the Depression.
it seems as though you firmly believe that government being larger and the people being more dependant on it is a good thing. I don't. so keep blaming republicans and praising democrats, when you should be blaming them both. Government is the problem, not a party within.
Wrong again, dude. I'm not for big government, I'm for smart government. You can hem and hew all you want, but saying that "Government is the problem" is precisely the kind of boneheaded, Reagan-inspired nonsense that got us into this mess.
But keep calling me a republican and blasting me for not thinking the exact same way you do. you can even point to policies from 75 years ago and say they will work today, and you know what, you may be right...the problem is with the current government and both parties acting like children we will never know.
Jeez, I'm really sick of the kind of false equivalence you and your right wing pals here on the forum keep throwing around. How are the Democrats acting like children? Every time they want to try and fix things, the Republicans are throwing a monkey wrench into the works, filibustering and obstructing every attempt instead of honestly debating the issues.
You are right though, the adults do need to come in and clean up, I just think you are putting your eggs in the wrong basket all together. You keep on filling up the government basket when it has proven time and time again that there is a whole in the bottom.
Yeah, because your Reagan doctrine of "government is the problem" has worked so well for us the last 30 years, no? What's wrong with having sensible regulations like we had back in the 50's and 60s? Why can't we have tariffs to protect our domestic industries from cheap foreign competition, like it had been since the 1790s until Reagan destroyed it? Why can't we have a strong public sector like we did when that notorious socialist Eisenhower was in the White House? And so on?
And last I checked, when we had a strong, sensibly run, sensibly funded government that had solid regulations and smart spending after the New Deal, we experienced strong economic growth, including the rise of our middle class.
And seriously quit acting like a prick and start just having a discussion, smarmy answers and a condescending approach is not a good way to get any point across.
Oh I see. If I refute and destroy your arguments with ease, I'm a prick?
I'll have a discussion when you start giving intellectually honest answers instead of tossing false equivalencies, strawmen arguments, and not backing up your statements with facts. And believe me, you haven't SEEN smarmy and condescending from me.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Besides, the concept of limited government isn't limited to Republicans, or conservatives. We liberals believe in it too. Such as government not having the right to spy on our personal phone calls without a warrant, or that each branch of government has to deal with checks and balances from the other two.
At least I'm consistent.
Well, thanks for the laugh. You point out an important fact in that both parties want less government in different places. And instead of getting less government in both places (like I would like) we end up getting more government in both places. I was really hoping that 2008 was a wake up call for the republicans and they would decide to be truly for a smaller government all around. Unfortunately, they did not wake up. It is going to get worse, imo.
So how are people going to "earn" them when nobody has jobs, and nobody can get them, as what happened in the 1930s and this past few years?
While it wasn't my statement...I completely agree with it.
Instead of keeping it as it is...how's that working for us?...it's time for a complete overhaul. This is 1 situation where it may seem I am going against my desire for a small government, but I think welfare daycares should be set up. Women and Men on welfare should be required to receive the necessary training (paid for by you and me through tax dollars) and be required to spend a certain amount of time each week working in government run daycares, soup kitchens, job search offices, after school programs, AA type groups, drug addiction support groups, etc. They should also have to provide proof on a regular basis (just as you must do for unemployment) that they are applying for jobs and attending training programs.
Support should only last for a defined period of time, after which you may remain on welfare only after meeting more stringent requirements around training/job search/volunteering, etc. These support "jobs" can only be used by individuals on welfare (ie no sending your kid to a cheap or free daycare if you have a job, etc) to protect the integrity of the free market place.
Now, it sounds easy, and I'm sure there are plenty of obstacles, but that is what I would propose. In the short term it would make welfare more costly, however, we'd all actually be getting something from our $. We'd be creating a welfare system that requires participation by those receiving benefits, that creates an environment for them to have time to look for a job while also gaining some job skills, and that helps to eliminate the hand-out mentality that is certainly prevalent in some welfare communities. Kids will grow up seeing their moms and dads working to get back on their feet they will benefit from that experience. No more lather, rinse, repeat cycles of welfare families.
Starfall,
you wrote, among other things, And last I checked, when we had a strong, sensibly run, sensibly funded government that had solid regulations and smart spending after the New Deal, we experienced strong economic growth, including the rise of our middle class.
i just don't think this crop of leaders, both republican and democrat, are capable of any of those things.
And seriously quit acting like a prick and start just having a discussion, smarmy answers and a condescending approach is not a good way to get any point across.
Oh I see. If I refute and destroy your arguments with ease, I'm a prick?
first off, no you are acting like a prick because you act like you have all the answers and really never give anything more than an opinion. At no point did you destroy my arguments, Just saying it doesnt make it so. You strike me as a person who just yells louder thus making you think you won an argument.
This is a prime example of what you do to refute and destroy something
I said
But keep calling me a republican and blasting me for not thinking the exact same way you do. you can even point to policies from 75 years ago and say they will work today, and you know what, you may be right...the problem is with the current government and both parties acting like children we will never know.
you then said Jeez, I'm really sick of the kind of false equivalence you and your right wing pals here on the forum keep throwing around. How are the Democrats acting like children? Every time they want to try and fix things, the Republicans are throwing a monkey wrench into the works, filibustering and obstructing every attempt instead of honestly debating the issues.
who seems to be missing the point here?
what false equivalencies was I referring to when I said this current GOVERNMENT and both PARTIES are acting like children? They are. I did not say ADMINISTRATION. I said GOVERNMENT. . . you just jumped on your assumption I was talking about your lord and saviors only. The republicans are acting like babies, just as the democrats do. This is specifically the reason I don't want the government involved in my life, because these current dopes running the country cannot do it TOGETHER...You keep missing my point and then assume I am talking about something else and then go crazy.
That is why I said ACTING like a prick, not that you were a prick... I have no idea who you are, you might be the nicest man alive, but you were acting like a prick...
But you can go ahead and piece this together, throw in words like obfuscate and think that makes your arguments more intellectual. I get it, you are a shit load smarter than me, you prove it time and time again, Although I really don't think you are.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
Well, thanks for the laugh. You point out an important fact in that both parties want less government in different places. And instead of getting less government in both places (like I would like) we end up getting more government in both places. I was really hoping that 2008 was a wake up call for the republicans and they would decide to be truly for a smaller government all around. Unfortunately, they did not wake up. It is going to get worse, imo.
I think so too.
When I voted for Obama, I had no illusions that he was going to be a revolutionary social liberal like FDR. And while he's signed some well deserved changes in the law, unfortunately he's continuing some of the very worst of the Bush era policies as far as civil liberties and even economics. He's pretty much governed from the center, as I figured he would.
Still, that doesn't excuse why the Republicans continue to just completely obstruct anything and everything the President wants to get done. It's one thing to disagree on a policy issue, it's another thing to prevent ANY kind of consensus or actual votes from being held.
nstead of keeping it as it is...how's that working for us?...it's time for a complete overhaul. This is 1 situation where it may seem I am going against my desire for a small government, but I think welfare daycares should be set up. Women and Men on welfare should be required to receive the necessary training (paid for by you and me through tax dollars) and be required to spend a certain amount of time each week working in government run daycares, soup kitchens, job search offices, after school programs, AA type groups, drug addiction support groups, etc. They should also have to provide proof on a regular basis (just as you must do for unemployment) that they are applying for jobs and attending training programs.
Support should only last for a defined period of time, after which you may remain on welfare only after meeting more stringent requirements around training/job search/volunteering, etc. These support "jobs" can only be used by individuals on welfare (ie no sending your kid to a cheap or free daycare if you have a job, etc) to protect the integrity of the free market place.
Now, it sounds easy, and I'm sure there are plenty of obstacles, but that is what I would propose. In the short term it would make welfare more costly, however, we'd all actually be getting something from our $. We'd be creating a welfare system that requires participation by those receiving benefits, that creates an environment for them to have time to look for a job while also gaining some job skills, and that helps to eliminate the hand-out mentality that is certainly prevalent in some welfare communities. Kids will grow up seeing their moms and dads working to get back on their feet they will benefit from that experience. No more lather, rinse, repeat cycles of welfare families.
That's my utopia for welfare.
That would work. FDR did something very similar with a lot of the New Deal era programs like the WPA and the CCC - paying unemployed people to work on stuff like schools, infrastructure, conservation. Stuff that needs to be done and yet doesn't get done because too many ideologues buy into the "government doesn't work" philosophy.
Plus the CCC not only repaired the Robber-Baron sponsored ecological damage that resulted in the "dust bowl" of the 1920s, it also allowed many of the very poor young men who participated in it to get credits towards a high school and even college education. And when WW2 was over, a lot of them also took advantage of the GI bill and got higher education - cementing the backbone of the emerging middle class.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
i just don't think this crop of leaders, both republican and democrat, are capable of any of those things.
Maybe so, but how are we going to find out if the Republicans continue to just be roadblocks? Just because the ballgame doesn't go in their favor, they're taking their ball and going home. We need a viable, healthy and sensible Republican party to act as the loyal opposition and help steer the country in a viable direction, instead of just yelling screeds
first off, no you are acting like a prick because you act like you have all the answers and really never give anything more than an opinion. At no point did you destroy my arguments, Just saying it doesnt make it so. You strike me as a person who just yells louder thus making you think you won an argument.
The fact is that you continue to stick to your tired old refuted statements like "government doesn't work" when I have shown quite plainly that it's false. Logic 101.
You strike me as a little boy who plugs his ears and says "NANANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUUUU."
(BTW the only people I've ever encountered who yelled louder when they were losing an argument have been conservatives).
This is a prime example of what you do to refute and destroy something
I said
But keep calling me a republican and blasting me for not thinking the exact same way you do. you can even point to policies from 75 years ago and say they will work today, and you know what, you may be right...the problem is with the current government and both parties acting like children we will never know.
you then said Jeez, I'm really sick of the kind of false equivalence you and your right wing pals here on the forum keep throwing around. How are the Democrats acting like children? Every time they want to try and fix things, the Republicans are throwing a monkey wrench into the works, filibustering and obstructing every attempt instead of honestly debating the issues.
who seems to be missing the point here?
what false equivalencies was I referring to when I said this current GOVERNMENT and both PARTIES are acting like children? They are. I did not say ADMINISTRATION. I said GOVERNMENT. . . you just jumped on your assumption I was talking about your lord and saviors only. The republicans are acting like babies, just as the democrats do. This is specifically the reason I don't want the government involved in my life, because these current dopes running the country cannot do it TOGETHER...You keep missing my point and then assume I am talking about something else and then go crazy.
So now you're quibbling over whether you meant "administration" instead of "government"?
1. The Democrats are not my "lords and saviors". I don't consider anyone to be that. I decide for myself how I should live.
2. Last I checked, the Democrats controlled Congress too, not just the White House.
3. Had it not been for the ridiculous, undemocratic Senate rules we would've gotten a lot more things done. The House has passed over 200 pieces of legislation that are sitting in the Senate because the Republicans block everything.
4. Since we both agree that the Republicans are acting like babies, let's go back to my previous question: I've asked you to provide a specific example of how the Democrats are acting like children. You seem to be of the opinion that both parties are, when I'm saying that it's a false equivalence because you haven't shown me how the Democrats are acting like babies. So BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY. Put up or shut up.
That is why I said ACTING like a prick, not that you were a prick... I have no idea who you are, you might be the nicest man alive, but you were acting like a prick...
But you can go ahead and piece this together, throw in words like obfuscate and think that makes your arguments more intellectual. I get it, you are a shit load smarter than me, you prove it time and time again, Although I really don't think you are.
I'm not in this forum to prove myself any more intellectual than anybody. I don't disagree with every conservative or conservative viewpoint, nor do I agree with every liberal or liberal viewpoint. I don't mind being wrong if someone shows me where I'm wrong. I've gone out of my way to be civil even to people I disagree with.
As long as people back up what they say.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
i was forced to listen to glenn beck's radio show the other day and he claimed it's because of the new deal the great depression lasted as long as it did and if we hadn't gone to war (which is what caused our economy to recover) the country would've collapsed
don't compete; coexist
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
I do not like nor agree with Beck on 99.9% of the time, but in this one instance he could be correct. There are tons of different economists who have varying theories on what actually brought our nation out of the great depression. The one Beck described is one I've heard from legitimate economists. And to this day, economists can't agree in whole on what the correct answer was. Not sure if anyone listens to the podcast on NPR called "Planet Money", but during our more recent recession, they did lots of shows about the great depression and one discussed this very topic in passing.
And to all the biased people out there... goes to show you that a nut can make a valid point sometimes, and just as equally, a valid source can make a nutty point sometimes.
i was forced to listen to glenn beck's radio show the other day and he claimed it's because of the new deal the great depression lasted as long as it did and if we hadn't gone to war (which is what caused our economy to recover) the country would've collapsed
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
There's been this entire revisionist attempt by the right wing to remove or minimize people whom they see as too liberal, and FDR is a prime example. In the case of FDR, we now hear this ridiculous theory that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression, even though it's been established for years that FDR's programs helped combat the massive unemployment and the financial crisis that led to the Great Depression. Remember unemployment hit almost one in four Americans in 1933, when FDR took over. BY 1936, it was down to 12%. He enacted rules so that the Wall Street banksters couldn't play Russian Roulette with people's deposits anymore. And so on.
There's several reasons why the New Deal didn't pull us out of the Great Depression completely -
1. FDR was trying a whole new approach - Keynesian economics. As such, he was very cautious about how far he should take spending to begin with. Even with his relatively small scale approach, he was derided for being "Socialist" and "Communist"... hmm, where have we heard that recently?
2. The recession of 1937-38. Once the New Deal started to turn unemployment to near 10% (after it had hit almost 25% at the height of the Great Depression) FDR was influenced by so called "fiscal conservatives" to cut back on New Deal spending. As a result, the economy plunged into another recession and delayed full recovery.
3. An obstructionist, right wing Supreme Court. This body ruled many of FDR's reforms unconstitutional for the first few years of the New Deal until 1935, when the body of the court was replaced.
4. World War 2.
It should be noted also that we will never know if the New Deal would have been fully successful because WW2 got in the way. However, it was the massive government spending and subsequent growth in GDP that eventually catapulted us out of the Depression for good - which then lends even more credence to the theory that the New Deal wasn't spending enough, rather than spending too much.
"It's not hard to own something. Or everything. You just have to know that it's yours, and then be willing to let it go." - Neil Gaiman, "Stardust"
Not sure if you read my above post - just mentioning so I don't repeat myself.
In terms of what you wrote - you're contradicting yourself. Yes revisionists try and hone in on FDR as an intruding, unconstitutional left leaning law maker who was saved by WW2 in order to bring our nation out of the great depression. As I stated above, part of that statement is correct and part is misleading merely to under-mind certain programs and ideas. You write below that the right is revisionist, yet provide a list of examples why FDR didn't save the economy... that's contradictory. As I state above, it's a bit of an unknown. I also looked online for the exact podcast from NPR discussing it, but was unsuccessful. My point is though, the storybook fairytale in history books is not 100% correct, nor is the way some right-wing revisionists who hate government social programs view the situation. Also, I find it funny that you call the courts "obstructionist", yet leave out the part how FDR stacked the Supreme court to get laws passed. I know there's a lot of details and issues that can be picked apart from this era in terms of economics do's and don'ts, but it should be viewed in a research method, but not to be repeated. Every situation and circumstance is different and it seems like people ignore that key fact compared to political grand-standing with the example in hand as backup.
There's been this entire revisionist attempt by the right wing to remove or minimize people whom they see as too liberal, and FDR is a prime example. In the case of FDR, we now hear this ridiculous theory that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression, even though it's been established for years that FDR's programs helped combat the massive unemployment and the financial crisis that led to the Great Depression. Remember unemployment hit almost one in four Americans in 1933, when FDR took over. BY 1936, it was down to 12%. He enacted rules so that the Wall Street banksters couldn't play Russian Roulette with people's deposits anymore. And so on.
There's several reasons why the New Deal didn't pull us out of the Great Depression completely -
1. FDR was trying a whole new approach - Keynesian economics. As such, he was very cautious about how far he should take spending to begin with. Even with his relatively small scale approach, he was derided for being "Socialist" and "Communist"... hmm, where have we heard that recently?
2. The recession of 1937-38. Once the New Deal started to turn unemployment to near 10% (after it had hit almost 25% at the height of the Great Depression) FDR was influenced by so called "fiscal conservatives" to cut back on New Deal spending. As a result, the economy plunged into another recession and delayed full recovery.
3. An obstructionist, right wing Supreme Court. This body ruled many of FDR's reforms unconstitutional for the first few years of the New Deal until 1935, when the body of the court was replaced.
4. World War 2.
It should be noted also that we will never know if the New Deal would have been fully successful because WW2 got in the way. However, it was the massive government spending and subsequent growth in GDP that eventually catapulted us out of the Depression for good - which then lends even more credence to the theory that the New Deal wasn't spending enough, rather than spending too much.
CONservative governMENt
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
Comments
Anecdotal evidence doesn't fly with me. The drunks are not necessarily welfare cheats. I know, I've been there.
The problem is that because of the Republican ponzi schemes of tax breaks for the rich, deregulation and cutting back government, we now have a system where the rich are getting richer and the poor are continuing to suffer more and more, and worse, the middle class is eroding. As I said earlier, the way to get rid of your imaginary welfare problem is to offer people across the board, living wage jobs. Even if the old welfare system was still in place, why should anyone on welfare be induced to leave when all the jobs they can get are flipping burgers for minimum wage?
What we saw over the last 30 years is a WRONG way to run government. It's cyclical - the conservatives take over and run the economy into the ground, then the adults come back and fix it. It's really not that hard to prove, all you need to do is look at history.
Call me wrong if you want, as long as you can back it up.
Personally, I am not even talking about republicans and democrats, I am talking about GOVERNMENT in general. You always just assume since someone wants less government and less handouts and less control of people lives, that they are republican. Not me, I am a registered democrat
Again I said earlier, I understand the need for social programs. just think people who get the stamps and other benefits should have to earn them. Nothing wrong with that.
And yes I do know what the WPA and CCC are and did. at its base, the WPA essentially was a welfare program where people earned money for providing a service, something you seem to be against... I am confused by your touting of it as a program and then saying making people earn their welfare by providing a service to the state is wrong. And if you think WWII had nothing to do with America's economic recovery after the depression and recession of 1938 than you are wrong.
it seems as though you firmly believe that government being larger and the people being more dependant on it is a good thing. I don't. so keep blaming republicans and praising democrats, when you should be blaming them both. Government is the problem, not a party within. But keep calling me a republican and blasting me for not thinking the exact same way you do. you can even point to policies from 75 years ago and say they will work today, and you know what, you may be right...the problem is with the current government and both parties acting like children we will never know. You are right though, the adults do need to come in and clean up, I just think you are putting your eggs in the wrong basket all together. You keep on filling up the government basket when it has proven time and time again that there is a whole in the bottom.
And seriously quit acting like a prick and start just having a discussion, smarmy answers and a condescending approach is not a good way to get any point across.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
The adults? LOL. Every time Republicans have gotten power since Reagan was President, they've spent money like drunken sailors, engaged in wars of aggression, committed war crimes, and ran up the deficits and national debts. Why don't you actually lay blame where blame is due, instead of defending their practices?
I don't give a rat's ass what your registered affiliation is. I'm more concerned about what you actually express.
Besides, the concept of limited government isn't limited to Republicans, or conservatives. We liberals believe in it too. Such as government not having the right to spy on our personal phone calls without a warrant, or that each branch of government has to deal with checks and balances from the other two.
At least I'm consistent.
So how are people going to "earn" them when nobody has jobs, and nobody can get them, as what happened in the 1930s and this past few years?
Now you're obfuscating my points. Shall we go back to the points of argument?
You said:
for every job the government "creates" there is a job in the private sector that is taken away. Remember that. If the government decides it is going to put wifi hot spots all over the country, and then create a department to do that, sure people who are out of work might get jobs, but a company that has been doing that work now will be out of a job. There is always give and take. Why don't we just pay people to sit on the corner and count something. Why don't we all just give everyone everything? Because if no horrible evil corporation is making money, then there is no money for the government to pay for all these JOBS they are going to CREATE.
To which I replied:
When FDR created the WPA and the CCC in his first year, he put millions of Americans to work, and none of them had been employed. So what private sector jobs did the WPA and CCC take away?
You're confusing the need for social programs with the plain old fact that when the private industry is incapable or unable to provide jobs or run the economy, the government becomes the employer of last resort - which is the point I was making. I would appreciate it if you kept your arguments logically consistent.
You're putting words into my mouth again. The massive government spending during World War II FINALLY brought us out of the Great Depression, but there's two points you're missing. One, is that FDR was very cautious in adopting Keynesian economics, and he could have done a lot more but either didn't, or was stymied by the Supreme Court for the first few years. The second point is that in 1937, FDR listened to "fiscal conservatives" and cut back on New Deal spending, bringing on another recession that delayed final recovery.
Since WW2 got in the way, we will never know if the New Deal would have been successful in completely bringing us out of the Depression.
Wrong again, dude. I'm not for big government, I'm for smart government. You can hem and hew all you want, but saying that "Government is the problem" is precisely the kind of boneheaded, Reagan-inspired nonsense that got us into this mess.
Jeez, I'm really sick of the kind of false equivalence you and your right wing pals here on the forum keep throwing around. How are the Democrats acting like children? Every time they want to try and fix things, the Republicans are throwing a monkey wrench into the works, filibustering and obstructing every attempt instead of honestly debating the issues.
Yeah, because your Reagan doctrine of "government is the problem" has worked so well for us the last 30 years, no? What's wrong with having sensible regulations like we had back in the 50's and 60s? Why can't we have tariffs to protect our domestic industries from cheap foreign competition, like it had been since the 1790s until Reagan destroyed it? Why can't we have a strong public sector like we did when that notorious socialist Eisenhower was in the White House? And so on?
And last I checked, when we had a strong, sensibly run, sensibly funded government that had solid regulations and smart spending after the New Deal, we experienced strong economic growth, including the rise of our middle class.
Oh I see. If I refute and destroy your arguments with ease, I'm a prick?
I'll have a discussion when you start giving intellectually honest answers instead of tossing false equivalencies, strawmen arguments, and not backing up your statements with facts. And believe me, you haven't SEEN smarmy and condescending from me.
Well, thanks for the laugh. You point out an important fact in that both parties want less government in different places. And instead of getting less government in both places (like I would like) we end up getting more government in both places. I was really hoping that 2008 was a wake up call for the republicans and they would decide to be truly for a smaller government all around. Unfortunately, they did not wake up. It is going to get worse, imo.
While it wasn't my statement...I completely agree with it.
Instead of keeping it as it is...how's that working for us?...it's time for a complete overhaul. This is 1 situation where it may seem I am going against my desire for a small government, but I think welfare daycares should be set up. Women and Men on welfare should be required to receive the necessary training (paid for by you and me through tax dollars) and be required to spend a certain amount of time each week working in government run daycares, soup kitchens, job search offices, after school programs, AA type groups, drug addiction support groups, etc. They should also have to provide proof on a regular basis (just as you must do for unemployment) that they are applying for jobs and attending training programs.
Support should only last for a defined period of time, after which you may remain on welfare only after meeting more stringent requirements around training/job search/volunteering, etc. These support "jobs" can only be used by individuals on welfare (ie no sending your kid to a cheap or free daycare if you have a job, etc) to protect the integrity of the free market place.
Now, it sounds easy, and I'm sure there are plenty of obstacles, but that is what I would propose. In the short term it would make welfare more costly, however, we'd all actually be getting something from our $. We'd be creating a welfare system that requires participation by those receiving benefits, that creates an environment for them to have time to look for a job while also gaining some job skills, and that helps to eliminate the hand-out mentality that is certainly prevalent in some welfare communities. Kids will grow up seeing their moms and dads working to get back on their feet they will benefit from that experience. No more lather, rinse, repeat cycles of welfare families.
That's my utopia for welfare.
you wrote, among other things,
And last I checked, when we had a strong, sensibly run, sensibly funded government that had solid regulations and smart spending after the New Deal, we experienced strong economic growth, including the rise of our middle class.
i just don't think this crop of leaders, both republican and democrat, are capable of any of those things.
Oh I see. If I refute and destroy your arguments with ease, I'm a prick?
first off, no you are acting like a prick because you act like you have all the answers and really never give anything more than an opinion. At no point did you destroy my arguments, Just saying it doesnt make it so. You strike me as a person who just yells louder thus making you think you won an argument.
This is a prime example of what you do to refute and destroy something
I said you then said Jeez, I'm really sick of the kind of false equivalence you and your right wing pals here on the forum keep throwing around. How are the Democrats acting like children? Every time they want to try and fix things, the Republicans are throwing a monkey wrench into the works, filibustering and obstructing every attempt instead of honestly debating the issues.
who seems to be missing the point here?
what false equivalencies was I referring to when I said this current GOVERNMENT and both PARTIES are acting like children? They are. I did not say ADMINISTRATION. I said GOVERNMENT. . . you just jumped on your assumption I was talking about your lord and saviors only. The republicans are acting like babies, just as the democrats do. This is specifically the reason I don't want the government involved in my life, because these current dopes running the country cannot do it TOGETHER...You keep missing my point and then assume I am talking about something else and then go crazy.
That is why I said ACTING like a prick, not that you were a prick... I have no idea who you are, you might be the nicest man alive, but you were acting like a prick...
But you can go ahead and piece this together, throw in words like obfuscate and think that makes your arguments more intellectual. I get it, you are a shit load smarter than me, you prove it time and time again, Although I really don't think you are.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
I think so too.
When I voted for Obama, I had no illusions that he was going to be a revolutionary social liberal like FDR. And while he's signed some well deserved changes in the law, unfortunately he's continuing some of the very worst of the Bush era policies as far as civil liberties and even economics. He's pretty much governed from the center, as I figured he would.
Still, that doesn't excuse why the Republicans continue to just completely obstruct anything and everything the President wants to get done. It's one thing to disagree on a policy issue, it's another thing to prevent ANY kind of consensus or actual votes from being held.
That would work. FDR did something very similar with a lot of the New Deal era programs like the WPA and the CCC - paying unemployed people to work on stuff like schools, infrastructure, conservation. Stuff that needs to be done and yet doesn't get done because too many ideologues buy into the "government doesn't work" philosophy.
Plus the CCC not only repaired the Robber-Baron sponsored ecological damage that resulted in the "dust bowl" of the 1920s, it also allowed many of the very poor young men who participated in it to get credits towards a high school and even college education. And when WW2 was over, a lot of them also took advantage of the GI bill and got higher education - cementing the backbone of the emerging middle class.
Maybe so, but how are we going to find out if the Republicans continue to just be roadblocks? Just because the ballgame doesn't go in their favor, they're taking their ball and going home. We need a viable, healthy and sensible Republican party to act as the loyal opposition and help steer the country in a viable direction, instead of just yelling screeds
The fact is that you continue to stick to your tired old refuted statements like "government doesn't work" when I have shown quite plainly that it's false. Logic 101.
You strike me as a little boy who plugs his ears and says "NANANANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOOOOUUUUU."
(BTW the only people I've ever encountered who yelled louder when they were losing an argument have been conservatives).
So now you're quibbling over whether you meant "administration" instead of "government"?
1. The Democrats are not my "lords and saviors". I don't consider anyone to be that. I decide for myself how I should live.
2. Last I checked, the Democrats controlled Congress too, not just the White House.
3. Had it not been for the ridiculous, undemocratic Senate rules we would've gotten a lot more things done. The House has passed over 200 pieces of legislation that are sitting in the Senate because the Republicans block everything.
4. Since we both agree that the Republicans are acting like babies, let's go back to my previous question: I've asked you to provide a specific example of how the Democrats are acting like children. You seem to be of the opinion that both parties are, when I'm saying that it's a false equivalence because you haven't shown me how the Democrats are acting like babies. So BACK UP WHAT YOU SAY. Put up or shut up.
I'm not in this forum to prove myself any more intellectual than anybody. I don't disagree with every conservative or conservative viewpoint, nor do I agree with every liberal or liberal viewpoint. I don't mind being wrong if someone shows me where I'm wrong. I've gone out of my way to be civil even to people I disagree with.
As long as people back up what they say.
what are you but my reflection? who am i to judge or strike you down?
"I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this war. You can take that to the bank." - Barack Obama
when you told me 'if you can't beat 'em, join 'em'
i was thinkin 'death before dishonor'
And to all the biased people out there... goes to show you that a nut can make a valid point sometimes, and just as equally, a valid source can make a nutty point sometimes.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis
There's been this entire revisionist attempt by the right wing to remove or minimize people whom they see as too liberal, and FDR is a prime example. In the case of FDR, we now hear this ridiculous theory that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression, even though it's been established for years that FDR's programs helped combat the massive unemployment and the financial crisis that led to the Great Depression. Remember unemployment hit almost one in four Americans in 1933, when FDR took over. BY 1936, it was down to 12%. He enacted rules so that the Wall Street banksters couldn't play Russian Roulette with people's deposits anymore. And so on.
There's several reasons why the New Deal didn't pull us out of the Great Depression completely -
1. FDR was trying a whole new approach - Keynesian economics. As such, he was very cautious about how far he should take spending to begin with. Even with his relatively small scale approach, he was derided for being "Socialist" and "Communist"... hmm, where have we heard that recently?
2. The recession of 1937-38. Once the New Deal started to turn unemployment to near 10% (after it had hit almost 25% at the height of the Great Depression) FDR was influenced by so called "fiscal conservatives" to cut back on New Deal spending. As a result, the economy plunged into another recession and delayed full recovery.
3. An obstructionist, right wing Supreme Court. This body ruled many of FDR's reforms unconstitutional for the first few years of the New Deal until 1935, when the body of the court was replaced.
4. World War 2.
It should be noted also that we will never know if the New Deal would have been fully successful because WW2 got in the way. However, it was the massive government spending and subsequent growth in GDP that eventually catapulted us out of the Depression for good - which then lends even more credence to the theory that the New Deal wasn't spending enough, rather than spending too much.
In terms of what you wrote - you're contradicting yourself. Yes revisionists try and hone in on FDR as an intruding, unconstitutional left leaning law maker who was saved by WW2 in order to bring our nation out of the great depression. As I stated above, part of that statement is correct and part is misleading merely to under-mind certain programs and ideas. You write below that the right is revisionist, yet provide a list of examples why FDR didn't save the economy... that's contradictory. As I state above, it's a bit of an unknown. I also looked online for the exact podcast from NPR discussing it, but was unsuccessful. My point is though, the storybook fairytale in history books is not 100% correct, nor is the way some right-wing revisionists who hate government social programs view the situation. Also, I find it funny that you call the courts "obstructionist", yet leave out the part how FDR stacked the Supreme court to get laws passed. I know there's a lot of details and issues that can be picked apart from this era in terms of economics do's and don'ts, but it should be viewed in a research method, but not to be repeated. Every situation and circumstance is different and it seems like people ignore that key fact compared to political grand-standing with the example in hand as backup.
Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a law-breaker, it breeds contempt for law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. - Louis Brandeis