|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Why are the tea partiers so angry?
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
My response is simple: fascist is a mindset and desire for action long before it is carried out in repressive and controlling action. In other words, embryonic fascism or socialism ought not to be compared to the regimes already fully established tyrannies: yet my calling His Oness a fascist is declaring my fear of his desires and mindset - what I fear he would do if he only could....
So you know Obama's inner desires and mindsets? Based on what??
I "fear" him. Because of what he says and what he has done so far. I do not believe that the smiling man we see is the man His Oness is inside. He wears a disguise. I feel this in my core every time I listen to or read his words. All of his words and actions are countered by earlier words and actions. The BP connections stand as exemplary of this. He talks to the immediate problem, not to an unchanging ethic. His words are slippery. His experience is lacking in every aspect other than showmanship.
Obama, you scare me....
And what sort of reacction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
The "culturally American" bit is weird. I've got just as much American bonafides as anyone, including a tea party sympathizer as a parent. (or does that take away cred?) and I find Obama more representative of my cultural norms and values than any other prez certainly in my lifetime.
And to Merlin: one person's wishy-washy is another person's flexible. I don't want a president so sold on his own dogma that he can't change his mind.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
churchgeek - It's been noted that one of the strongest indicators for whether someone has a favorable opinion of a government program is whether or not they personally know anyone who benefits from it. For example, Social Security is widely supported within the U.S. because virtually everyone knows someone old enough (or injured enough) to benefit from it. On the other hand, certain programs have been deliberately vilified as benefitting the "unworthy" (i.e. people you don't know.)
Republican strategist Lee Atwater explains part of the dynamic at work.
quote:
Atwater: As to the whole Southern strategy that Harry Dent and others put together in 1968, opposition to the Voting Rights Act would have been a central part of keeping the South. Now [the new Southern Strategy of Ronald Reagan] doesn’t have to do that. All you have to do to keep the South is for Reagan to run in place on the issues he's campaigned on since 1964 and that's fiscal conservatism, balancing the budget, cut taxes, you know, the whole cluster.
Lamis: But the fact is, isn't it, that Reagan does get to the Wallace voter and to the racist side of the Wallace voter by doing away with legal services, by cutting down on food stamps?
Atwater: You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
five
Shipmate
# 14492
|
Posted
The other bit I never understand is where all these Tea Party/neocon/whatever "fiscal conservatives" were when W took a budget surplus and turned it into the biggest budget deficit America has ever had?
--------------------
And Jesus said 'the greatest commandments are these: Love the Lord your God with 10% of your time and energy, and Pamphlet your neighbour with tracts' - Birdseye
Posts: 1250 | Registered: Jan 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by five:
The other bit I never understand is where all these Tea Party/neocon/whatever "fiscal conservatives" were when W took a budget surplus and turned it into the biggest budget deficit America has ever had?
Exactly! But he blew it all on a war, a war about imposing cultural Americanism in a culturally non-American part of the world populated by lots of non-Christians and brown people. War is always OK - even a premoral good - for certain "conservatives." Had he spent even a fraction of that money on social safety nets at home, now that would be intolerable.
Of course, that was also the period when my party suddenly started to be referred to by Republicans (and the media picked it up) as the "Democrat" party rather than the "Democratic" party, in all likelihood to distance it from the spreading of "democratic" governments that was supposedly at the heart of our most charitable intentions in Iraq.
So, for those keeping score at home:
It's OK to help others, as long as the help is coming from private charity and is doled out in proportion to the recipient's worthiness;
But it's also OK to provide aid to people who don't ask for it and may or many not need it as long as they're in another part of the world and we know what's best for them (NB: we would not appreciate foreign governments offering similar charity to us);
And democracy is good if it's a new government we're placing in another country to serve our interests there (whether or not it makes life better for citizens of that country is immaterial, but if it does it certainly helps our PR campaign, and that's the important thing);
But democracy's bad if it's in the USA and means people who don't agree with me get a say in public life or, God forbid, help I don't think they deserve.
[ 28. June 2010, 21:43: Message edited by: churchgeek ]
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
And to Merlin: one person's wishy-washy is another person's flexible. I don't want a president so sold on his own dogma that he can't change his mind.
Indeed. We have lived through at least two presidents in my lifetime whose definition of "strong leadership" was to never, ever admit you've made a mistake, to "stay the course" even when evidence clearly demonstrates that "the course" is headed to utter and complete disaster. We are now living in the kind of hell that eight years of this sort of so-called "leadership" results in. I am more relieved than I can express to have a leader who can say "with new information/data, I can now see that my previous path/position was mistaken so we will be changing direction now..."
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
churchgeek
Have candles, will pray
# 5557
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
And to Merlin: one person's wishy-washy is another person's flexible. I don't want a president so sold on his own dogma that he can't change his mind.
Indeed. We have lived through at least two presidents in my lifetime whose definition of "strong leadership" was to never, ever admit you've made a mistake, to "stay the course" even when evidence clearly demonstrates that "the course" is headed to utter and complete disaster. We are now living in the kind of hell that eight years of this sort of so-called "leadership" results in. I am more relieved than I can express to have a leader who can say "with new information/data, I can now see that my previous path/position was mistaken so we will be changing direction now..."
Agreed! The success with which the term "flip-flop" (noun or verb) quickly entered and became ensconced in our political vocabulary is part of the reason for my current sig.
--------------------
I reserve the right to change my mind.
My article on the Virgin of Vladimir
Posts: 7773 | From: Detroit | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi:
stats on childhood hunger in US
These kinds of studies never address the CAUSE of the increase in hunger. They label "insecure" households, where children are not provided with a secure food supply. They show percentages of WIC and food stamps and other programs giving "free" food, especially during the summer. Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work. I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries!
And I can show you 10 families I work with where the parents are working their fingers to the bone trying to keep food on the table, but still aren't able to make the paycheck stretch. I can show you the single-parent family that lived with us for two years, and everything the mom went through to find work in a declining economy.
So what? What do these anecdotal references to a single family mean? do you have any evidence that everyone or even the majority of families on welfare would be able to find work if they were forced to through hunger? Really? 10+% unemployment, and it's all voluntary??? You know some secret hidden source of millions of jobs? I know a whole lotta people who'd probably be willing to pay for that knowledge...
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] "But what about the CHILDREN?" So the Gov't supplies freebies to meet a growing problem and well-meaning asses put working class people on a guilt trip because there are still "hungry" children.
Well, uh, yeah. What ABOUT the children? What about the children even of lazy, shiftless cons or addicts who can't be bothered to provide for their own kids? What about them? Are you really wanting to suggest that we should have no concern for these kids?
Honestly, is there anyone in this world more powerless, more defensless, in greater need of our sympathy and compassion than a child who's parents care that little about them? If that's not the "least of these" then who the heck is???
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility.
Based on what? The gospel according to Rush? You make this statement like it were self-evident, but it is not.
And why is government assistance and voluntary charitable assistance incompatible? What is there about government assistance that "abrogates" your responsibility to care for the poor? How do gov't programs prevent you from participating in church or other local, community-based assistance programs? Given the stats I provided, it would see there is still much work to be done for us all.
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]
The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost.
Actually, that's not always true. In fact, there are quite a number of programs that are run more efficiently by the government than by private enterprise. You just won't hear about them from the GOP.
[ 28. June 2010, 23:01: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
This video sums up much of what's wrong with Tea Party libertarianism.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carex
Shipmate
# 9643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
...do you have any evidence that everyone or even the majority of families on welfare would be able to find work if they were forced to through hunger? Really? 10+% unemployment, and it's all voluntary??? You know some secret hidden source of millions of jobs? I know a whole lotta people who'd probably be willing to pay for that knowledge...
And the average unemployment rate doesn't really tell the whole story: here is a study of unemployment vs. educational achievement. The job losses have been far more severe - and the recovery much more sluggish - for those jobs that don't require some college education. Factory and construction jobs have been particularly hard hit, and they represent some of the higher paying options for those at the lower educational levels. The unemployment levels in the lower groups are considerably higher than they have been anytime in the last 20 years or more. And, of course, those are the folks who are less likely to have enough savings to survive 6 or 12 or 18 months looking for work.
Posts: 1425 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
The phrase "undeserving poor" is as antichristian as the English language can go. Don't look for "666" on people's brows. Look for "undeserving poor" on their websites.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
OK, here's another anecdote. We've moved into an area where the employment available has traditionally been in heavy industry - one of the areas of the economy which is suffering as much as in the 1930s depression.
All the jobs around here come with the following conditions: "part time" (so they can legally give you zero hours if necessary), $8/hour, no benefits. Plus, you are expected to be available 7 days a week for work between 6 am and 10/12 pm. Your schedule will vary each week according to the business demands of your employer, so you can forget about getting another part-time job unless it happens to be incredibly flexible.
Although we are working, we are also living off our savings at the moment. After nine months, we have only just managed to get any kind of reasonable health insurance (actually, we went from pathetic expensive lousy private insurance to a really excellent employer's insurance).
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand, but they really don't have a fucking clue about how hard it is to actually get a job. It's incredibly difficult not to wish that such self-satisfied individuals lose their job just so that they'll have some damn empathy instead of thinking that everything they have is 100% down to their own control.
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Maybe those who know how to find jobs so easily can help me find one. I would far rather have a job than collect unemployment. Which is running out soon anyway.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Maybe those who know how to find jobs so easily can help me find one. I would far rather have a job than collect unemployment. Which is running out soon anyway.
Seriously. My college-educated husband has been out of work for more than 2 yrs. Last year he filled out over 300 job applications-- online, in person, via snail mail, any way he could get it-- in a 3 month period alone. 300. We counted. He got 2 interviews. 2. No job.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
All the jobs around here come with the following conditions: "part time" (so they can legally give you zero hours if necessary), $8/hour, no benefits. Plus, you are expected to be available 7 days a week for work between 6 am and 10/12 pm. Your schedule will vary each week according to the business demands of your employer, so you can forget about getting another part-time job unless it happens to be incredibly flexible.
A problem indeed.
This is a problem which rugged individuals cannot fix, no matter how hard they try. But it can quite easily be fixed by the collective moral and social endeavour we call politics: all it takes is some good rules, well enforced.
The European Social Model is a definite improvement on American-style capitalism. Companies can still make money (indeed, the need for profitable companies providing decent goods and services at a fair price is recognised), but it also recognises the duty of the State to regulate the market in order to ensure that the benefits of economic prosperity are shared, and that ordinary people get a living wage, some job security, decent working conditions and holidays, and a reasonable quality of life.
This "European Social Model" is what America's mega-rich and corporate interests are trying to prevent. Obama is edging very cautiously towards it where he can (e.g. healthcare reform), but is being opposed every inch of the way - most vociferously by the tea-baggers.
Really, truly, the only hope of securing a decent quality of life to the vast majority of people, in both Europe and America, is to rein-in corporations, restrict "market freedoms", in particular "freedom of contract", and start regulating wages, working conditions, and competition, for the general public good.
If that's socialism, then I'm a socialist (although I wouldn't generally call myself a socialist, because for me genuine socialism requires an ideological commitment to nationalisation of industry and the eventual abolition of private productive property, which is a step further than I'd be inclined to go).
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sober Preacher's Kid
Presbymethegationalist
# 12699
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Seeker963:
Anyone who thinks that a person who can't get work in this economy is a lazy deadbeat not only has their head in the sand,
You're far kinder than I am. I'd have described their head as being in a much less polite location.
Maybe those who know how to find jobs so easily can help me find one. I would far rather have a job than collect unemployment. Which is running out soon anyway.
Seriously. My college-educated husband has been out of work for more than 2 yrs. Last year he filled out over 300 job applications-- online, in person, via snail mail, any way he could get it-- in a 3 month period alone. 300. We counted. He got 2 interviews. 2. No job.
I once drove three hours to an interview. The company made paper-making machines for newsprint and the like. The company had used a recruiter, who thought I was a good pick.
The company did too. We got to the end of the interview, they said that they liked me, they wanted to hire me, but their customers were in places like Ecuador and Finland and couldn't get any credit. Their order book had dried up. This was October 2008.
They said that since they had no orders they couldn't hire me. They then gave me $30 for gas money.
They flat out said I said and did everything right and I still didn't have a job.
My family treated me like I had a disease. People aged 45+ with jobs simply can't get though their thick heads that you can put your best foot forward and still not get anywhere. It doesn't matter how educated you are.
Sometimes it feels like we are living on different planets.
--------------------
NDP Federal Convention Ottawa 2018: A random assortment of Prots and Trots.
Posts: 7646 | From: Peterborough, Upper Canada | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries!
I don't know why I'm even bothering to join the chorus. Several other people have already pointed out that 'motivation' to get a job does not automatically lead to getting a job. Just because the people in question don't have jobs doesn't mean that they are lazy no-hopers.
It's also necessary to take into account just how DE-motivating a situation can be. Spend enough time failing to get a job, you start to take it personally.
quote:
Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work.
Um, yes. This is how the entire world operates. There are those who can't work, or aren't expected to. Children, the elderly, and so on.
If what you mean is that there are people who don't work who 'should' work... well, that gets back to the question of whether there are in fact enough jobs to go around, doesn't it?
I do KNOW a system which ensures that everyone has a job, no matter how meaningless or inefficient. It was called communism. Are you a communist, Merlin? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by churchgeek:
...
I much prefer a system that holds out the same criteria for everyone, and occasionally helps people who don't "deserve" it, to a system that leaves people out in the cold due to prejudices or to their own lack of resources. In either system, mistakes (defined by the system's own goals) will be made; I prefer to err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. That comes primarily from my own faith convictions, but also from my idea of what America is about. Naive and idealistic? Hell yeah. I'm a Democrat! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
I don't know what I am. But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives. Any gov't system that doesn't include payback as part of the welfare is going to attract freeloaders in droves. That's what is wrong with the Fed controlled level: it can't operate a monolithic welfare system; there are too many loopholes that are exploited by the freeloaders, the leeches. That's why I advocate for State by State welfare and don't accept that gov't at the Fed level has any business being in the welfare business in the first place....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by five:
And what sort of reaction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
That is uncalled for, if that's what you mean.
The "racist card" has been played repeatedly on this thread by those who are critical of those here who are critical of His Oness.
Race is non existent biologically. Only in the perceptions of racists is the human species divided into races. So I don't look at His Oness as a "black man" anymore than I looked GWB as a WASP. I do make judgments of where a person comes from having something to do with their desires and agenda. Race has nothing to do with that. If His Oness was a Rapper would it matter if he was "black" or "white"? I hate Rap regardless. So it's the President's politics and what he's revealed of them so far that points to other levels of political agenda that I fundamentally disagree with; that's what I am talking about....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives.
This is one of the most illogical things I have ever read. Do you know what 'charity' means?
You already proved a few pages ago that you don't know what 'unfortunate' means, but this is getting just bizarre now. Paying for the charity you receive???
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
romanlion
editorial comment
# 10325
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
The European Social Model is a definite improvement on American-style capitalism.
I suppose this is true as long as there is someone to bail you out.
What shite.
Are you following the G20 at all?
--------------------
"You can't get rich in politics unless you're a crook" - Harry S. Truman
Posts: 1486 | From: White Rose City | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
If what you mean is that there are people who don't work who 'should' work... well, that gets back to the question of whether there are in fact enough jobs to go around, doesn't it?
I do KNOW a system which ensures that everyone has a job, no matter how meaningless or inefficient. It was called communism. Are you a communist, Merlin?
In an economy where jobs dwindle and unemployment increases and becomes an epidemic, "the system" (capitalism) doesn't provide: it can't: it only operates on a profit basis: it does not provide "meaningless" jobs (also called "busy work").
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK. This whole idea that some work is beneath one's education and skill level has always been an evil inherent in the capitalist system. Almost as evil is allowing that a street sweeper ought to be paid equally to a surgeon. Motivation to get a higher education, to work at one's level of applied talent, is key to increasing prosperity. When the gov't is in control of assigning those "worthy" of education, and dispenses degrees (how many and what kind), etc., then motivation and individual initiative withers, productivity falls off, entitlement mentality increases in proportion to the freeloader mentality -- why should I work harder than the street sweeper when his job is easy and mine requires grueling hours of study and practice?
So no, I am definitely not a communist.
On a local level jobs can be created to assure that everyone receiving food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc., are not freeloading. Their subsistence level payment is assured if that's all they aspire to. When the economy picks up and schooling begins to translate into higher paying jobs, you'll see more people take advantage of this: but there will always be a segment of society who are satisfied with the bare bones and free time. Capitalism for the capitalists, then: and earned State-provided employment/charity/welfare for those who don't care: but at least they won't freeload. If they have children, and they refuse to work at all, thus producing a poverty that the children are not responsible for, that's what social protection services are for: and again, the local level handles these things best....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE]]In an economy where jobs dwindle and unemployment increases and becomes an epidemic, "the system" (capitalism) doesn't provide: it can't: it only operates on a profit basis: it does not provide "meaningless" jobs (also called "busy work").
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK. This whole idea that some work is beneath one's education and skill level has always been an evil inherent in the capitalist system.
On a local level jobs can be created to assure that everyone receiving food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc., are not freeloading. ...If they have children, and they refuse to work at all, thus producing a poverty that the children are not responsible for, that's what social protection services are for: and again, the local level handles these things best....
Again, what is your basis for saying that local is ALWAYS better? Have you never seen a state where corruption (yes, Louisianna I'm lookin' at you) and political infighting (yeah, California...) led to endless waste? Have you never seen a small town ruled by bullies or cronyism?
Why is it that when the government pumps $$ into the system to create jobs it's wasteful deficit spending/ socialism, but when done on the local level it's prudent social services?
And if there ever was anyone who had the idea that any honest job was "beneath" them, this economic downturn has thoroughly thrashed that outta them.
[ 29. June 2010, 03:54: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Another issue,Merlin; many of the ideals you and the Tea Party espouse might work with a 19th century level of population and industry, but not the current.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
I'm not going to ascribe this view to anyone here specifically, but it just entered into my head that a certain type of person is liable to oppose 'survival of the fittest' as a biological/evolutionary concept, while applying it ruthlessly as an economic one.
Which strikes me as fascinatingly odd.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Duo Seraphim
Ubi caritas et amor
# 256
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
fyi:
stats on childhood hunger in US
These kinds of studies never address the CAUSE of the increase in hunger. They label "insecure" households, where children are not provided with a secure food supply. They show percentages of WIC and food stamps and other programs giving "free" food, especially during the summer. Yet the bottom line is that workers are providing for those who don't work. I can show you a subsistence level household where THREE out of the six children are adult-aged and living off their single mom's Social Security pittance and food stamps: they get enough to eat and feel almost no motivation to get a job. The reason is because they are given free food. If they were hungry they'd be motivated to get a job and buy groceries! "But what about the CHILDREN?" So the Gov't supplies freebies to meet a growing problem and well-meaning asses put working class people on a guilt trip because there are still "hungry" children.
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility. The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost. Sooner or later the sheer weight of Gov't spending on welfare programs (entitlements) will break the back of the economy. We can all then go hungry together, living as equals in poverty and squalor (well, except for the rich elite, of course, "they" never suffer).
To avoid this scenario we need limited Gov't, not bigger Gov't. No system is perfect: but big Gov't is the least desirable of all the systems mankind has tried. It's just a long road to the tyranny of the few over the many: the world's story for the last c. 6,000 years of recorded history....
I had a look at the stats on hunger in the US including child hunger in other pages on the site MerlintheBad was dribbling about.
According to the charity Feeding America 1 in 4 American childrenlive in households where the food supply isn't secure. I couldn't care if the parents are the worst bums on the planet - no child should live in a household where there isn't enough food for an active healthy life for all members of the household.
The USDA report on Household Food Security, from which Feeding America gets its figures states that the rates of household food insecurity have increased significantly since 2007 and are the highest since 1995; see here.
Charity - real charity - doesn't enquire about the moral worth of its recipients, merely that they are in need. Now that might mean that some so-called "undeserving" poor might be seen to skive off the charity. So what? The important things is that the needy are fed. I utterly fail to see how that judgment can ever be applied to children, nor how their malnutrition or even starvation could ever be justified in the name of small government.
Sickening.
--------------------
Embrace the serious whack. It's the Catholic thing to do. IngoB
The Messiah, Peace be upon him, said to his Apostles: 'Verily, this world is merely a bridge, so cross over it, and do not make it your abode.' (Bihar al-anwar xiv, 319)
Posts: 7952 | From: Sydney Australia | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK.
Merlin, I've reflected further on this and realised the problem with it. It's not simply a question of whether there is work to be done. It's also a question of someone being prepared to PAY for the work to be done, and having the money to do so. Employment is not merely the doing of work, it is the doing of work in exchange for money. You can't 'create jobs' merely by identifying a piece of work you'd like to see done.
Now, the average government at any level is not exactly flush with cash. If they try to get more money, then people cry foul. Similarly, if governments employ more people, everybody talks about wastage and inefficient bureaucracies and so on. It's no different at the local level than the national one.
Private businesses of course, maximise their profit by minimising the number of people they employ to get the job done, as wages is one of the biggest costs they have.
Some choices have to be made. You can't simultaneously complain about all of these things. Well, you CAN, but it's not rational. You can't complain about people not being employed and also complain about means of achieving fuller employment.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by five:
And what sort of reaction do the words "Heckofa job, Brownie" evoke within you?
That is uncalled for, if that's what you mean.
The "racist card" has been played repeatedly on this thread by those who are critical of those here who are critical of His Oness.
Um, five was quoting Dubya, who said that to the head of FEMA when hell broke loose during Hurricane Katrina, and the gov't was worse than useless.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
FEMA head's last name was Brown.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Robert Armin
All licens'd fool
# 182
|
Posted
I have had periods of unemployment in my life. From time to time I still have nightmares about that. For mousethief, Mr cliffdweller and all those looking for work: ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
--------------------
Keeping fit was an obsession with Fr Moity .... He did chin ups in the vestry, calisthenics in the pulpit, and had developed a series of Tai-Chi exercises to correspond with ritual movements of the Mass. The Antipope Robert Rankin
Posts: 8927 | From: In the pack | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Seeker963
Shipmate
# 2066
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
On a local level jobs can be created to assure that everyone receiving food, clothing, housing, medical care, education, etc., are not freeloading.
This, to me, is the nub of the issue. People wanting control over who gets aid and wanting to be able to have self-determination and self-knowledge about who they personally deem to be "worthy". People preferring a situation that makes 80% of "worthy" people are hard-up if that means that 20% of the freeloaders won't get anything.
This is utter arrogance and lack of humility and a failure to understand that one's own circumstances are a matter of luck and grace rather than anything that one has earned on one's own.
And that's why the Tea Partiers make me angry.
[ 29. June 2010, 10:17: Message edited by: Seeker963 ]
--------------------
"People waste so much of their lives on hate and fear." My friend JW-N: Chaplain and three-time cancer survivor. (Went to be with her Lord March 21, 2010. May she rest in peace and rise in glory.)
Posts: 4152 | From: Northeast Ohio | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
All charity needs to be voluntary, non professional, localized and self-empowered: every time "We The People" turn this responsibility for our neighbors over to Gov't we have abrogated that responsibility. The Gov't NEVER runs any program half as well for much higher cost. Sooner or later the sheer weight of Gov't spending on welfare programs (entitlements) will break the back of the economy. We can all then go hungry together, living as equals in poverty and squalor (well, except for the rich elite, of course, "they" never suffer).
quote:
But I do know that inclusion should ALWAYS include requiring the recipient to pay his own way for the charity and welfare assistance he receives
Yet, you have mentioned that your family benefitted from Medicaid, a federal program. I mentioned this earlier in the thread when you called for not increasing entitlements. Have you repaid?
Your argument here seems hypocritical. You have accepted the kind of entitlement that you seem to be arguing against. Are ypu prepared to repay the federal government for the Medicaid entitlement your family used?
Meanwhile, in subsequent posts, you declare that fascism in its early states is in the mind of the so-called fascist. When asked if you could read the mind of the President, you went on to say that he scared you because of his behavior, not because of his thoughts.
I'm getting the feeling that the responses jump from one place to another reactively here.
sabine
[ 29. June 2010, 12:54: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
If that's socialism, then I'm a socialist (although I wouldn't generally call myself a socialist...
Its not. Its a common component of some people's ideas of socialism but socialism is surely about ownership and rights, not about regulations and welfare benefits.
What you describe is just the perfectly normal market economy with a welfare state - the kind that every properly functioning nation state in the world has at the moment (INCLUDING the USA)
quote:
...because for me genuine socialism requires an ideological commitment to nationalisation of industry and the eventual abolition of private productive property, which is a step further than I'd be inclined to go).
Well, its all theoretical, because as there is no actually existing entirely socialist economy or society (*) all we have to go on is what different people who call themselves socialist mean when they say "socialism". And many of them are very against nationalisation, and others in favour of it only very special circumstances. Others are quite happy with free markets and private ownership - its big corporations and great property that pisses them off, not private ownership as such.
But there has always been a difference between the kind of "state socialism" you describe and "libertarian socialism" or "co-operative socialism" which is what lots of socialists say they want.
(*) though of course all societies have some aspects of what might be called socialism, and some of those nation states that claim to be socialist - like China for example - often have less obvious socialism about them than some that don't.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
The "racist card" has been played repeatedly on this thread by those who are critical of those here who are critical of His Oness.
Race is non existent biologically. Only in the perceptions of racists is the human species divided into races. So I don't look at His Oness as a "black man" anymore than I looked GWB as a WASP. I do make judgments of where a person comes from having something to do with their desires and agenda. Race has nothing to do with that.
But its exactly the same. The idea of distinct biological races is a social construction. So is your feeling that Obama isn't really American. If racism exists at all then you are being racist.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Another fact to consider, Mr. Merlin: Were you aware your state receives Billions of dollars more in Federal revenue than it sends to Washington?
What will your self-reliant locals do without that money?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another fact to consider, Mr. Merlin: Were you aware your state receives Billions of dollars more in Federal revenue than it sends to Washington?
What will your self-reliant locals do without that money?
It seems that most of those who bitch so loudly about the evils of the federal government are in states that are net drains on the federal dollar. Let's let them all secede -- then we who are left can actually get things done with that money.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Josephine
Orthodox Belle
# 3899
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This whole idea that some work is beneath one's education and skill level has always been an evil inherent in the capitalist system.
The whole idea that some people are better than others, and that some work is beneath the education/class/caste/position/etc. of the better people, seems to be an evil inherent in human beings. I don't think the economic system has anything to do with it.
--------------------
I've written a book! Catherine's Pascha: A celebration of Easter in the Orthodox Church. It's a lovely book for children. Take a look!
Posts: 10273 | From: Pacific Northwest, USA | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Sometimes this experiment has been tried on a small community basis and almost worked. I don't know any example where it worked for very long or very well: check out early Utah history for Mormon attempts at it.
So, no, I am not suggesting communism here. I am suggesting a mixed form of gov't and economy. For the ambitious, advantaged and lucky, there is capitalism. For the unfortunate, lazy or easily satisfied, there is "gov't work". But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Sometimes this experiment has been tried on a small community basis and almost worked. I don't know any example where it worked for very long or very well:
Many kibbutzim.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
Ah, okay, so LOCAL communism is acceptable.
Glad we got that sorted.
Actually, that isn't far from the truth. A community ought to be able to try out different forms of government according to popular feeling.
Sometimes this experiment has been tried on a small community basis and almost worked. I don't know any example where it worked for very long or very well: check out early Utah history for Mormon attempts at it.
So, no, I am not suggesting communism here. I am suggesting a mixed form of gov't and economy. For the ambitious, advantaged and lucky, there is capitalism. For the unfortunate, lazy or easily satisfied, there is "gov't work". But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
...remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
[QUOTE] But it should NEVER be on the Federal level, only State and local. Big Gov't is bad, small gov't is not so bad and more easily remedied when it goes "south".
Yes, you've said that several times now, but, despite repeated requests, you have yet to supply a shred of evidence to support this. Do you have evidence that state and local governments are statistically any more efficient or less corrupt than federal ones? As I noted before, I can think of several examples to the contrary.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
[QUOTE]...remind me why Utah bothered joining the United States again??
So that Joseph Smith could run for President.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Conversely, why did the US let them in?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, what is your basis for saying that local is ALWAYS better? Have you never seen a state where corruption (yes, Louisianna I'm lookin' at you) and political infighting (yeah, California...) led to endless waste? Have you never seen a small town ruled by bullies or cronyism?
I didn't say it was always better in outcome, only less evil than BIG Gov't, and more easily fixed than BIG Gov't gone-bad.
Of course there will be plenty of examples of local excesses. People are nasty when they perceive themselves in a position of power. But that's what the Fed is for: provide for the general welfare. When States are guilty of excesses the due process allows the Fed to intervene on behalf of the Union's citizens - especially when those citizens importune their Fed Gov't for defense and redress. That's as far as the Fed ought to be permitted to go in controlling the States.
quote:
Why is it that when the government pumps $$ into the system to create jobs it's wasteful deficit spending/ socialism, but when done on the local level it's prudent social services?
Because on the Fed Gov't level it imposes controls that cannot possibly adequately answer local needs: it's too big to be that intimately involved or even to care in the first place: any far-removed Fed bureaucracy is slow to change, if at all. When matters get corrupt (as they inevitably will) the locals are helpless to change their situation except through the ponderous, almost immovable machinery of the National Congress and its plethora of committies and departments. And if the corruption is on the Fed level, then said-departments and committies are also part of the problem, and if anything gets done at that point it is probably going to worsen rather than remedy the problems on the local level.
quote:
And if there ever was anyone who had the idea that any honest job was "beneath" them, this economic downturn has thoroughly thrashed that outta them.
Perhaps in the worst-hit places. But not everywhere and not everyone....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
I didn't say it was always better in outcome, only less evil than BIG Gov't, and more easily fixed than BIG Gov't gone-bad.
Of course there will be plenty of examples of local excesses. People are nasty when they perceive themselves in a position of power. But that's what the Fed is for: provide for the general welfare. When States are guilty of excesses the due process allows the Fed to intervene on behalf of the Union's citizens - especially when those citizens importune their Fed Gov't for defense and redress. That's as far as the Fed ought to be permitted to go in controlling the States.
This is an interesting position, but I fail to see how you can apply it in practice. Whether or not a State government is overstepping the mark is entirely a political judgement, and you can't write a Constitution setting out the respective powers of each level on a political basis. You have to write it in a more neutral way without knowing precisely what will happen in the future.
Also, you're making the Feds sound rather like an equivalent of the UN. I'm not exactly familiar with small government supporters being fond of the UN...
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Another issue,Merlin; many of the ideals you and the Tea Party espouse might work with a 19th century level of population and industry, but not the current.
That is an interesting assertion that I disbelieve.
What you seem to be proposing is that the Constitution is outmoded anymore; that it only worked when we were a bucolic, low-population Nation of largely farmers with limited city size and industry. Or perhaps during your arbitrary "19th century" focus the USA passed some kind of tipping point?
The problem is that the Fed has grown in powers and complexity to match the increased population. Until by now it is far too complex (along with the Law) for any single person to unravel much less be able to be an expert in the whole of it.
I am proposing a simple fix: return obligation for welfare to the local and State govt's and get the Fed out of that "business" altogether. National healthcare is totally moving in the wrong direction. Those on the local level who provide healthcare will still do so for those not capable of buying their own medical insurance and hiring the docs of their choice, etc. It's just that the funding will be also on the local level, not Federal.
How does this get jump-started? The banks are sitting on the money, too afraid to make loans in such uncertain times. Well, there is one over-riding power that the Fed possesses and has always possessed: regulation of the National currency, both assigning value and amount in circulation. What is required is a Fed law, by ammendment if necessary (perhaps such a provision already exists and is not being employed?): giving the Fed the power to compel all banks and similar financial institutions that are in the loan business, to makes loans to all local incorporated cities and counties, even states, in order to fund the "gov't work" required to dispense the housing, food, clothing, medical care and education, etc., that the unemployed (those who have fallen out of the capitalist segment of the economy) require in order to participate in the economy and not simply leech off of it.
By having an assigned monetary value to all manner of work, and by reporting each day for the work that has been assigned, the unemployed (not possessing capitalist jobs) will be provided with income and the necessaries of life. The whole problem is getting the money moving again; and only the Fed can do that. Beyond getting the economy moving for everyone (not just those still capitalistically advantaged), the Fed ought not to have any powers of involvement over the States other than redress of grievances brought to the Fed by citizens whose local situations have become corrupt or otherwise tyrannical (unconstitutional).
Ultimately any State remains free to try secession if its corruption reaches the top State gov't levels: and then it's back to the threat of civil war. I wouldn't anticipate such a worst-case scenario myself. I only mention this to illustrate that my "perfect fix" is anything but: but it is the best one I have come across....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
It's strongly arguable that Constitutions DO become outmoded. I was already thinking this before Merlin posted.
A major factor is the degree of connection brought about by modern communications and transport. Less central and more local made a lot of sense when 'central' was a terribly long way away, and communication with 'central' was both limited and took weeks in both directions.
In a day and age when everybody knows what the President looks like and can watch a debate live on television, the nature of the relationship with the central government is very different. It's therefore worth re-examining the arrangements.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MerlintheMad
Shipmate
# 12279
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by MerlintheMad:
This is why local communities can fix the problem at least far enough to feed, clothe and house everyone. There is ALWAYS work to be done. If there is an eternally provided surplus of anything it is WORK.
Merlin, I've reflected further on this and realised the problem with it. It's not simply a question of whether there is work to be done. It's also a question of someone being prepared to PAY for the work to be done, and having the money to do so. Employment is not merely the doing of work, it is the doing of work in exchange for money. You can't 'create jobs' merely by identifying a piece of work you'd like to see done.
In my post just prior to this one, I've begun to address this obvious requirement to "jump-start" the economy and provide the financial means.
quote:
Now, the average government at any level is not exactly flush with cash. If they try to get more money, then people cry foul. Similarly, if governments employ more people, everybody talks about wastage and inefficient bureaucracies and so on. It's no different at the local level than the national one.
Precisely why the funding must come through the private sector and not gov't taxation and redistribution. That's why the Fed has to possess the power to compel lending institutions to get their kiesters off the cash; there's plenty of money already out there, it's just frozen because of the uncertain times.
Once the lending apparatus us flowing again, the incorporated cities, counties and even State gov'ts can take out loans to pay for the virtually inexhaustible work projects that can be created (I don't care what it is, anything from painting curbs, eradicating graffiti, trash pickup, parks and public gardens beautification, even building projects for those possessing the skills; and for those who are physically incapacitated, there are all manner of needs for tutors, mentors, clerical or otherwise "intellectual" work).
The Fed ultimately possesses the control over the assigned value and amount of money in circulation: that makes the Fed (promoting the general welfare) capable of (responsible for) insuring that there is money to back up all the loans being taken out by incorporated cities, counties and even States; and regulating due process in any cases of default - as I said, it ain't a perfect system, but it's the best one I've seen so far.
quote:
Private businesses of course, maximise their profit by minimising the number of people they employ to get the job done, as wages is one of the biggest costs they have.
And you may have noticed, I do not propose any limiting of capitalism whatsover; anyone who can make a go of it ought to be free to try. But if s/he can't do it, there is always the "gov't work" safety net - and the self-respect of making the community/world a better place while you receive your fair share of the "general welfare".
quote:
Some choices have to be made. You can't simultaneously complain about all of these things. Well, you CAN, but it's not rational. You can't complain about people not being employed and also complain about means of achieving fuller employment.
I'm not complaining. I am pointing out fallacies in various assertions. And now I have moved on to proposing/discussing solutions....
Posts: 3499 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
