Food stamp cuts hit 9 million elderly and disabled people

[RandomGuy]

Cuts to the nation’s food stamp program hit 48 million Americans this week, including more than 9 million elderly and disabled people.

Nearly one in seven Americans uses the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, which has doubled in cost since 2008 when Congress increased the benefits as part of the economic stimulus bill. Both Democrats and Republicans allowed the temporary benefits boost to expire on Nov. 1, and Republicans are pushing for far steeper cuts to the $80 billion program.

The average monthly decrease for a one-person household is $11. That doesn’t sound like much, but the vast majority of food stamp recipients say the assistance runs out in the first three weeks of each month, leaving them to cobble together food from other sources in the final week. The cuts amount to 16 meals a month for the average family of three, according to the U.S. Agriculture Department’s Thrifty Food Plan.

“Even though it might sound little, for some people that’s a couple of meals that they have to choose whether they eat or don’t eat,” said Bobbie Sackman, the director of public policy at the Council of Senior Centers and Services in New York City, which helps elderly people sign up for assistance. “They have to go elsewhere to find food or they’re not going to have food.”

People can turn to food pantries for additional assistance. But it’s harder for older and disabled people to fill in the gaps left by the food stamp program, since going in-person to various soup kitchens and food pantries is not an option for many of them. About 9 percent of all food stamps go to households that include senior citizens. In New York, which has a large elderly population, it’s double that.

Marc Wolfson, a disabled 62 year-old who lives in Brooklyn, spent his Tuesday afternoon calling around to various food pantries to see if any of them would deliver meals to his apartment.

One food pantry, called “God’s Love We Deliver,” told him they could drop off groceries at his apartment, but only on days when Wolfson is undergoing dialysis for his kidney disease. So the pantry had to turn him down. “They ain’t delivering it to me,” Wolfson joked.

Wolfson has diabetes and anemia, so his diet must be low in sugar and carbohydrates and high in iron-rich foods like red meat. The first two weeks, Wolfson can manage that diet on food stamps, but then the money runs out. “The doctors want me to eat all protein,” he said. “The last two weeks the only protein I’m getting is eggs.”

Nationally, one in seven seniors lives in poverty, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation. In New York City, as many as one in three elderly people are poor. As many as half of elderly people who qualify for food stamps in New York do not apply, and surveys have shown that older Americans in particular feel there is a stigma associated with the program.

Sackman said the elderly, who are often living on fixed incomes, can become “invisible” in these debates, which often focuses on why young and healthy people need assistance.

House Republicans hope to cut the $80 billion annual program further, by kicking off 3 million people each year for 10 years. Under their plan, adults without minor children must enroll in a job training program or be employed to receive the benefits. The AARP, the powerful seniors group, opposes the proposal.

“We’re really worried,” Sackman said of the proposed cuts. “This is just the start. We’re looking at a rapidly growing senior population here and across the country and a lot of poverty.”

Wolfson said he tries not to worry about whether steeper cuts could be in the pipeline. In the meantime, he plans to scour the grocery store for sales to make up for the $11 less he gets per month.

“I’ll deal with it as it’s happening,” he said. “I’m not going to dwell on it.”
---------------------------------------------

http://news.yahoo.com/food-stamp-cuts-hit-elderly-164547526.html

The Republican war on the poor continues unabated.

[DeadlyDynasty]

The elderly and disabled shouldn't be a top priority anyways. Terrible thing to say I know, but true..the other 39 mil are largely comprised of unmotivated people.

[boutons_deux]

Poverty in America Is Mainstream

Few topics in American society have more myths and stereotypes surrounding them than poverty, misconceptions that distort both our politics and our domestic policy making.

They include the notion that poverty affects a relatively small number of Americans, that the poor are impoverished for years at a time, that most of those in poverty live in inner cities, that too much welfare assistance is provided and that poverty is ultimately a result of not working hard enough. Although pervasive, each assumption is flat-out wrong.

Contrary to popular belief, the percentage of the population that directly encounters poverty is exceedingly high. My research indicates that nearly 40 percent of Americans between the ages of 25 and 60 will experience at least one year below the official poverty line during that period ($23,492 for a family of four), and 54 percent will spend a year in poverty or near poverty (below 150 percent of the poverty line).

Even more astounding, if we add in related conditions like welfare use, near-poverty and unemployment, four out of five Americans will encounter one or more of these events.

In addition, half of all American children will at some point during their childhood reside in a household that uses food stamps for a period of time.

Put simply, poverty is a mainstream event experienced by a majority of Americans. For most of us, the question is not whether we will experience poverty, but when.

But while poverty strikes a majority of the population, the average time most people spend in poverty is relatively short. The standard image of the poor has been that of an entrenched underclass, impoverished for years at a time. While this captures a small and important slice of poverty, it is also a highly misleading picture of its more widespread and dynamic nature.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/11/02/poverty-in-america-is-mainstream/?src=me&ref=general

[boutons_deux]

America's Greatest Shame: Child Poverty Rises and Food Stamps Cut While Billionaires Boom

There are 16.4 million American children living in poverty. That's nearly one quarter (22.6%) of all of our children. More alarming is that the percentage of poor children has climbed by 4.5 percent (http://carseyinstitute.unh.edu/sites/carseyinstitute.unh.edu/files/publications/IB-Mattingly-Carson-Same-Day-Poverty-web.pdf) since the start of the Great Recession in 2007. And poor means poor. For a family of three with one child under 18, the poverty line is $18,400.

Most amazing of all is the fact that 95 percent of the so-called "recovery" has gone to the top 1 percent (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf) who have seen their incomes rise by 34%. For the 99 percent there's been an undeclared wage freeze: the average wage has climbed by only 0.4 percent.

To add to the misery, Washington has decided that the best way to tackle childhood poverty is to have poor kids eat less.

And more cuts are coming. The Tea Party House passed a bill to cut food stamps by $4 billion a year, while the Senate calls for $400 million in cuts. How humane! And since it will be part of the omnibus Farm Bill, President Obama will sign it.

It gets even more revolting when we realize that the financial billionaires who are profiting so handsomely from the recovery are the very same who took down the economy in the first place. They were the ones who created and pedaled the toxic securities that puffed up and then burst the housing bubble. Those financial plutocrats caused 8 million workers to lose their jobs in a matter of months. Those bankers, hedge fund honchos and fund managers are directly responsible for the rise in child poverty rates. Washington bailed out those billionaires and is now asking the poor and the middle class to pay for the ensuing deficits with further cuts in social programs at every level of government.

http://www.alternet.org/hard-times-usa/americas-greatest-shame-child-poverty-rises-and-food-stamps-cut-while-billionaires?paging=off&current_page=1#bookmark

Meanwhile, Pete Petersen, a billionaire, of course, wants to privatize SS and steal $Ts in "management fees"

[AntiChrist]

Cuts? Or, the expiration of extra money given per the 2009 stimulus?

[boutons_deux]

Cuts? Or, the expiration of extra money given per the 2009 stimulus?

expiration for you, cuts to the recipients

[RandomGuy]

The elderly and disabled shouldn't be a top priority anyways. Terrible thing to say I know, but true..the other 39 mil are largely comprised of unmotivated people.

okaaay, so what should our "top priorities" be then?

[boutons_deux]

"the other 39 mil are largely comprised of unmotivated people."

evidence? proof? or just your psychopathic bias?

[Rogue]

my goddess once said: "Sharing food is one of life's pleasures. On a global scale, we don't share fairly. Close to a billion people go to bed hungry every night. The fact is: the global food system is a broken one. All of us, from Kentucky to Kenya, deserve enough to eat."

[DeadlyDynasty]

okaaay, so what should our "top priorities" be then?
Anything other than people who have outlived their usefulness.

[DeadlyDynasty]

psychopathic bias?
Oh sweet, delicious, savory irony.

[The Reckoning]

disabled i can relate to.

but elderly? didn't they pay into SS like everyone else? and what about raising children and having a family to support you? i guess it's hip nowadays to have children then ostracize them because of selfish reasons and popular culture. oops.

[Winehole23]

i guess it's hip nowadays to have children who ostracize you because of selfish reasons and popular culture. oops. the feeling of civic responsibility dies not always extend to parents, let along to seniors in general.

[Winehole23]

NEW NORMAL (http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_CENSUS_POVERTY?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-11-06-13-38-44) - According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of poor people in 2012 was 49.7 million, or 16 percent. That exceeds the record 46.5 million, or 15 percent, that was officially reported in September.http://www.caintv.com/census-bureau-16-percent-of-am

[russellgoat]

They should have been aborted...

[AntiChrist]

the feeling of civic responsibility dies not always extend to parents, let along to seniors in general.


Hittin the bottle early, I see. :drunk

[Winehole23]

spelling smack?

:sleep

[AntiChrist]

And a sensitive little beeyatch, too.

[RandomGuy]

Anything other than people who have outlived their usefulness.

... and how do we tell who those people are?

[DeadlyDynasty]

... and how do we tell who those people are?
They look old and/or disabled

[RandomGuy]

disabled i can relate to.

but elderly? didn't they pay into SS like everyone else? and what about raising children and having a family to support you? i guess it's hip nowadays to have children then ostracize them because of selfish reasons and popular culture. oops.

The elderly did pay into the system. Just not as much as they are now taking out.

The NPV of all the money they put in, compared to the NPV of all the money they will be taking out, is small, i.e. money current elderly put in < money current elderly are taking and will take out.

They paid in when the benefits were a LOT less generous, and the payments matched that.

[RandomGuy]

They look old and/or disabled


The Rules of the Game

The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?


The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/rulesofthegame327_001.jpg
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.

The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the institutional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].
The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.

For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).

I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.

[DeadlyDynasty]

What's your solution, RG? More food stamps?

[TeyshaBlue]

Living wage.

[TeyshaBlue]

food stamps are a symptom, not the problem.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The elderly did pay into the system. Just not as much as they are now taking out.

The NPV of all the money they put in, compared to the NPV of all the money they will be taking out, is small, i.e. money current elderly put in < money current elderly are taking and will take out.

They paid in when the benefits were a LOT less generous, and the payments matched that.

On average the government layouts versus payouts for someone over born in 1945 is more than a million dollars in the hole.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What's your solution, RG? More food stamps?

I say we kill half of them, chop them into itty, bitty pieces and then feed them to the other half.

[TeyshaBlue]

On average the government layouts versus payouts for someone over born in 1945 is more than a million dollars in the hole.

I'd rather be over born than under born.



And I don't even know what the hell that means.:lol

[RandomGuy]

What's your solution, RG? More food stamps?

Partially.

Education, education, education. Subsidized child-care, single payer health insurance, mandatory paid sick days, among others.

Then more education.

That, and some serious removal of some stupid red tape by a comprehensive overhaul of federal regulations, accompanied by a massive infrastructure investment, on the order of 2 trillion dollars (not all in the same year).

I would raise taxes to do all this, at all levels. The underinvestment in human and physical infrastructure has to end ASAP.

[RandomGuy]

On average the government layouts versus payouts for someone over born in 1945 is more than a million dollars in the hole.

I see you have probably read the same analysis I did.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I say we kill them all, chop them into itty, bitty pieces and then feed them to the other half.
That was my platform for the 2016 race, asshole.

[Spurminator]

Maybe they should stop being so old.

[TeyshaBlue]

Disagree. Education is not the panacea we think it is.
We already have subsidized child care. We just need more of it.
Not sure why we would need mandatory paid sick days. What's your rationale for that?

I'm in on the rest of your list tho.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd rather be over born than under born.



And I don't even know what the hell that means.:lol

...... I don't either :lol

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That was my platform for the 2016 race, asshole.

2syR4On4xDI

[DeadlyDynasty]

I would raise taxes to do all this
Methinks you a Dem, my son.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you have probably read the same analysis I did.

Indeed. I first saw the figure in an article from the Economist but have seen analogs elsewhere.

Corporate tax encourages corporate reinvestment.

[RandomGuy]

Disagree. Education is not the panacea we think it is.
We already have subsidized child care. We just need more of it.
Not sure why we would need mandatory paid sick days. What's your rationale for that?

I'm in on the rest of your list tho.

Paid sick days allow people who are sick to be, well, sick. They don't go to work and automatically make others sick, as well as having the time to go see a doctor when you can and not when you are bleeding from the eyes in the emergency room over something a minor treatment could have prevented.

If you literally cannot afford to miss work to see a doctor, that has a real economic cost.

I can tell you first hand that we do not educate poor kids. My kids are in a poor, rural failing school system, and that is screamingly obvious.

Education is a panacea, and I would be happy to support that statement. :)

[RandomGuy]

Methinks you a Dem, my son.

I am indeed.

I am also financially sophisticated enough to understand how taxes work, and how government investments in capital work. If the benefits of the tax/investment outweigh the costs, then you are limiting your economy by NOT raising taxes.

[vy65]

It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?" then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."

[TeyshaBlue]

Paid sick days allow people who are sick to be, well, sick. They don't go to work and automatically make others sick, as well as having the time to go see a doctor when you can and not when you are bleeding from the eyes in the emergency room over something a minor treatment could have prevented.

If you literally cannot afford to miss work to see a doctor, that has a real economic cost.

I can tell you first hand that we do not educate poor kids. My kids are in a poor, rural failing school system, and that is screamingly obvious.

Education is a panacea, and I would be happy to support that statement. :)

I've been working under the assumption that sick days were the norm. I've never had a job that didn't offer them. They aren't mandated? If not, then I'm in total agreement with you.

We do educate poor kids. We do this all over the country. Some better than others. Education should exist for the primary purpose to facilitate applied critical thinking.
I would add the caveat that not all students are able to hoe that row. Some need vocational training as well.
But education, contextually alone, is not the magic pill.

[RandomGuy]

I've been working under the assumption that sick days were the norm. I've never had a job that didn't offer them. They aren't mandated? If not, then I'm in total agreement with you.

We do educate poor kids. We do this all over the country. Some better than others. Education should exist for the primary purpose to facilitate applied critical thinking.
I would add the caveat that not all students are able to hoe that row. Some need vocational training as well.
But education, contextually alone, is not the magic pill.

Contextually alone, I would agree with that. THere needs to be a host of other safety net items in place to make sure it sticks.


Sick days are not mandated.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/07/08/paid-sick-leave-us-workers-_n_3562419.html


The U.S is the only major industrialized nation without a national paid sick-leave policy Some 145 countries provide paid sick days for short- or long-term illnesses. Japan, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Denmark, Finland and Singapore require employers to provide at least 10 paid sick days.

[SA210]

Kids are educated alright, but falsely.

[Nbadan]

Kids are educated alright, but falsely.

:lol

[boutons_deux]

tax cuts for criminal billionaires, food cuts for poor innocent kids, you right-wingers are true Christians.

[RandomGuy]

It is not surprising that the lambs should bear a grudge against the great birds of prey, but that is no reason for blaming the great birds of prey for taking the little lambs. And when the lambs say among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and he who least resembles a bird of prey, who is rather its opposite, a lamb,—should he not be good?" then there is nothing to carp with in this ideal's establishment, though the birds of prey may regard it a little mockingly, and maybe say to themselves, "We bear no grudge against them, these good lambs, we even love them: nothing is tastier than a tender lamb."

You have been, and are, the victim of a very effective propaganda campaign about how wealth is accumulated:


The Rules of the Game

The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?


The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/rulesofthegame327_001.jpg
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.

The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the institutional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].
The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.

For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).

I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.

and where the wealth is:

QPKKQnijnsM


I can't blame you for believing the lies. They are very convincing.

Once you set aside the emotional attractiveness they have for you, and take a hard look at them rationally and logically, you might think differently.

Your dogma is just that, dogma. It can and should be questioned. If you are not questioning it, and testing your beliefs with evidence, then you are doing yourself a deep disservice. As much as I have been hurtful to you at times, you deserve better.

[RandomGuy]

iIhOXCgSunc

[AntiChrist]

Lol, we just aren't taxing and spending enough

[boutons_deux]

Lol, we just aren't taxing and spending enough

exactly

[AntiChrist]

I pay 25% in taxes. Not enough?

[RandomGuy]

Lol, we just aren't taxing and spending enough

Pretty much.

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/

Estimated investment needed by 2020:
$3,600,000,000,000

Conservative rebuttal that you will like:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2013/04/01/infrastructure-gap-look-at-the-facts-we-spend-more-than-europe/

and why that rebuttal is stupid and misleading, in at least one area, and I will leave a bunch of other faults out:
http://goeurope.about.com/od/europeanmaps/l/bl-country-size-comparison-map.htm

You will have to read both to figure out what I mean. Feel free to post more bullshit out of that forbes article that you think are valid points, and I will be happy to trash it for the bullshit it is. What you fuckers pass off as unquestionable dogma can be shockingly idiotic at times, and this guys lame attempt at countering the argument for more infrastructure spending is very representative of that.

Do you feel lucky, punk, well do ya? Go ahead, make my day.

[RandomGuy]

I pay 25% in taxes. Not enough?

Nope. Sorry if actually sacrificing something for greater good is alien to you.

We have become a nation of selfish, narrow minded twats. Previous generations sacrificed their lives for the common good, and we bitch about not having enough money for $10 cups of coffee.

[boutons_deux]

I pay 25% in taxes. Not enough?

There's a big world outside of your self-centered myopia.

[vy65]

Nope. Sorry if actually sacrificing something for greater good is alien to you.

We have become a nation of selfish, narrow minded twats. Previous generations sacrificed their lives for the common good, and we bitch about not having enough money for $10 cups of coffee.

Spending other people's money is very easy to do.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

[vy65]

Nope. Sorry if actually sacrificing something for greater good is alien to you.

We have become a nation of selfish, narrow minded twats. Previous generations sacrificed their lives for the common good, and we bitch about not having enough money for $10 cups of coffee.

The good ole days of racism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, and other core liberal values ...

[boutons_deux]

Spending other people's money is very easy to do.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

After 30 years of VRWC fucking up America, it's actually much easier for them to deny you money (lowered salary + benefits), and to extract your wealth.

[RandomGuy]

Spending other people's money is very easy to do.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, right?

So you didn't actually read what I posted, or take a few minutes to get the gist of how wealth in this country is actually distributed?

If you are asking if I am in favor of a progressive tax system, then the answer is yes, and so are you in all likelihood. If that is settled, perhaps we should talk about something constructive.

[RandomGuy]

The good ole days of racism, misogyny, ethnocentrism, and other core liberal values ...

Sorry, I don't think those are worthwhile things to strive for, either. Another point we both agree on.

Do you think that self-sacrifice for the greater good is a virtue worth having in yourself?

[vy65]

So you didn't actually read what I posted, or take a few minutes to get the gist of how wealth in this country is actually distributed?

If you are asking if I am in favor of a progressive tax system, then the answer is yes, and so are you in all likelihood. If that is settled, perhaps we should talk about something constructive.

I read and watched everything. Doesn't change my point.

What would you suggest we discuss?

[vy65]

Do you think that self-sacrifice for the greater good is a virtue worth having in yourself?

No, I don't. I think that's rife with problems and philosophically bankrupt.

[RandomGuy]

I read and watched everything. Doesn't change my point.

What would you suggest we discuss?

What point were you making exactly?

I would suggest we discuss how to address the wealth inequality in our country.

Do you think something might be amiss when 3M people own almost six times more wealth than 240 million people?

That does not strike you as a problem?

I know you pretty much hold a solid belief in "fuck the poor", but I find it hard to believe that the 240 million people who have so little are all useless shits, including yourself.

[RandomGuy]

No, I don't. I think that's rife with problems and philosophically bankrupt.

What problems?

How so?

[vy65]

What problems?

How so?

Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

Bankrupt because I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.

[vy65]

What point were you making exactly?

I would suggest we discuss how to address the wealth inequality in our country.

Do you think something might be amiss when 3M people own almost six times more wealth than 240 million people?

That does not strike you as a problem?

I know you pretty much hold a solid belief in "fuck the poor", but I find it hard to believe that the 240 million people who have so little are all useless shits, including yourself.

That it's easy to call for others to spend money on your behalf; that it's easy to spend others money; that there is a disparity in what you think is your own personal monetary "sacrifice" compared to others.

Maybe wealth inequality is a problem. Maybe it isn't. Everything you've posted pressuposes that it is without providing a reason why.

What makes you think I have so little?

[Wild Cobra]

Living wage.


food stamps are a symptom, not the problem.
Not having enough living wage jobs are a problem, but not the root problem...

[101A]

What point were you making exactly?

I would suggest we discuss how to address the wealth inequality in our country.

Do you think something might be amiss when 3M people own almost six times more wealth than 240 million people?

That does not strike you as a problem?

I know you pretty much hold a solid belief in "fuck the poor", but I find it hard to believe that the 240 million people who have so little are all useless shits, including yourself.

Why do you presume "we" can do anything about wealth inequality? What prescription would you suggest? The most common is taxing the wealthy, but that, it seems to me, does not decrease the inequality, it just give the government more money. You could confiscate the person's wealth (Robin Hood Style), and give it to the needy (this would, obviously have to be something other than an income tax) - and that would provide a temporary lift to the poor, but, as the saying goes, you've just given a guy a fish, not taught him to catch em.

I dont' necessarily think it is a problem. The Soviet Union had very low wealth inequality; yet the poor there were more numerous, and living in worse conditions than our poor today. The poor in China today have a living standard that would be unthinkable here. It does not matter how much the rich have; there is not finite amount of wealth. The biggest problem we have right now is HOW the rich are getting rich - the financial sector; wealth manipulation, NOT wealth creation. We need to raise the capital gains tax to equal other income taxes. Remove the incentive to make money only with money, and not with ingenuity & innovation. We need modern industrialists; creating businesses, getting rich, but also creating good jobs. No time to flesh out the thoughts, but you get the gist...

[RandomGuy]

Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

Bankrupt because I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.

I think we can collectively decide what constitutes sacrifice. I would not, though, quantify higher capital gains taxes on that massive pile of money as much of a "sacrifice".

240 million people are filth?

Define "poor".

[Wild Cobra]

I would suggest we discuss how to address the wealth inequality in our country.
When I see people use such debate tactics, it comes across to me like a child crying because the sibling got more of something, or that someone else's child has something the parent cannot or will not buy.

Childish jealousy...

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. Do you believe that when someone has more, it's because they took a larger share of something? What about the times that the whole is larger because wealth was created by these people at the top?



Do you think something might be amiss when 3M people own almost six times more wealth than 240 million people?

Yes.

We have too many people who don't strive to be wealthy.

Not saying everyone can be, but seriously. Too many people simply don't apply themselves. Then lock and connections count too. They are not the problem however. Personal motivation is. The only problem I see that the government could fix if they desired to is the trade imbalance. That is the root cause of our labor needs and wages.

[DeadlyDynasty]

You're lucky this isn't 1919 RG, or the government would have silenced you.

[vy65]

I think we can collectively decide what constitutes sacrifice. I would not, though, quantify higher capital gains taxes on that massive pile of money as much of a "sacrifice".

240 million people are filth?

Define "poor".

Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?

It's well and good to speak of some abstract "social-compact" about what level of monetary sacrifice each citizen makes. I'm much more interested in hearing about how the sausage is made.

Why wouldn't you classify higher capital gains tax as a sacrifice? If I earn money, decide to invest it strategically in certain stock, why should I be penalized for that? More to the point, why are other's entitled to benefit from my sound investments?

Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth

[vy65]

I think we can collectively decide what constitutes sacrifice. I would not, though, quantify higher capital gains taxes on that massive pile of money as much of a "sacrifice".

240 million people are filth?

Define "poor".

More to the point, why is wealth inequality bad?

[RandomGuy]

That it's easy to call for others to spend money on your behalf; that it's easy to spend others money; that there is a disparity in what you think is your own personal monetary "sacrifice" compared to others.

Maybe wealth inequality is a problem. Maybe it isn't. Everything you've posted pressuposes that it is without providing a reason why.

What makes you think I have so little?

Sure it's an easy call to spend other's money. It is also an easy call to catch a baby falling from a 2nd story window. It is very easy to take a higher % of high capital incomes, given how those incomes are often 1,000 to 10,000 times larger than what is required to ssustain a family of four for a year.

Easy or hard, is beside the point, what matters is what is right and moral.

It is a problem, because it takes away personal investment in society, and contributes to the very listnessness and hopelessness that causes people to behave the way you so despise.


Shiller, an economist famous for having warned about bubbles in technology stocks and housing, said inequality has been worsening for decades. He said he supports having a contingency plan in place now to raise taxes on the rich if inequality gets worse.

"The most important problem that we are facing now today, I think, is rising inequality in the United States and elsewhere in the world," Shiller said.


It becomes bad, because as wealth and income become more concentrated, the economy suffers from much slower growth, and you get cycles of poverty, and more human misery in general.

If, though, you don't care about human misery, I guess that isn't a problem. Are you a sociopath? I would assume not. I don't know how much or how little wealth you might have, but am merely playing the odds. Feel free to put yourself in whatever category you want. That category will still have only a tiny % of the wealth the richest .4% of the population has.

[RandomGuy]

You're lucky this isn't 1919 RG, or the government would have silenced you.

I agree. Thankfully this isn't 1919.

[RandomGuy]

When I see people use such debate tactics, it comes across to me like a child crying because the sibling got more of something, or that someone else's child has something the parent cannot or will not buy.

Childish jealousy...

Wealth isn't a zero sum game. Do you believe that when someone has more, it's because they took a larger share of something? What about the times that the whole is larger because wealth was created by these people at the top?



Yes.

We have too many people who don't strive to be wealthy.

Not saying everyone can be, but seriously. Too many people simply don't apply themselves. Then lock and connections count too. They are not the problem however. Personal motivation is. The only problem I see that the government could fix if they desired to is the trade imbalance. That is the root cause of our labor needs and wages.

It isn't childish jealousy.

It is an acknowledgement of the fact that it is very cheap to provide for sustainment of human life. Food, shelter, clothes, medicine. Once you meet a certain threshold, each new dollar of income spent simply buys better upgrades.

Past that, the hyper-wealthy have more than even they can spend on such things. They have, in essence absorbed so much capital wealth that it is really stagnating the economy.

If your moral system is predicated on doing as little harm as possible to people with whatever system you choose to employ, larger progressive taxes on such large incomes are pretty logical choices.

[RandomGuy]

Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?

It's well and good to speak of some abstract "social-compact" about what level of monetary sacrifice each citizen makes. I'm much more interested in hearing about how the sausage is made.

Why wouldn't you classify higher capital gains tax as a sacrifice? If I earn money, decide to invest it strategically in certain stock, why should I be penalized for that? More to the point, why are other's entitled to benefit from my sound investments?

Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth

What about the people not on the government dole?

The working poor and middle class beyond that have almost no wealth accumulated either, as the video noted. The bottom 60% own almost nothing. Sorry.

Are they filth too?

What do we do with this filth?

[vy65]

Sure it's an easy call to spend other's money. It is also an easy call to catch a baby falling from a 2nd story window. It is very easy to take a higher % of high capital incomes, given how those incomes are often 1,000 to 10,000 times larger than what is required to ssustain a family of four for a year.

You're missing the point. Why are others entitled to a share of, for example, capital gains? You're right that some who invest properly can make out quite handsomely with appreciation, dividends, etc... But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about a basic point you haven't supported: why are other's entitled to my money?


Easy or hard, is beside the point, what matters is what is right and moral.

Who's morals? Those aren't my morals. Are they yours? How do you determine what is or is not


It is a problem, because it takes away personal investment in society, and contributes to the very listnessness and hopelessness that causes people to behave the way you so despise.

It becomes bad, because as wealth and income become more concentrated, the economy suffers from much slower growth, and you get cycles of poverty, and more human misery in general.

These are claims without warrants. What is "personal investment in society?" How is that decreased with wealth inequality? What quantifiable impact does wealth inequality have on the economy (vs. other facts)? What evidence do you have of this point? What is your solution?


If, though, you don't care about human misery, I guess that isn't a problem. Are you a sociopath? I would assume not. I don't know how much or how little wealth you might have, but am merely playing the odds. Feel free to put yourself in whatever category you want. That category will still have only a tiny % of the wealth the richest .4% of the population has.

Do you know what a sociopath is? Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money that they can use on their broods of failure or they drugs and alcohol?

By no means am I in the 1%. I do feel that I am disproportionately taxed - meaning that I overpay for the amount of services I receive from the contract as compared to others in my age group.

[vy65]

What about the people not on the government dole?

What about them?


The working poor and middle class beyond that have almost no wealth accumulated either, as the video noted. The bottom 60% own almost nothing. Sorry.

Their problem, not mine. Sorry.


Are they filth too?

What do we do with this filth?

Probably.

Leave them to their own devices.

You never answered any of these questions:


Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?

It's well and good to speak of some abstract "social-compact" about what level of monetary sacrifice each citizen makes. I'm much more interested in hearing about how the sausage is made.

Why wouldn't you classify higher capital gains tax as a sacrifice? If I earn money, decide to invest it strategically in certain stock, why should I be penalized for that? More to the point, why are other's entitled to benefit from my sound investments?

[RandomGuy]

Why do you presume "we" can do anything about wealth inequality? What prescription would you suggest? The most common is taxing the wealthy, but that, it seems to me, does not decrease the inequality, it just give the government more money. You could confiscate the person's wealth (Robin Hood Style), and give it to the needy (this would, obviously have to be something other than an income tax) - and that would provide a temporary lift to the poor, but, as the saying goes, you've just given a guy a fish, not taught him to catch em.

I dont' necessarily think it is a problem. The Soviet Union had very low wealth inequality; yet the poor there were more numerous, and living in worse conditions than our poor today. The poor in China today have a living standard that would be unthinkable here. It does not matter how much the rich have; there is not finite amount of wealth. The biggest problem we have right now is HOW the rich are getting rich - the financial sector; wealth manipulation, NOT wealth creation. We need to raise the capital gains tax to equal other income taxes. Remove the incentive to make money only with money, and not with ingenuity & innovation. We need modern industrialists; creating businesses, getting rich, but also creating good jobs. No time to flesh out the thoughts, but you get the gist...

Does the government keep the money that goes into its coffers?

Watch the video I posted earlier. We are so far from any distribution that anyone would consider "optimal" it is sad.

As I have pointed out, those with the money can afford good propaganda, and it is so very effective as a marketing tool for their agenda because it taps into the aspirational streak we all have.

http://www.salesopedia.com/glossary?func=view&catid=13&term=aspirational+reference+group

We all want to be, or think we have a chance to be, rich. Our system is simply not structured to make that happen.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure it's an easy call to spend other's money.
It theft. Legal or not.

Immoral.


It is also an easy call to catch a baby falling from a 2nd story window.
Not everyone would.



It is very easy to take a higher % of high capital incomes, given how those incomes are often 1,000 to 10,000 times larger than what is required to ssustain a family of four for a year.

Are you blind to the repercussions? You know the concept of "cause and effect", right?

The more you tax capital income, the less capital income will be created.




Easy or hard, is beside the point, what matters is what is right and moral.

Since when do we legislate based on some people's views of morality? Are you so pampas that you *know* you are right? I guess you are for banning abortion based on morality then... Is that correct Rush?




It is a problem, because it takes away personal investment in society, and contributes to the very listnessness and hopelessness that causes people to behave the way you so despise.

Are you suggesting other people's behavior is the fault of others that they never met?

Wow... Just wow...




It becomes bad, because as wealth and income become more concentrated, the economy suffers from much slower growth, and you get cycles of poverty, and more human misery in general.

Bullshit.

Inequity of income is a symptom from the some of the same factors that cause poverty. Inequity is not the cause.




If, though, you don't care about human misery, I guess that isn't a problem.
Most people do care. Do you have a solution that doesn't compound the existing problems? If you think you do by redistributing wealth, then you are dead wrong.



Are you a sociopath?
No, but you are not thinking things out. What does that make you?



I don't know how much or how little wealth you might have, but am merely playing the odds. Feel free to put yourself in whatever category you want. That category will still have only a tiny % of the wealth the richest .4% of the population has.


And this matters... why?

[Wild Cobra]

We all want to be, or think we have a chance to be, rich. Our system is simply not structured to make that happen.

Who blew that BS up your skirt?

We all have the opportunity for the chance to be rich. It takes applying one's self, and luck. Intelligence, motivation, and other factors apply too.

Don't expect anyone why doesn't feel dirty taking government social programs, to ever be in such a catagory by merit.

[RandomGuy]

What about them?



Their problem, not mine. Sorry.



Probably.

Leave them to their own devices.

You never answered any of these questions:

"Their problem not mine".

It is your problem. Their lack of wealth and income affects you, and reduces your wealth and income.

If you can't see how these things are interrelated, you should take a few more economics courses. They are very closely intertwined.

That is the prime failure of libertarianism in general: a lack of realization of the interrelatedness of individuals in societies.

[boutons_deux]

Who blew that BS up your skirt?

We all have the opportunity for the chance to be rich. It takes applying one's self, and luck. Intelligence, motivation, and other factors apply too.

Don't expect anyone why doesn't feel dirty taking government social programs, to ever be in such a catagory by merit.

what stinking hot pile of Ayn Randian fantasy bullshit.

[vy65]

We all want to be, or think we have a chance to be, rich. Our system is simply not structured to make that happen.

This is such complete and utter bullshit that it's mindblowing.

This is exactly how people expunge any sense of self-responsibility. And this is how so many people develop a sense of entitlement.

This type of thinking needs to die.

[RandomGuy]

Who blew that BS up your skirt?

We all have the opportunity for the chance to be rich. It takes applying one's self, and luck. Intelligence, motivation, and other factors apply too.

Don't expect anyone why doesn't feel dirty taking government social programs, to ever be in such a catagory by merit.

The US has less wealth mobility than any other western industrialized country. If you are born poor, you will stay that way. If you are born in the middle class, you will stay there. That is the odds.

It isn't impossible to improve your economic outcome, just less probable here than in places with more socialism. Stings doesn't it?

[vy65]

"Their problem not mine".

It is your problem. Their lack of wealth and income affects you, and reduces your wealth and income.

How? Be specific. I want to know, with specifics, how my wealth and income has been effected. Numbers would be great.


If you can't see how these things are interrelated, you should take a few more economics courses. They are very closely intertwined.

That is the prime failure of libertarianism in general: a lack of realization of the interrelatedness of individuals in societies.

Too busy taking classes that help me in the real world.

How what things are interrelated? You're losing track of the conversation here.

I have no inter-relation to anyone. I am my own island. You've thrown out some grand concepts here with the talks of morals and inter-relatedness.

I'm fine with yours being a moral argument, but you have to accept that there are strong currents of opposition to your morals. If its an economic argument, I'm not seeing the support for it so far.

[Wild Cobra]

"Their problem not mine".

It is your problem. Their lack of wealth and income affects you, and reduces your wealth and income.


Yes. I agree with this. But you are full of bullshit to claim it is the wealth inequity that is the problem. People are not poor due to other people being rich. People are poor for several reason. These include, but are not limited to lack of available jobs and bad habits related to responsibility.

[RandomGuy]

This is such complete and utter bullshit that it's mindblowing.

This is exactly how people expunge any sense of self-responsibility. And this is how so many people develop a sense of entitlement.

This type of thinking needs to die.

That would be a lot more credible if you could actually address the concept of self-sustaining cycles with more than hand-waving.

I would say the sense of entitlement is fostered by the very inequality you don't seem to care about. If you wan to solve that, you need to solve the inequality.

Feel free to address the things I have actually put forth.




The Rules of the Game

The path dependence dynamic accelerates when, as in the U.S., investment returns (capital gains and dividends) are taxed less than wages. Why would that be? The argument is that taxes discourage "investment" (which is often not investment at all, but speculation or gambling). However, why have higher taxes on wages to discourage work even more than investment?


The answer: The "Rules of the Game" are fixed. The old saying, "He who has the gold rules." is true. John Sterman describes this self-reinforcing feedback process in Business Dynamics, Systems Thinking for a Complex World:

http://www.exponentialimprovement.com/cms/uploads/rulesofthegame327_001.jpg
The "Rules of the Game" evolve to favor those with wealth & power to give them even more wealth & power.

The larger and more successful an organization, the more it can influence the institutional and political context in which it operates. Large organizations can change the rules of the game in their favor, leading to still more success-and more power. [The Figure at right] shows the resulting golden rule loop R1].
The golden rule loop manifests in many forms. Through campaign contributions and lobbying, large firms and their trade associations can shape legislation and public policy to give them favorable tax treatment, subsidies for their activities, protection for their markets, price guarantees, and exemptions from liability.
Through overlapping boards, the revolving door between industry and government, and control of media outlets, influential and powerful organizations gain even more influence and power. In nations without a tradition of democratic government, these loops lead to self-perpetuating oligarchies where a tightly knit elite controls a huge share of the nation's wealth and income while the vast majority of people remain impoverished (e.g., the Philippines under Marcos, Indonesia under Suharto, and countless others). T
he elite further consolidates its control by subsidizing the military and secret police and buying high-tech weaponry and technical assistance from the developed world to keep the restive masses in check. Even in nations with strong democratic traditions these positive loops can overwhelm the checks and balances designed to ensure government of, by, and for the people.

For more on how the system is biased toward the wealthy: Free Lunch: How the Wealthiest Americans Enrich Themselves at Government Expense (and Stick You with the Bill) by David Cay Johnston (2007).

I've lost all hope of trying to convince such ideologues. No amount of facts and logic will suffice to penetrate such strong ideological blindness. The worldview that sees only individuals, in which they've invested so much, would collapse.

Yes or no:

Do the wealthy have more resources to affect rules in their favor?

[vy65]

That would be a lot more credible if you could actually address the concept of self-sustaining cycles with more than hand-waving.

I would say the sense of entitlement is fostered by the very inequality you don't seem to care about. If you wan to solve that, you need to solve the inequality.

Feel free to address the things I have actually put forth.

My parents came here from a country in the middle of a civil war. They had no money. Dad worked his ass off and thirty years later, he would be considered wealthy.

Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. do you?




Yes or no:

Do the wealthy have more resources to affect rules in their favor?

Absolutely yes. Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?

[Wild Cobra]

The US has less wealth mobility than any other western industrialized country. If you are born poor, you will stay that way. If you are born in the middle class, you will stay there. That is the odds.

It isn't impossible to improve your economic outcome, just less probable here than in places with more socialism. Stings doesn't it?
If you say so.

I think you are blind to the cultural differences. In other countries, Parents of humble surroundings instill their children to reach for the stars. Most parents of humble surroundings here just blame everyone else, and tell their kids they will never get ahead. Your parents obviously blew that BS up your skirt. So do many other parents.

Do you think the disruptive kids in schools, that get no effective punishment will break out of their parents mold? Just one example. We used to punish, expel, flunk, etc. to kids in schools, and poor kids could become millionaires. It starts by the values we instill in people at a young age.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. I agree with this. But you are full of bullshit to claim it is the wealth inequity that is the problem. People are not poor due to other people being rich. People are poor for several reason. These include, but are not limited to lack of available jobs and bad habits related to responsibility.

People are in general worse off, because so much wealth is sitting around doing nothing.

[RandomGuy]

My parents came here from a country in the middle of a civil war. They had no money. Dad worked his ass off and thirty years later, he would be considered wealthy.

Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. do you?

Absolutely yes. Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?

So the wealthy have more money to write rules in their favor. We agree on that.

Next question:

Do the rules that get written in favor of the wealthy give them more wealth that without the rules?

[vy65]

People are in general worse off, because so much wealth is sitting around doing nothing.

This may very well be true.

However, that is not a reason why wealth inequality, as such, is problematic.

There are a number of other factors that prevent the re-investment of such money. One of which (one that I think has more to do with anything else) is volatility in capital markets.

[vy65]

So the wealthy have more money to write rules in their favor. We agree on that.

Next question:

Do the rules that get written in favor of the wealthy give them more wealth that without the rules?

I don't know how to answer this without knowing: 1) what are these rules you're talking about? 2) which entity is writing them (are we talking about laws drafted by congress? economic rules? social mores? what?) 3) what does it mean to be wealthy?

I'm also confused as to how these rules "give" wealth? Is it like some sort of rich welfare?

I don't see the point in talking about these types of generalities, specifically when you fail to answer a number of questions and points I've raised.

[vy65]

So the wealthy have more money to write rules in their favor. We agree on that.

And that's not even what we agree upon - we agreed upon affecting these "rules," not writing them. Don't mis-characterize my point.

[Wild Cobra]

People are in general worse off, because so much wealth is sitting around doing nothing.
It isn't doing nothing. Rich people don't keep it in their mattresses. Most is invested in some manner.

Where does the money come for you to borrow when buying a car, house, etc?

[Wild Cobra]

So the wealthy have more money to write rules in their favor. We agree on that.

Next question:

Do the rules that get written in favor of the wealthy give them more wealth that without the rules?

They do if we keep electing politicians that stab us in the back.

[vy65]

Why do you presume "we" can do anything about wealth inequality? What prescription would you suggest? The most common is taxing the wealthy, but that, it seems to me, does not decrease the inequality, it just give the government more money. You could confiscate the person's wealth (Robin Hood Style), and give it to the needy (this would, obviously have to be something other than an income tax) - and that would provide a temporary lift to the poor, but, as the saying goes, you've just given a guy a fish, not taught him to catch em.

I dont' necessarily think it is a problem. The Soviet Union had very low wealth inequality; yet the poor there were more numerous, and living in worse conditions than our poor today. The poor in China today have a living standard that would be unthinkable here. It does not matter how much the rich have; there is not finite amount of wealth. The biggest problem we have right now is HOW the rich are getting rich - the financial sector; wealth manipulation, NOT wealth creation. We need to raise the capital gains tax to equal other income taxes. Remove the incentive to make money only with money, and not with ingenuity & innovation. We need modern industrialists; creating businesses, getting rich, but also creating good jobs. No time to flesh out the thoughts, but you get the gist...

I agree a lot with this. I don't think that "passive" investment in the stock market should be penalized. I.e., if I invest 20% of my paycheck in stocks, I don't think that I should suffer a higher (i.e., the normal) tax rate, particularly when I'm doing so as a part of my savings for retirement. The way I'm looking at it, I'm providing for my own social security down the line by saving money now. I shouldn't be penalized for that.

I do agree that there are problems with the shenanigans played by bankers, traders, etc... that manipulate the market and fuck with things generally. I don't think that should be rewarded.

The problem is: I don't see how you can have the one without the other.

[Th'Pusher]

If its an economic argument, I'm not seeing the support for it so far.

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm

[SnakeBoy]

Nope. Sorry if actually sacrificing something for greater good is alien to you.

We have become a nation of selfish, narrow minded twats. Previous generations sacrificed their lives for the common good, and we bitch about not having enough money for $10 cups of coffee.

How much more do you think YOUR taxes should be raised?

[vy65]

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/2011/09/berg.htm

Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.

One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Why do you presume "we" can do anything about wealth inequality? What prescription would you suggest? The most common is taxing the wealthy, but that, it seems to me, does not decrease the inequality, it just give the government more money. You could confiscate the person's wealth (Robin Hood Style), and give it to the needy (this would, obviously have to be something other than an income tax) - and that would provide a temporary lift to the poor, but, as the saying goes, you've just given a guy a fish, not taught him to catch em.

I dont' necessarily think it is a problem. The Soviet Union had very low wealth inequality; yet the poor there were more numerous, and living in worse conditions than our poor today. The poor in China today have a living standard that would be unthinkable here. It does not matter how much the rich have; there is not finite amount of wealth. The biggest problem we have right now is HOW the rich are getting rich - the financial sector; wealth manipulation, NOT wealth creation. We need to raise the capital gains tax to equal other income taxes. Remove the incentive to make money only with money, and not with ingenuity & innovation. We need modern industrialists; creating businesses, getting rich, but also creating good jobs. No time to flesh out the thoughts, but you get the gist...

I agree 100% about the government incentivizing cap gains income over regular income, but to say that wealth inequality in our country isn't necessarily a problem is asinine. You've made it clear you're not a fan of giving a man a fish since it only feeds him for a day (a legitimate argument), but you conveniently ignored the second half of the saying. Are you trying to say that not giving a man a fish is going to automatically teach him how to fish, or are you saying we should tax the rich more but invest in education rather than food stamps? If it's the latter, I agree.

I also don't think giving Lockheed-Martin $40B a year in government contracts for tanks that sit in a military parking lot is teaching it how to fish, but people who argue austerity never seem to mind that for whatever reason.

[Wild Cobra]

Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.

One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?
I only read the first paragraph. I agree with at least that much of it.

[RandomGuy]

Interesting. I'll consider it more when I have a chance to read it closely.

One thing does pop out right off the bat: are comparisons of income inequality in emerging and/or third world economies similar/analogous to the US? If so, why?

It is closely wrapped up in the marginal propensity to spend and the velocity of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Investments, sitting in investment accounts don't do much for GDP or growth.

Give people at the lower end of the spectrum more money, and they tend to spend it. Once they spend it, it moves around from merchant, to vendor, to worker, etc.

The answer to your question is:

Sort of. The question is, given the research, not very applicable to what they were doing, as there is no specific direct comparison made.

[RandomGuy]

Do you know what a sociopath is? Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money that they can use on their broods of failure or they drugs and alcohol?

By no means am I in the 1%. I do feel that I am disproportionately taxed - meaning that I overpay for the amount of services I receive from the contract as compared to others in my age group.

"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

Ignore them? Let them starve because their parents are bad people?

The costs of poverty weigh heavily against ignoring them:


Are Food Insecurity’s Health Impacts Underestimated in the U.S. Population? Marginal Food Insecurity Also Predicts Adverse Health Outcomes in U.S. Children and Mothers.
January 1, 2013Advances in Nutrition

WIC Participation and Attenuation of Stress-Related Child Health Risks of Household Food Insecurity and Caregiver Depressive Symptoms
May 1, 2012Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/publication-category/peer-articles/

You tell me what your solution is, and maybe we can see if we can find agreement. I am always open to better public policy.

[vy65]

It is closely wrapped up in the marginal propensity to spend and the velocity of money.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marginal_propensity_to_consume

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Investments, sitting in investment accounts don't do much for GDP or growth.

Give people at the lower end of the spectrum more money, and they tend to spend it. Once they spend it, it moves around from merchant, to vendor, to worker, etc.

The answer to your question is:

Sort of. The question is, given the research, not very applicable to what they were doing, as there is no specific direct comparison made.

Rereading the article, there is no support for the claim that income inequality stalls economic growth. At best, the article suggests there is a correlation (and not causation) between economic inequality and hiccups in economic growth. Considering the fact that the study concerned emerging third world economies and considering the fact that the article concedes that other factors (mainly political economy) also affect growth, I have a hard time believing inequality of wealth is a cause of slow/no growth as opposed to being a symptom of an underlying political social dynamic.

I see what you're trying to argue, but I think that wiki articles defining economic terms do not support the claims you're trying to make.

As it stands, I still don't see the data or support for the claim that the amount of wealth inequality in the US is problematic.

[vy65]

"Broods of failure"

Funny way to talk about children.

What is your solution for the children of this "filth"?

Ignore them? Let them starve because their parents are bad people?

The costs of poverty weigh heavily against ignoring them:


Are Food Insecurity’s Health Impacts Underestimated in the U.S. Population? Marginal Food Insecurity Also Predicts Adverse Health Outcomes in U.S. Children and Mothers.
January 1, 2013Advances in Nutrition

WIC Participation and Attenuation of Stress-Related Child Health Risks of Household Food Insecurity and Caregiver Depressive Symptoms
May 1, 2012Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine

http://www.childrenshealthwatch.org/publication-category/peer-articles/

You tell me what your solution is, and maybe we can see if we can find agreement. I am always open to better public policy.

Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

[vy65]

Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. Do you?

Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?


Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?

It's well and good to speak of some abstract "social-compact" about what level of monetary sacrifice each citizen makes. I'm much more interested in hearing about how the sausage is made.

Still waiting for an answer ...

[DeadlyDynasty]

Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

This. Not all living things are sacred. Not our fault these poor people shit out kids left and right.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

The party that wants to restrict abortion can't stand on the social darwinism platform tbh.

[vy65]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

[AntiChrist]

It is true that progressives are very generous with OPM.

[pgardn]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

By discussing views one does have a tendency to align with a particular political party.
Not on every detail, but in general.

[boutons_deux]

Don't think anyone is talking about political parties. I know I'm not.

everything is politics, so you're not in the conversation, and too fucking stupid to know it.

[vy65]

everything is politics, so you're not in the conversation, and too fucking stupid to know it.

The personal is the political =|= the republican or Democratic Party. Only you would be too fucking stupid to know the difference.

[RandomGuy]

Rereading the article, there is no support for the claim that income inequality stalls economic growth. At best, the article suggests there is a correlation (and not causation) between economic inequality and hiccups in economic growth. Considering the fact that the study concerned emerging third world economies and considering the fact that the article concedes that other factors (mainly political economy) also affect growth, I have a hard time believing inequality of wealth is a cause of slow/no growth as opposed to being a symptom of an underlying political social dynamic.

I see what you're trying to argue, but I think that wiki articles defining economic terms do not support the claims you're trying to make.

As it stands, I still don't see the data or support for the claim that the amount of wealth inequality in the US is problematic.

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

[RandomGuy]

Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

Ah, the immoral, irrational, un-American solution.

You are too ignorant, and too evil to argue with.

Now I remember why I thought you were a neo-nazi. There is little doubt in my mind, you would have been goosestepping with that lot if you were alive in Europe in the 1940s.

I'm going to go ahead and put you on the ignore list, with mouses trolls. Please fuck off.

[vy65]

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

We're talking past each other.

I don't disagree with the scenario you've laid out -- I think it makes intuitive sense. However, I don't think that your anecdote substantiates the claim that wealth inequality is bad for the economy. That's because you're assuming that rich people won't spend their money in the same way that poor people would. Isn't that why you think redistribution is a good thing for economic growth: take money from rich hoarders to poor spenders and poof, more money is being cycled through the economy.

I don't see any proof for that assumption (if it is in fact your assumption). Rich people spend money too -- they just spend it on shit like cars and yachts and jets. And poor people save money. I don't think overarching generalizations like "poor people tend to spend" are productive because they're gross generalizations without much, if any, proof.

And all of this has nothing to do with the article -- which is the only piece of evidence for your claim. I still don't see the relevance of wealth disparity in third world economies to the US.

[vy65]

Ah, the immoral, irrational, un-American solution.

You are too ignorant, and too evil to argue with.

Now I remember why I thought you were a neo-nazi. There is little doubt in my mind, you would have been goosestepping with that lot if you were alive in Europe in the 1940s.

I'm going to go ahead and put you on the ignore list, with mouses trolls. Please fuck off.

Again, who's morals? Your morals are not universal, and your sanctimonious soapboxing doesn't give you a monopoly on determining what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that you resort to "but but but you're a nazi . . ." when someone questions your morals just goes to show how weak minded and feeble you truly are.

Lol threatening me with your ignore list. Like I give a fucking shit. Is that supposed to be a threat? Should I feel bad about that? Why the fuck do I care if some mediocre accountant reads shit I post on the internet when I'm bored?

[pgardn]

Sew it all together.

GDP is measured by economic activity.

I get a dollar, I spend it on a taco, the taco guy uses that to buy tortillas, the grocery store uses that to pay the electricity, the electric company pays its workers who buy tacos... etc.

That one dollar given to me, has in the course of a year, become purchased goods and services for each person it passes through. If all of the above transactions took place in a year, that would be five dollars worth of GDP.

Combine that with the fact that poorer people have a higher propensity to spend, for a variety of reasons that have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol, and you have the mechanism that explains the correlation noted in the study.

I provided the wiki articles to provide some conceptual framework from which to view this.

This is interesting.

So is there a list of basic goods and services that are thought to be "recycled" in more steps thus possibly having more of an impact on the economy?

And it seems to me that the more diversified your consumers are, the likely hood of stimulating many sectors of the economy vs. stimulating yacht building and slip rental. But this may be an incorrect assumption.

[pgardn]

Again, who's morals? Your morals are not universal, and your sanctimonious soapboxing doesn't give you a monopoly on determining what is right and what is wrong.

The fact that you resort to "but but but you're a nazi . . ." when someone questions your morals just goes to show how weak minded and feeble you truly are.

Lol threatening me with your ignore list. Like I give a fucking shit. Is that supposed to be a threat? Should I feel bad about that? Why the fuck do I care if some mediocre accountant reads shit I post on the internet when I'm bored?

There are some types of behavior that arise from morals that aid in societies functioning in a more harmonious manner.

The ole

dont steal
dont kill
dont screw your neighbors wife

just basic behaviors that help people get along... Heard of these?

[RandomGuy]

This is interesting.

So is there a list of goods and services that are thought to be "recycled" in more steps thus possibly having more of an impact on the economy?

And it seems to me that the more diversified your consumers are, the likely hood of stimulating many sectors of the economy vs. stimulating yacht building and slip rental. But this may be an incorrect assumption.

It isn't the goods and services that are recycled, it is the money itself that cycles through the system.

Each dollar that is paid each year becomes part of the GDP count.

The money that sits in static investments of the hyperwealthy sits there, unmoving. That is one of the reasons/arguments used to support the assertion that wealth concentration drags economic growth.

[boutons_deux]

sociopath I'm-an-island, Rugged Individual VY said: "substantiates the claim that wealth inequality is bad for the economy."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/17/income-inequalitys-negative-effect-economy_n_1099135.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality-on-society-2011-11

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs/economic-intelligence/2013/09/12/record-high-income-inequality-threatens-us-growth

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/21/business/economy/tolerance-for-income-gap-may-be-ebbing-economic-scene.html?_r=0

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/daily_videos/scientists-study-the-negative-effects-of-income-inequality/

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/how-inequality-hurts-the-economy-11162011.html

The French Revolution "aux barricades les enfants de la liberte!" was the 99% KILLING the 1% represented by the amalgam of the Royalty/landed class with the corrupt, wealthy Catholic Church.

[pgardn]

It isn't the goods and services that are recycled, it is the money itself that cycles through the system.

Each dollar that is paid each year becomes part of the GDP count.

The money that sits in static investments of the hyperwealthy sits there, unmoving. That is one of the reasons/arguments used to support the assertion that wealth concentration drags economic growth.

Yes. Sorry, I get that.

So are there basic goods and services whose associated dollars are recycled through more steps?
Do economists have some list of basic items?

[RandomGuy]

There are some types of behavior that arise from morals that aid in societies functioning in a more harmonious manner.

The ole

dont steal
dont kill
dont screw your neighbors wife

just basic behaviors that help people get along... Heard of these?

My morals are based on reason and empathy.

I don't wish children to starve to death because their parents are horrible people. I empathize with them in that regard.

Using simple reasoning, I can tell you that capital comes in all forms, including human capital.

Throwing away the children of poor people is wasting capital that can be developed. It is akin to simply cutting down a forest and leaving it to rot. Invest in the capability to convert that forest into wood and finished products and you are better off economically.

Similar arguments can be made for investing in the children of poor people. You can either be an evil fuck who wants to see these children starve to death, or you can realize that they are simply undeveloped capital.

I have both reason and empathy guiding that choice. The moral thing is to help them.

As for social darwinism, I don't have to bother rebutting it. It is held as generally logically flawed and immoral, and others have already done so.


Criticism and controversy

Logical fallacy
Social Darwinism is widely accused of committing serious logical fallacies. The most prominent of these is the naturalistic fallacy, which is the mistaken assumption that whatever is natural must therefore be good. Thus, critics maintain that regardless of whether social Darwinism has its foundation built on natural facts - regardless of whether there is indeed a category of humans who could be considered 'fittest' in natural selection terms - the arguments of social Darwinism are built on illogical reasoning that requires us to believe something is good only because it is natural. Critics hold that many aspects of life in nature would in fact be harmful to human civilization if they were adopted into modern politics, and they argue that the process of natural selection is one of these.

Multiple incompatible definitions
Social Darwinism has many definitions, and some of them are incompatible with each other. As such, social Darwinism has been criticized for being an inconsistent philosophy, which does not lead to any clear political conclusions. For example, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics states:
Part of the difficulty in establishing sensible and consistent usage is that commitment to the biology of natural selection and to 'survival of the fittest' entailed nothing uniform either for sociological method or for political doctrine. A 'social Darwinist' could just as well be a defender of laissez-faire as a defender of state socialism, just as much an imperialist as a domestic eugenist.[39]

Nazism, eugenics, fascism, imperialism
Social Darwinism was part of the ideological foundations of Nazism and other fascist movements. However, this form of social Darwinism is different from the laissez-faire version, because it does not envision survival of the fittest within an individualist order of society, but rather advocates a type of racial and national struggle where the state directs human breeding through eugenics.[40] Names such as "Darwinian collectivism" or "Reform Darwinism" have been suggested to describe these views, in order to differentiate them from the individualist type of social Darwinism.[1]
Some pre-twentieth century doctrines subsequently described as social Darwinism appear to anticipate state imposed eugenics [1] and the race doctrines of Nazism. Critics have frequently linked evolution, Charles Darwin and social Darwinism with racialism, nationalism, imperialism and eugenics, contending that social Darwinism became one of the pillars of fascism and Nazi ideology, and that the consequences of the application of policies of "survival of the fittest" by Nazi Germany eventually created a very strong backlash against the theory.[41][42]
As mentioned above, social Darwinism has often been linked to nationalism and imperialism.[43] During the age of New Imperialism, the concepts of evolution justified the exploitation of "lesser breeds without the law" by "superior races."[43] To elitists, strong nations were composed of white people who were successful at expanding their empires, and as such, these strong nations would survive in the struggle for dominance.[43] With this attitude, Europeans, except for Christian missionaries, seldom adopted the customs and languages of local people under their empires.[43]

Peter Kropotkin - Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution
Peter Kropotkin argued in his 1902 book Mutual Aid: A Factor of Evolution that Darwin did not define the fittest as the strongest, or most clever, but recognized that the fittest could be those who cooperated with each other. In many animal societies, "struggle is replaced by co-operation."
It may be that at the outset Darwin himself was not fully aware of the generality of the factor which he first invoked for explaining one series only of facts relative to the accumulation of individual variations in incipient species. But he foresaw that the term [evolution] which he was introducing into science would lose its philosophical and its only true meaning if it were to be used in its narrow sense only—that of a struggle between separate individuals for the sheer means of existence. And at the very beginning of his memorable work he insisted upon the term being taken in its "large and metaphorical sense including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny." [Quoting Origin of Species, chap. iii, p. 62 of first edition.]
While he himself was chiefly using the term in its narrow sense for his own special purpose, he warned his followers against committing the error (which he seems once to have committed himself) of overrating its narrow meaning. In The Descent of Man he gave some powerful pages to illustrate its proper, wide sense. He pointed out how, in numberless animal societies, the struggle between separate individuals for the means of existence disappears, how struggle is replaced by co-operation, and how that substitution results in the development of intellectual and moral faculties which secure to the species the best conditions for survival. He intimated that in such cases the fittest are not the physically strongest, nor the cunningest, but those who learn to combine so as mutually to support each other, strong and weak alike, for the welfare of the community. "Those communities," he wrote, "which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring" (2nd edit., p. 163). The term, which originated from the narrow Malthusian conception of competition between each and all, thus lost its narrowness in the mind of one who knew Nature.[44]
Noam Chomsky discussed briefly Kropotkin's views in a July 8, 2011 YouTube video from Renegade Economist, in which he said Kropotkin argued
...the exact opposite [of Social Darwinism]. He argued that on Darwinian grounds, you would expect cooperation and mutual aid to develop leading towards community, workers' control and so on. Well, you know, he didn't prove his point. It's at least as well argued as Herbert Spencer is...[45]

Nazi Germany
Nazi Germany's justification for its aggression was regularly promoted in Nazi propaganda films depicting scenes such as beetles fighting in a lab setting to demonstrate the principles of "survival of the fittest" as depicted in Alles Leben ist Kampf (English translation: All Life is Struggle). Hitler often refused to intervene in the promotion of officers and staff members, preferring instead to have them fight amongst themselves to force the "stronger" person to prevail - "strength" referring to those social forces void of virtue or principle.[46]
The argument that Nazi ideology was strongly influenced by social Darwinist ideas is often found in historical and social science literature.[47] For example, the Jewish philosopher and historian Hannah Arendt analysed the historical development from a politically indifferent scientific Darwinism via social Darwinist ethics to racist ideology.[48]
By 1985, the argument has been taken up by opponents of evolutionary theory.[7] Such claims have been presented by creationists such as Jonathan Sarfati.[49][50][undue weight? – discuss] Intelligent design creationism supporters have promoted this position as well. For example, it is a theme in the work of Richard Weikart, who is a historian at California State University, Stanislaus, and a senior fellow for the Center for Science and Culture of the Discovery Institute.[42] It is also a main argument in the 2008 intelligent-design/creationist movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. These claims are widely criticized within the academic community.[51][52][53][54][55][56] The Anti-Defamation League has rejected such attempts to link Darwin's ideas with Nazi atrocities, and has stated that "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry."[41]
Similar criticisms are sometimes applied (or misapplied) to other political or scientific theories that resemble social Darwinism, for example criticisms leveled at evolutionary psychology. For example, a critical reviewer of Weikart's book writes that "(h)is historicization of the moral framework of evolutionary theory poses key issues for those in sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, not to mention bioethicists, who have recycled many of the suppositions that Weikart has traced."[54]
Another example is recent scholarship that portrays Ernst Haeckel's Monist League as a mystical progenitor of the Völkisch movement and, ultimately, of the Nazi Party of Adolf Hitler. Scholars opposed to this interpretation, however, have pointed out that the Monists were freethinkers who opposed all forms of mysticism, and that their organizations were immediately banned following the Nazi takeover in 1933 because of their association with a wide variety of causes including feminism, pacifism, human rights, and early gay rights movements.[57]
Contemporary Proponents of Social Darwinism[edit]
The concept of social Darwinism and eugenics, by those who attribute the term to themselves, is prevalent within modern Satanism. Social Darwinist ideas are presented throughout The Satanic Bible, authored by Anton LaVey, founder of the Church of Satan and 20th century Satanism. LaVey describes Satanism as "a religion based on the universal traits of man,"[58] and humans are described throughout as inherently carnal and animalistic. Each of the seven deadly sins is described as part of human's natural instinct, and are thus advocated.[59] Social Darwinism is particularly noticeable in The Book of Satan, where LaVey uses portions of Ragnar Redbeard's Might is Right, though it also appears throughout in references to man's inherent strength and instinct for self-preservation.[60][61] LaVeyan Satanism has been described as "institutionalism of Machiavellian self-interest" because of many of these themes.[62] The Church of Satan webpage heading “Satanism: The Feared Religion," by Magus Peter H. Gilmore, states, “...contemporary Satanism[...]is: a brutal religion of elitism and social Darwinism that seeks to re-establish the reign of the able over the idiotic...” and, “Satanists also seek to enhance the laws of nature by concentrating on fostering the practice of eugenics.”[63]


I have a degree in German, I have seen German propaganda films in their original language, and have read Mein Kampf in all its icky, boring ignobleness. I have read a couple of dozen books in English and German on the period.

I believe I can identify a Nazi when I see one, and vy65's statements fall right in line with Nazi propaganda, chief among them is to first dehumanize that which you hate. It makes it easier to shove people into ovens when you don't think they are people.

[RandomGuy]

Yes. Sorry, I get that.

So are there basic goods and services whose associated dollars are recycled through more steps?
Do economists have some list of basic items?

There is no fixed list from what I understand.

There is just the marginal propensity to spend. poorer = more likely to spend income

If you think about it though, this becomes a bit clearer. The more limited your funds, the more you triage. Let your car limp along with that wobble for month, so that you can have enough for groceries.

Give the person with all that pent up demand for capital spending money and they have a bit more to allocate to those priorities.

Hope that helps.

[pgardn]

My morals are based on reason and empathy.

I don't wish children to starve to death because their parents are horrible people. I empathize with them in that regard.

Using simple reasoning, I can tell you that capital comes in all forms, including human capital.

Throwing away the children of poor people is wasting capital that can be developed. It is akin to simply cutting down a forest and leaving it to rot. Invest in the capability to convert that forest into wood and finished products and you are better off economically.

Similar arguments can be made for investing in the children of poor people. You can either be an evil fuck who wants to see these children starve to death, or you can realize that they are simply undeveloped capital.

I have both reason and empathy guiding that choice. The moral thing is to help them.

As for social darwinism, I don't have to bother rebutting it. It is held as generally logically flawed and immoral.



I have a degree in German, I have seen German propaganda films in their original language, and have read Mein Kampf in all its icky, boring ignobleness. I have read a couple of dozen books in English and German on the period.

I believe I can identify a Nazi when I see one, and vy65's statements fall right in line with Nazi propaganda, chief among them is to first dehumanize that which you hate. It makes it easier to shove people into ovens when you don't think they are people.

I really don't expect empathy of any sort to come from some people on this board. I still try to empathize with the mentally handicapped (I still like Boutons) even though they might not be thought of as efficient human capital.

Still an underutilized source of human capital are women imo.

As for Nazis, I have seen the pictures from the death camps, the real stuff from my wife's grandad. My wife has those pictures from many many camps and the associated notes. It was part of GP job to keep track for the US. Curiously, the Germans the allies ran into after overrunning the country, uhh, none of them were Nazis. The Nazis just disappeared as well...

Ole grandad knew the Nazis would try to lie about it despite their rigorous detailed notes on the camps.

The Rise And Fall of the 3rd Reich is an incredible book. Although it has been claimed by some that Shirer embellished a bit because of his distaste for the Nazis even though he was directly in the middle of the mess.

[pgardn]

Darwin himself would have had a stroke if he read that crap.

He was a very careful man and pointed out the weaknesses of his own ideas.

[RandomGuy]

Darwin himself would have had a stroke if he read that crap.

He was a very careful man and pointed out the weaknesses of his own ideas.

Eyup. I think, though, he would be pleased about how much he got right, and how much we have improved our understanding of biology since then. He didn't even know about DNA, so I'm sure the old guy would find that fascinating.

[vy65]

My morals are based on reason and empathy.

I don't wish children to starve to death because their parents are horrible people. I empathize with them in that regard.

Using simple reasoning, I can tell you that capital comes in all forms, including human capital.

Throwing away the children of poor people is wasting capital that can be developed. It is akin to simply cutting down a forest and leaving it to rot. Invest in the capability to convert that forest into wood and finished products and you are better off economically.

Similar arguments can be made for investing in the children of poor people. You can either be an evil fuck who wants to see these children starve to death, or you can realize that they are simply undeveloped capital.

I have both reason and empathy guiding that choice. The moral thing is to help them.

As for social darwinism, I don't have to bother rebutting it. It is held as generally logically flawed and immoral, and others have already done so.

As a preliminary matter, it's very easy to talk about empathy and morals when other people shoulder a disproportionate amount of the (financial) burden caused by said empathy and morals. And the fact that you haven't answered the question of how much more you should be paying doesn't bode well.

This country eats it's youth. Young successful people shoulder a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. They don't take nearly as much as they pour into society. Yet when they balk, they're labeled Nazis. That is precisely why conservatives blame people like you as having an entitlement mentality -- you think you're entitled to others money even though you did jack shit to earn it.


I have a degree in German, I have seen German propaganda films in their original language, and have read Mein Kampf in all its icky, boring ignobleness. I have read a couple of dozen books in English and German on the period.

I believe I can identify a Nazi when I see one, and vy65's statements fall right in line with Nazi propaganda, chief among them is to first dehumanize that which you hate. It makes it easier to shove people into ovens when you don't think they are people.

If you were such an erudite philosopher of German, you'd have some familiarity with why equivocating a critique of your morals with evil is a symptom of a deeper cultural/social disease. But before I get to that point, where'd I say I hate the poor? I don't believe that I should shoulder the financial burden for their poor life choices, but I don't hate them. I want to be left alone -- they can fuck and shit out as many broods as they want, just leave me out of it. It's not my responsibility.

As for dehumanization, I think the compulsion to accept others charity is far more dehumanizing than anything I've said.

But let's talk about your morals. You claim to base them on reason and empathy - what of people who follow a different logic or feel a different empathy? Are they wrong? What of people who have no empathy at all? And I'm still at a loss why your morals should carry over to the state and be enforced through governmental programs. Ironically enough, the third reich is a pretty good example of when the state carries out a moral agenda. For all your railing against fascism, I find it really ironic that you think the state should compel individuals to hand over their property to foster the greater good. I'd take a good long look in the mirror before you through out the word nazi anymore

[DeadlyDynasty]

Let them eat cake

[RandomGuy]

As a preliminary matter, it's very easy to talk about empathy and morals when other people shoulder a disproportionate amount of the (financial) burden caused by said empathy and morals. And the fact that you haven't answered the question of how much more you should be paying doesn't bode well.

This country eats it's youth. Young successful people shoulder a disproportionate amount of the tax burden. They don't take nearly as much as they pour into society. Yet when they balk, they're labeled Nazis. That is precisely why conservatives blame people like you as having an entitlement mentality -- you think you're entitled to others money even though you did jack shit to earn it.



If you were such an erudite philosopher of German, you'd have some familiarity with why equivocating a critique of your morals with evil is a symptom of a deeper cultural/social disease. But before I get to that point, where'd I say I hate the poor? I don't believe that I should shoulder the financial burden for their poor life choices, but I don't hate them. I want to be left alone -- they can fuck and shit out as many broods as they want, just leave me out of it. It's not my responsibility.

As for dehumanization, I think the compulsion to accept others charity is far more dehumanizing than anything I've said.

But let's talk about your morals. You claim to base them on reason and empathy - what of people who follow a different logic or feel a different empathy? Are they wrong? What of people who have no empathy at all? And I'm still at a loss why your morals should carry over to the state and be enforced through governmental programs. Ironically enough, the third reich is a pretty good example of when the state carries out a moral agenda. For all your railing against fascism, I find it really ironic that you think the state should compel individuals to hand over their property to foster the greater good. I'd take a good long look in the mirror before you through out the word nazi anymore

This really is my fault. I had forgotten why I disliked you so much.

I feel exactly zero compunction to explain things to you. You are intelligent enough to rationalize anything I might try to explain and let your own confirmation bias filter out what you need to understand to be able to get what I am saying.

Ironically, you have essentially called economics as "useless" in your daily life, yet it is the conceptual framework that describes how you interact with others materially. The ebb and flow of goods and services is something you don't opt out of. Everything is interrelated, and you don't, or won't understand that.

"successful young people" take far more from society than they realize, and benefit far more from our system than they know. That is something of a red herring, because I generally am talking about the hyperwealthy that scott refers to, the .4%, the kind of wealth that you will never, ever (ok, 99.6% probability) have.

[AntiChrist]

Evidently, if you're a middle class taxpayer who gives one dollar of every four earned, you're a selfish bastard, according to RG. Or, maybe you're a Nazi?

[AntiChrist]

But, then again, some of us think it's far worse to create a vicious cycle of poverty and govt. dependence.

[RandomGuy]

This is such complete and utter bullshit that it's mindblowing.

This is exactly how people expunge any sense of self-responsibility. And this is how so many people develop a sense of entitlement.

This type of thinking needs to die.


We know that the Jew will lose, that he and his devilish, life-denying and destructive doctrines will be destroyed (vernichtet)
Robert Ley--“Wir oder die Juden...,” Die Hoheitsträger 3 (May 1939)
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/ley3.htm

[boutons_deux]

But, then again, some of us think it's far worse to create a vicious cycle of poverty and govt. dependence.

the poverty levels of public assistance don't create poverty. iow, St Ronnie's HUGE LIE as President inviting everybody to criminalize the poor, Welfare Queens in Cadillacs and "young (black) bucks", totally distorts the poverty picture and causes for the VAST majority on public assistance, 60% of whom are white. And many of them are WORKING poor, working a shit jobs for shit wages while taxpayers top up their wages to poverty level rather than their employers.

[RandomGuy]

Quote Originally Posted by vy65
Self-sustaining cycles and venn diagrams do not dispute the simple fact that if you are smart and work hard, you will succeed in this country. If you are not smart or lazy or both, you will not. I don't see a problem with this simple maxim. Do you?

Wouldn't you protect your wealth if you were rich?
Quote Originally Posted by vy65
Who is the collective we? Do we hold a plebiscite? Or is it our elected officials? More to the point, how is that decision made, i.e., what are the mechanics of it?



Still waiting for an answer ...

1) Not everyone is smart. Smart is not a precondition for basic humanity. Lots of the poor you shit on work very hard. I fully believe in rewarding merit and hard work.

I would not really care too much about protecting my wealth. When I die all that shit will be meaningless to me. My concerns are far broader than shallow wealth accumulation.

The collective we is.. everybody. It is important to be fair and minimize harm.

[RandomGuy]

Evidently, if you're a middle class taxpayer who gives one dollar of every four earned, you're a selfish bastard, according to RG. Or, maybe you're a Nazi?

Sorry, another strawman.

Go away little mind.

[RandomGuy]

Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

Bankrupt because I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.


However, outside of a tiny group of intellectual know-it-alls, no reasonable person in Germany would want to say “decent” and “Jew” in the same breath.
The “Decent” Jew

A Letter to an Englishman, 1937
http://www.calvin.edu/academic/cas/gpa/oberlindober1.htm



There are no "decent poor"

[RandomGuy]

I agree a lot with this. I don't think that "passive" investment in the stock market should be penalized. I.e., if I invest 20% of my paycheck in stocks, I don't think that I should suffer a higher (i.e., the normal) tax rate, particularly when I'm doing so as a part of my savings for retirement. The way I'm looking at it, I'm providing for my own social security down the line by saving money now. I shouldn't be penalized for that.

I do agree that there are problems with the shenanigans played by bankers, traders, etc... that manipulate the market and fuck with things generally. I don't think that should be rewarded.

The problem is: I don't see how you can have the one without the other.

Tax rate on X = 25%
Tax rate on Y = 15%

Which is penalized?

[boutons_deux]

Tax rate on X = 25%
Tax rate on Y = 15%

Which is penalized?

the VRWC/1% has rigged govt policy for 35 years to prefer, prioritize capital over labor.

[AntiChrist]

Sorry, another strawman.

Go away little mind.



I pay 25% in taxes. Not enough?


Nope. Sorry if actually sacrificing something for greater good is alien to you.

We have become a nation of selfish, narrow minded twats. Previous generations sacrificed their lives for the common good, and we bitch about not having enough money for $10 cups of coffee.

[Winehole23]

You can either be an evil fuck who wants to see these children starve to death, or you can realize that they are simply undeveloped capital.one could look at them as fellow citizens and human beings, if there is any inherent consideration or dignity due there. rationalism isn't everything. ;-)

[boutons_deux]

"sacrificed their lives for the common good"

socialism! communism!

[Winehole23]

the ongoing demonization of the poor as filthy, lazy and vicious -- is guilty of its own accusations. the open cruelty and sadism of political discourse continues to impress.

[RandomGuy]

one could look at them as fellow citizens and human beings, if there is any inherent consideration or dignity due there. rationalism isn't everything. ;-)

That is really my primary viewpoint, and the one that makes my own mind up far more than any economic argument. Such arguments though, tend to fall on the deaf ears of self-styled self-righteous free-market champions for whom "data" is the plural of "anecdote".

When you have so filled your mind with hate, arguments that depend on empathy and love for ones fellow human may as well be farts in the wind.

That is why I reserve the skewer of solidly grounded economic arguments for such people. It pierces to the core of their own self-image as champions of some imagined and ill-understood "free-market". The people who talk about individualism the most tend to understand the economic arguments the least, i.e. Wild Cobra et al. This is, for me, delicious irony.

Further, I would be willing to bet a great deal of money that vy knows jack shit about welfare programs in the US. At the beginning of the internet when Clinton was getting ready to sign the overhauls of these programs I spent quite a bit of time arguing over it, and reading studies. It may be interesting to see what has happened in the last decade or so and revisit the peer-reviewed literature.

Welfare programs are far from the free ride that many on the right seem to think they are.

[RandomGuy]

[re-post of RG's earlier comments]

Nice try, but still a strawman.

Getting close though, and I hate to break it to you, but the "middle class" pay far less than 25% of their incomes in federal income tax.

[boutons_deux]

"Welfare programs are far from the free ride"

that's one of the MANY LIES the Repugs/Fox/1%/deficit-hawks (cut Medicare, refuse Medicaid expansion, cut or privatize SS) spew non-stop, and they have convinced many ignorant suckers in this forum.

[vy65]

so very passive aggressive ... you should post more irrelevant nazi quotes about the jews

[vy65]

And if you're talking about me (I don't know if you are), I don't think I ever said anything about the free market.

[vy65]

Speaking of strawmen, I'm sure being on the government dole is quite onerous and hard on all those welfare recipients.

This is point is, like much posted in this thread, irrelevant.

[RandomGuy]

[not quite there understanding of what he read]

Raising upper end marginal rates will tend to have a minimal impact on "the middle class"

And, for the most part, I was being facetious.

25% to 26% is not going to kill anyone above the poverty level. Neither will raising capital gains taxes, nor raising the tax rate on the higher marginal levels.

You are a selfish twat if you think that raising your taxes by 4% is going to kill you and be the end of the world as we know it. That is dishonest to boot.

The hyperwealthy earn more in interest in a fraction of a second than is required to support a family of four for a year. Complaining about taxing that level of income at a higher rate is not only silly, but makes you look gullible as well.

You were close, but not quite. I hope that clears it up.

[RandomGuy]

so very passive aggressive ... you should post more irrelevant nazi quotes about the jews

The Nazis used all sorts of dehumanizing language to make Jews into subhumans. The parallels to the language you use about the poor are very apt, if you don't like it, quit being an evil fuck, and give a shit about people.

Pretty simple.

[RandomGuy]

Speaking of strawmen, I'm sure being on the government dole is quite onerous and hard on all those welfare recipients.

This is point is, like much posted in this thread, irrelevant.

Growing up poor in this country in many places is far harder than your limited experience would allow for, yes.

You do know what the "T" in TANF means, yes?

[vy65]

The Nazis used all sorts of dehumanizing language to make Jews into subhumans. The parallels to the language you use about the poor are very apt, if you don't like it, quit being an evil fuck, and give a shit about people.

Pretty simple.

You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

The Nazi demonization of the jews was way more complex than "they used mean words." It was a complex form of racism that relied largely on science (eugenics), cultural hatred dating back hundreds of years (think Wagner), social conditions after WWI, and a perversion of race/racism that essentially invented the Jew and "Jewishness" as a race.

Arguing "vy used meanie words, like the nazis, therefore he's a nazi," is the simplistic for of essentialism you blame so many others of displaying on this forum. For all that you like to bandy yourself about as some kind of intellectual, you really are a fucking simpleton.

[vy65]

Growing up poor in this country in many places is far harder than your limited experience would allow for, yes.

You do know what the "T" in TANF means, yes?

lol

[RandomGuy]

You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

The Nazi demonization of the jews was way more complex than "they used mean words." It was a complex form of racism that relied largely on science (eugenics), cultural hatred dating back hundreds of years (think Wagner), social conditions after WWI, and a perversion of race/racism that essentially invented the Jew and "Jewishness" as a race.

Arguing "vy used meanie words, like the nazis, therefore he's a nazi," is the simplistic for[m] of essentialism you blame so many others of displaying on this forum. For all that you like to bandy yourself about as some kind of intellectual, you really are a fucking simpleton.

It is my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. If you don't like it, wah, get a helmet.

Accusing me of "using the simplistic form of essentialism" after calling poor people "filth" is fucking hypocritical beyond belief.

You don't want to show some empathy for your fellow human being, I have no respect for you either, fuckwad.

[boutons_deux]

Growing up poor in this country in many places is far harder than your limited experience would allow for, yes.

You do know what the "T" in TANF means, yes?

LOL the euphemistic T was tacked on to get it past the conservatives

[RandomGuy]

Vy, you are going on my ignore list. I let my lower self win, and went back on that, but I intend on keeping that going forward.

I really can't argue with "they deserve to starve to death". It makes me sick, and you are a horrible, evil person.

[vy65]

Vy, you are going on my ignore list. I let my lower self win, and went back on that, but I intend on keeping that going forward.

I really can't argue with "they deserve to starve to death". It makes me sick, and you are a horrible, evil person.

What a fucking attention whore. Who the fuck cares who you do and don't ignore.

[Th'Pusher]

What a fucking attention whore. Who the fuck cares who you do and don't ignore.

I think the person who presents the fuck 'em, let the poor die, they deserve to starve to death line of reasoning is the the attention whore tbh. You can't actually think that that is a viable option to deal with poverty in any sort of civilized society.

[vy65]

I think the person who presents the fuck 'em, let the poor die, they deserve to starve to death line of reasoning is the the attention whore tbh. You can't actually think that that is a viable option to deal with poverty in any sort of civilized society.

No, I think the guy publicizing his ignore list is the attention whore.

I don't think it fixes poverty. But I also don't give a fuck either.

[Th'Pusher]

No, I think the guy publicizing his ignore list is the attention whore.

I don't think it fixes poverty. But I also don't give a fuck either.
So your position is that there should be no official government policy to deal with poverty as you don't believe that you are in any way affected by it other than that fact that a portion of your income is redistributed to the 'filth' as you put it.

Is is that right? Just trying to understand your position.

[vy65]

My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions. When I fuck up, no one steps in to bail me out. I shouldn't be expected to extend a courtesy to others which I do not receive.

[pgardn]

My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions. When I fuck up, no one steps in to bail me out. I shouldn't be expected to extend a courtesy to others which I do not receive.

So a major reason people are poor in this country is life decisions that were bad? Do you think people in this country all start out on the same footing and the poor simply make poor decisions?

Seriously, in this country, you are already a step ahead if born male and white. Anyone who wished to have the best probability to benefit both economically and socially in this country, should wish to be male and white.

Now I am not sure how the aforementioned changes, but I totally believe it. So everyone who wishes to be successful in this country should choose be born a poor black female...? Everyone raise your hands, if you could start all over. Accepted socially, and economically stable, up with em. Oprah raises her hand so it's all good. If it worked for her...

When I walked to my car late tonight, back from some work in an area I had not been to before, I had very little to fear from the younger men having a good time but drunk. As a younger female... Ahhh not so much.

When I fish and visit a bait stand to ask what's going on in the bay, I get answers and questions. With a black face... Ahh not so much. Now I realize there are a number of places a white male would not be welcome. But I can think of a whole lot more situations where being female and black, would put me at a serious disadvantage in many ways.

I have never been bailed out either and don't expect to be. I started out ahead, and took advantage of it. But I realize this.

[Th'Pusher]

My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions. When I fuck up, no one steps in to bail me out. I shouldn't be expected to extend a courtesy to others which I do not receive.
How about defining that in an actual position on policy you'd support. You shouldn't have to subsidize somebody's poor life decisions? Define a poor life desision and how you enforce not subsidizing these desisions through policy. Lets quickly get to the bottom of this ridiculous and completely untenable position.

[vy65]

How about defining that in an actual position on policy you'd support. You shouldn't have to subsidize somebody's poor life decisions? Define a poor life desision and how you enforce not subsidizing these desisions through policy. Lets quickly get to the bottom of this ridiculous and completely untenable position.

Why? And, what do you mean by policy? Are you asking me to re-vamp our entitlements programs? I wasn't aware of this being a policy discussion. Nor was I aware of the need to support a particular policy as a precondition to airing a grievance.

I can't define what "poor life decisions" are, but I can give examples. One of which is the decision to have a family while your financial prospects prevent you from providing for said family without governmental support. In other words, if your current employer is McDonald's, don't have children.

lol ridiculous and untenable position

[RandomGuy]

So your position is that there should be no official government policy to deal with poverty as you don't believe that you are in any way affected by it other than that fact that a portion of your income is redistributed to the 'filth' as you put it.

Is is that right? Just trying to understand your position.

It is, as I have attempted to point out, a flawed viewpoint if one understands anything of micro/macro economics.

A society/country is a network of interconnected individuals. Everything one person does, or does not do, affects everyone else.

There are a lot of studies of poverty and of people who receive what is commonly known as "welfare" or the dole.

I doubt anybody who advocates "let them starve" or similar has read any of them. People that tend to hold that view generally know next to nothing about overall data or the programs involved, which have been essentially given to the states to administer.

A few basic facts:

Welfare *(TANF) recipients almost universally work. Very often, you have to have a job to receive welfare.
Welfare benefits have a lifetime cap. After a certain number of years, you are cut off.
Many states have caps on families. More kids past a certain point, gets you no more money.

Add this to falling fertility rates among the poor, (lower births per mother)

And you have a lot of actual data that directly contradicts the uneducated viewpoint that the "poor" on the dole in the US are somehow all lazy with 12 kids. As a group they are neither.

There are some state programs that supplement TANF, but overall, most people studied tended to not be on the program very long. THey would drift in and out depending on their employment.

Overall % of federal budget (FY13) spend on TANF:
16.7bn.
Food assistance, including child nutrition:
107bn.

out of 3770 bn

17+107 = 124 bn 124/3770 = 3%
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/federal_budget_detail_fy12bs12013n_4041_605#usgs30 2

Three cents out of every dollar the US government spends is on such things.

The other problem with "let them starve" is that lack of nutrition tends to limit IQ, and cause health problems later in life. Both of which contribute to poverty and staying poor. It is, an entirely stupid way to reduce the number of poor people, because food insecurity increases the numbers of poor, in addition to be fucking evil.

Fucking stupid and morally repugnant.

Here is a fairly recent look at the effects overall on welfare reform in the 1990's. It was successful at reducing the number of people on welfare, and increasing workforce participation, as I have noted.
http://dev3.cepr.org/meets/wkcn/4/4563/papers/GathmannFinal.pdf

[RandomGuy]

The plural of anecdotes is not data.

Oddly enough, scientific studies of conservatives show that they tend to think with the parts of their brain that govern emotion.
http://www.smh.com.au/technology/sci-tech/brain-thickness-determines-political-leaning-study-20101229-199hk.html

For them, the outrage machine in the US works overtime to supply that part of the brain with examples to get worked up about, at the overall expense of, well, reality.

If the data show that people drift onto and off TANF and other programs, then the lifetime lazy meme is pretty much bullshit. The anecdotes that drive that are, in effect biased samples and is closely involved in the biased sample logical fallacy. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/biased-sample.html

If you live, for example in a poor area, odds are that a lot of people there at any given time receive benefits. What you don't know is how long they have been, or will be on such benefits, unless you actively gather the data and follow them. Your perceptions of such recipients will be strongly colored by this biased sample. What you do not have though, is an overall look in all areas of all poor people in the US over a longitudinal study.



I will not argue, and readily accede the following:
There are people who abuse social programs, including food stamps.

There are. That is merely a cost. The benefits are, at the very least, a reduction in human misery.

The real problem is that we don't do enough welfare and dole programs. We piddle at it, and never spend enough to cure some of the worst causes.

This is strongly hinted at when one compares places with more generous social programs.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/2011/11/09-economic-mobility-winship

We suck at breaking such cycles. We continuously underinvest in a vast potential workforce, and throw away untold human capital.

The overall stickiness of poverty in the most right-wing of western democracies is, in my opinion, very damning of right wing policy solutions when it comes to the poor.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It is my opinion, and I'm stickin' to it. If you don't like it, wah, get a helmet.

Accusing me of "using the simplistic form of essentialism" after calling poor people "filth" is fucking hypocritical beyond belief.

You don't want to show some empathy for your fellow human being, I have no respect for you either, fuckwad.

Dehumanizing a subclass so as to marginalize them is a tried and true method of exploitation.

[RandomGuy]

Dehumanizing a subclass so as to marginalize them is a tried and true method of exploitation.

It is rationalization at its worst, and it is kind of shocking to see such a blatant, stupid example in this day and age. One would think we had learned better.

[vy65]

oMe4kVNKvNk

[DeadlyDynasty]

One of which is the decision to have a family while your financial prospects prevent you from providing for said family without governmental support. In other words, if your current employer is McDonald's, don't have children.

^
Why can't people understand this? If you can't afford to support yourself, you have absolutely no business propagating--and this is why certain people (like me) don't want to foot the bill for others' mistakes. Think of all the screening one has to go through to adopt a kid--but these po' folks just pump out hopeless cases left and right.

[DeadlyDynasty]

RG--as for the uninvested capital remark--how much invested capital into the disenfranchised do you think it would take before the country got a return on their investment? Is this just wishful thinking lib speak?

[vy65]

^
Why can't people understand this? If you can't afford to support yourself, you have absolutely no business propagating--and this is why certain people (like me) don't want to foot the bill for others' mistakes. Think of all the screening one has to go through to adopt a kid--but these po' folks just pump out hopeless cases left and right.

Apparently it's impossible to hold people responsible for their poor decisions, poor planning, and stupidity without :cry being a nazi :cry

[boutons_deux]

It is rationalization at its worst, and it is kind of shocking to see such a blatant, stupid example in this day and age. One would think we had learned better.

we? speak for yoursefl

right-wingers are getting dumberer, Randian meaner, and more sociopathic by the day, lost in fantasy land where is reality defined by RNC PR, Fox, Rush, Malking, US CoC, ALEC, etc, etc.

[vy65]

And speaking of dehumanization, only WH got the irony of speaking of the poor's dignity while describing them like an untapped natural resource.

[DeadlyDynasty]

The Nazis used all sorts of dehumanizing language to make Jews into subhumans. The parallels to the language you use about the poor are very apt, if you don't like it, quit being an evil fuck, and give a shit about people.

Pretty simple.

In your myopic view it sounds like he "doesn't give a shit about people." Others look at it as an unwillingness to subsidize lazy and irresponsible behavior.

[rascal]

You are so fucking stupid it's unbelievable.

The Nazi demonization of the jews was way more complex than "they used mean words." It was a complex form of racism that relied largely on science (eugenics), cultural hatred dating back hundreds of years (think Wagner), social conditions after WWI, and a perversion of race/racism that essentially invented the Jew and "Jewishness" as a race.

Arguing "vy used meanie words, like the nazis, therefore he's a nazi," is the simplistic for of essentialism you blame so many others of displaying on this forum. For all that you like to bandy yourself about as some kind of intellectual, you really are a fucking simpleton.

Shut the hell up, RG trashed you.

[vy65]

Shut the hell up, RG trashed you.

Eloquently put

[Th'Pusher]

Why? And, what do you mean by policy? Are you asking me to re-vamp our entitlements programs? I wasn't aware of this being a policy discussion. Nor was I aware of the need to support a particular policy as a precondition to airing a grievance.

I can't define what "poor life decisions" are, but I can give examples. One of which is the decision to have a family while your financial prospects prevent you from providing for said family without governmental support. In other words, if your current employer is McDonald's, don't have children.

lol ridiculous and untenable position
Is murdering a person a poor life decision? Are you ok with subsidizing the due process of a suspected murderer and the subsequent punishment of a convicted murderer? Absolutely an untenable position.

[RandomGuy]

In your myopic view it sounds like he "doesn't give a shit about people." Others look at it as an unwillingness to subsidize lazy and irresponsible behavior.

Getting fired from a job because the business slacks off is "lazy and irresponsible"?

It is irresponsible to fall off a boat? Is that reason to not have life preservers?

Is it irresponsible to be injured or sick and lose a job because you are physically unable to go?

It is an over simplification that all people on assistance are there because they are lazy? How do you identify those people from the ones who need help?

I assume you don't mind helping hardworking people who simply have lost an ability to earn income temporarily.

[Th'Pusher]

oMe4kVNKvNk
We get it. You idolize Maynard and Manson And like to pretend you're ruthless when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Cute. Are you in your early 20's?

[RandomGuy]

^
Why can't people understand this? If you can't afford to support yourself, you have absolutely no business propagating--and this is why certain people (like me) don't want to foot the bill for others' mistakes. Think of all the screening one has to go through to adopt a kid--but these po' folks just pump out hopeless cases left and right.

I don't entirely disagree. If you really can't support kids, you should not be having them.

That said, how do you deal with the kids that will inevitably result from some people's poor decision making?

Kill them?

You sure as hell ain't gonna stop people from fucking, and birth control is not exactly perfect.

I would prefer to deal with the kids that result in a human, moral, reasonable manner.

[RandomGuy]

We get it. You idolize Maynard and Manson And like to pretend you're ruthless when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Cute. Are you in your early 20's?

Here is a question for you:

Tax on X is 25%
Tax on Y is 15%

Which is "punished" and which is encouraged?

[DeadlyDynasty]

Getting fired from a job because the business slacks off is "lazy and irresponsible"?

It is irresponsible to fall off a boat? Is that reason to not have life preservers?

Is it irresponsible to be injured or sick and lose a job because you are physically unable to go?

It is an over simplification that all people on assistance are there because they are lazy? How do you identify those people from the ones who need help?

I assume you don't mind helping hardworking people who simply have lost an ability to earn income temporarily.

I'm all for helping the temporarily disabled or involuntary layoffs--but I'm also not naive enough to assume they represent the majority of those receiving FS.

[DeadlyDynasty]

RG, do you think poor people who can't support themselves or provide a certain quality of life for others have children? I want your personal opinion, preferably a succinct yes or no.

[vy65]

Is murdering a person a poor life decision?

It might, it might not. Depends on the circumstances. What's this got to do with anything?


Are you ok with subsidizing the due process of a suspected murderer and the subsequent punishment of a convicted murderer? Absolutely an untenable position.

Huh?

[vy65]

We get it. You idolize Maynard and Manson And like to pretend you're ruthless when hiding behind the anonymity of the internet. Cute. Are you in your early 20's?

:cry Please don't put me on your ignore list :cry

:cry I don't know what I'd do with myself if people on the internet didn't read my drivel :cry

[Th'Pusher]

Here is a question for you:

Tax on X is 25%
Tax on Y is 15%

Which is "punished" and which is encouraged?

Obviously the tax code encourages unearned income over earned income which is ridiculous. You don't need to convince me of the economic argument for investment in human capital and the need for a social safety net. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that you actually have people who still deny hyper inequality is a problem.

[Th'Pusher]

My position is that I shouldn't be forced to subsidize other people's poor life decisions.


It might, it might not. Depends on the circumstances. What's this got to do with anything?



Huh?

Are you not being forced to subsidize someone else's poor life decisions when you pay for a person to be publicly defended, incarcerated or put to death?

So you don't want to subsidize other peoples poor life decisions? Who does? You present no policy solutions, just bullshit tripe - let the filth starve to death. Maynard would be so impressed, I'm sure.

[Th'Pusher]

:cry Please don't put me on your ignore list :cry

:cry I don't know what I'd do with myself if people on the internet didn't read my drivel :cry

I wouldnt. I've seen you add value in threads. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

[vy65]

Are you not being forced to subsidize someone else's poor life decisions when you pay for a person to be publicly defended, incarcerated or put to death?

So you don't want to subsidize other peoples poor life decisions? Who does? You present no policy solutions, just bullshit tripe - let the filth starve to death. Maynard would be so impressed, I'm sure.

1) I'd love to hear why you think the state-to-state public defender system is analogous to federally subsidized welfare programs; particularly where the funding scheme for public defenders differ from state to state, with some states not paying lawyers appointed as public defenders (I think)

2) I'd also love to hear how/why my federal taxes are used for a public defender system administered by the states

3) Also, I'd love to hear how the amount of my federal taxes that are used for TANF, SNAP, etc... compare with the amount of my federal tax dollars used to pay for a public defender

That being said, technically, my federal tax dollars which ostensibly go to pay a public defender (which still remains to be proved) aren't subsidizing someone's decision to murder. The reason why this analogy is fucking retarded is because no one murders, thinking "hey, VY is footing my attorney's fees." It's not a subsidy for murder; its a subsidy for a federal constitutional right to representation in a criminal case. The same cannot be said about welfare. And frankly, this sixth amendment subsidy isn't something I agree with either.

Stomping on the ground saying "you haven't given an alternative" is about as stupid as your mention of Maynard.

[vy65]

I wouldnt. I've seen you add value in threads. This just doesn't happen to be one of them.

That's not the point. The point is that only an attention whore would a) make piss poor nazi analogies and then b) publicize his ignore list. That's not having a discussion. That's being an attention whore who can't carry on an adult conversation.

[vy65]

1) I'd love to hear why you think the state-to-state public defender system is analogous to federally subsidized welfare programs; particularly where the funding scheme for public defenders differ from state to state, with some states not paying lawyers appointed as public defenders (I think)

2) I'd also love to hear how/why my federal taxes are used for a public defender system administered by the states

3) Also, I'd love to hear how the amount of my federal taxes that are used for TANF, SNAP, etc... compare with the amount of my federal tax dollars used to pay for a public defender

That being said, technically, my federal tax dollars which ostensibly go to pay a public defender (which still remains to be proved) aren't subsidizing someone's decision to murder. The reason why this analogy is fucking retarded is because no one murders, thinking "hey, VY is footing my attorney's fees." It's not a subsidy for murder; its a subsidy for a federal constitutional right to representation in a criminal case. The same cannot be said about welfare. And frankly, this sixth amendment subsidy isn't something I agree with either.

Stomping on the ground saying "you haven't given an alternative" is about as stupid as your mention of Maynard.

To complete the analogy, those tax dollars I pay that go to support an impoverished family go to pay for the material sustenance of said family. It goes to pay for the food, clothing, etc... of children who should not have been born. It subsidizes a due process right to a life that was irresponsibly hatched.

In the case of the sixth amendment, the right invoked ostensibly protects the innocent wrongfully accused of murder. In those cases the accused did not murder and my tax dollars aren't going to subsidize any act they've committed. The same cannot be said in the welfare case.

[Th'Pusher]

1) I'd love to hear why you think the state-to-state public defender system is analogous to federally subsidized welfare programs; particularly where the funding scheme for public defenders differ from state to state, with some states not paying lawyers appointed as public defenders (I think)

2) I'd also love to hear how/why my federal taxes are used for a public defender system administered by the states

3) Also, I'd love to hear how the amount of my federal taxes that are used for TANF, SNAP, etc... compare with the amount of my federal tax dollars used to pay for a public defender

That being said, technically, my federal tax dollars which ostensibly go to pay a public defender (which still remains to be proved) aren't subsidizing someone's decision to murder. The reason why this analogy is fucking retarded is because no one murders, thinking "hey, VY is footing my attorney's fees." It's not a subsidy for murder; its a subsidy for a federal constitutional right to representation in a criminal case. The same cannot be said about welfare. And frankly, this sixth amendment subsidy isn't something I agree with either.

Stomping on the ground saying "you haven't given an alternative" is about as stupid as your mention of Maynard.

You're right. It was a poor analogy. I was simply addressing what you said was your position - you don't like subsidizing other peoples poor decisions, while not taking into account the context of the OP. But that's irrelevant quite frankly, because the point still stands, who the fuck does?

And you did give an alternative, it was to let the filth starve to death which is simply hyperbolic attention whoring and you damn well know it.

[vy65]

And you did give an alternative, it was to let the filth starve to death which is simply hyperbolic attention whoring and you damn well know it.

It's not. It's what I believe, and if I had my druthers, what I'd choose to do. You thinking it harsh does not make me an attention whore.

[vy65]

The problem I have with your point is that it assumes the inevitability of a problem; you're right, no one likes holding the bag for other people's fuck ups. The fact that other people will inevitably fuck up doesn't make the situation one where "we have to deal with it one way or another." We don't.

[Th'Pusher]

The problem I have with your point is that it assumes the inevitability of a problem; you're right, no one likes holding the bag for other people's fuck ups. The fact that other people will inevitably fuck up doesn't make the situation one where "we have to deal with it one way or another." We don't.

I think it's bad economic policy to simply not address the problem. There is evidence that nearly 50% of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at some point in their life. I think it's good economic policy to provide a social safety net for these people as to prevent them from never recovering from poverty and joining and expanding a permanent underclass.

[RandomGuy]

I think it's bad economic policy to simply not address the problem. There is evidence that nearly 50% of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at some point in their life. I think it's good economic policy to provide a social safety net for these people as to prevent them from never recovering from poverty and joining and expanding a permanent underclass.

Pretty much. It is more than a little dumb to think that one never will need a social safety net, or a lifeboat, or a defibrillator... until you do, then you are awfully glad we have collectively decided to help people who need it.

It is just as dumb to assume, before looking into it, that everybody on welfare has been there for their entire life, or will be. They aren't and that is what the data says.

[RandomGuy]

You're right. It was a poor analogy. I was simply addressing what you said was your position - you don't like subsidizing other peoples poor decisions, while not taking into account the context of the OP. But that's irrelevant quite frankly, because the point still stands, who the fuck does?

And you did give an alternative, it was to let the filth starve to death which is simply hyperbolic attention whoring and you damn well know it.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/spdp07.pdf
FWIW:
State public defender program spending $2.3bn in 2007.

We pay the costs of this, because we have decided it is in our public interest to do so. Even so, the poor get fucked here too, bail bondsmen et al.

[Th'Pusher]

And a bit more on inequality from a book I read a while back and recommend if you're interested. Sorry for the length...


How does inequality affect economic efficiency? We care about inequality, or perhaps we care mostly about inequality, because we believe that it affects some important economic phenomena—notably, economic growth: Do more unequal countries grow faster or slower? Historically, the pendulum has swung from a rather unambiguous answer that inequality is good for growth to a much more nuanced view that favors the opposite conclusion.


Why has this been the case? To understand it, look at inequality, as far as economic efficiency is concerned, as cholesterol: There is “good” and “bad” inequality, just as there is good and bad cholesterol. 4 “Good” inequality is needed to create incentives for people to study, work hard, or start risky entrepreneurial projects. None of that can be done without providing some inequality in returns (for the effects of “unreasonable” leveling of incomes, see Vignette 1.5 on inequality under socialism). But “bad” inequality starts at a point—one not easy to define—where, rather than providing the motivation to excel, inequality provides the means to preserve acquired positions. This happens when inequality in wealth or income is used to forestall an economically positive political change for the society (e.g., agrarian reform or abolition of slavery), or to allow only the rich to get education, or to ensure that the rich keep the best jobs. All of this undercuts economic efficiency. If one’s ability to get a good education strongly depends on one’s parents’ wealth, this is equivalent to depriving society of the skills and knowledge of a large segment of its members (the poor). Discrimination according to inherited income is not, in that sense, different from any other discrimination, such as gender or race. In all cases, society decides that the skills of a certain group of people will not be used. Economically, such societies are unlikely to be successful. Depending on which kind of inequality—“positive,” needed for incentives, or “negative,” ensuring monopoly of the rich—is dominant in a given country and time, inequality may be regarded as either beneficial or harmful.


The benevolent view of economic inequality—that it provides incentives for individuals to excel—dominated when economists believed that only the very rich save and that without them, there would be no investments and no wealth creation. Workers (or the poor) were thought apt to spend everything they earned. If everybody then had the same (relatively) low income, there would be no saving, no investment, and no economic growth. The rich per se were not important, but it was important to have them around so that they would save, augment capital, and provide the wherewithal for feeding the engine of economic growth. The rich were supposed to be receptacles for the individualization of savings. They would spend and enjoy themselves no more than the others. All the excess would be simply saved and invested. Asceticism, as Max Weber wrote, was the key ingredient of such a “spirit of capitalism”: “The summum bonum of this ethic, the earning of more and more money, combined with the strict avoidance of all spontaneous enjoyment of life, is above all completely devoid of any ... hedonistic admixture. It is thought of so purely as an end in itself, that from the point of view of happiness of, or utility to, the single individual, it appears entirely ... irrational.”5


It is in the passage written in 1920 by John Maynard Keynes, famous English economist and founder of modern macroeconomics, that this slightly rose-tinted view of the justification of inequality of incomes under the condition that high incomes be used for investment finds perhaps its best expression:


Society [of pre-1914 Europe] was so framed as to throw a great part of the increased income into the control of the class least likely to consume it. The new rich of the nineteenth century were not brought up to large expenditures, and preferred the power which investment gave them to the pleasures of immediate consumption. In fact, it was precisely the inequality of the distribution of wealth which made possible those vast accumulations of fixed wealth and of capital improvements which distinguished that age from all others. Herein lay, in fact, the main justification of the Capitalist System. If the rich had spent their new wealth on their own enjoyments, the world would long ago have found such a régime intolerable. But like bees they saved and accumulated, not less to the advantage of the whole community because they themselves held narrower ends in prospect.


This was the view of capitalists as “saving machines” and entrepreneurs.


But the world was also full of another type of capitalist rentiers who would do very little but sit back, relax, and let money “do the work” for them. For a literary description of rentiers we can go to Stefan Zweig’s beautiful book about the “world of yesterday,” pre-World War I Europe, a world where the most cherished compliment (as Zweig writes) was “solid,” the highest value bourgeois respectability, and reasonableness and progress seemed destined to go on forever. For the rich, the living was easy:


Thanks to the constant accumulation of profits, in an era of increasing prosperity in which the State never thought of nibbling off more than a few percent of income of even the richest, and in which ... State and industrial bonds bore high rates of interest, to grow richer was nothing more than a passive activity for the wealthy.


From this perspective, the rich looked less indispensable as “receptacles” for savings and as possible investors; they appeared much more like parasites living well while clipping coupons and doing little else. Yet the view of inequality as harmful, which began to dominate in the past couple of decades, did not develop from that ethical perspective. Curiously, it shares the same starting point with the view of inequality as a benevolent force—namely, that there should be people who are willing to invest—yet it reaches very different conclusions. Here’s how the argument flows:


People (rich, middle class, and poor) vote for how high they want their taxes to be, taking into account that the advantages from government spending (funded from taxes) accrue mostly to the poor. Very unequal societies will tend to vote for high taxation simply because there are a lot of people who benefit from government transfers, pay nothing or little in taxes, and would always outvote the few rich (see Vignette 1.7). Now, such high taxation reduces the incentives to invest and to work hard, and this lowers the rate of economic growth. The mechanism is similar to the nineteenth-century fear that people without property, if given half a chance to vote,would expropriate the wealthy. Here the same thing happens except that the expropriation is a bit gentler: It operates not through outright nationalization but through taxation.


In both cases—the benign and the malevolent views of economic inequality—the important thing is to have people who are willing to invest. But in the first case, rich investors require high inequality. In the second case, the introduction of political democracy is the monkey wrench that makes high inequality politically unsustainable. Even if the rich could somehow promise the poor that they would not consume but invest surplus income, and that the rich are thus indispensable for economic growth, there is no way that this promise could be enforced. It will not be credible, either. Consequently, the capitalist system must generate on its own a pre-tax income distribution that is sustainable and will not encourage people to choose extortionary tax rates. For this to happen, assets among people need to be distributed relatively evenly. We cannot, over the short or medium term, affect the distribution of financial assets much, but we can affect the distribution of education (what economists call “human capital”)—hence the emphasis on better access to education for everybody. This is not only because education may be thought desirable in itself, not even because higher education may be directly helpful for economic growth, but also because wider distribution of that asset would equalize distribution of pre-tax income and make even those relatively poor think twice before deciding to vote for high taxes.


Does a change in economic development also produce a change in our view of the usefulness of inequality? Quite likely. In the early stages of development, physical capital is scarce. It is then important to have rich people who are ready not to consume their entire income but to invest it so that more machines and roads can be built. As the economy develops, physical capital becomes less scarce, and relative to it, human capital (education) becomes more valuable. It is then crucial to spread education. But if the spread of education is constrained because talented children of the poor cannot pay for education, the growth rate will sputter. Thus, even without the introduction of universal voting rights and democracy, we reach a similar conclusion: For growth to be fast, at higher stages of economic development, education must be widespread, and widespread education is tantamount to less inequality.


The empirical evidence of the effect of inequality on economic growth is mixed. Perhaps this is inevitable because in some places and times, inequality may hamper economic growth (through its monopoly element) and in others help it (through its incentive element). Suffice it to say that our view regarding the positive versus negative effects of inequality on economic efficiency will always depend on how much weight we put on one or the other element in the essential dilemma: social monopoly versus incentives. In those cases where we believe that the monopoly of power and wealth exercised by the rich threatens social stability, and with it economic development and even the viability of a state, we would, as Plato did 2,400 years ago, see income or wealth inequality as a social evil to be combated. Asked whether his laying down of austerity as a desirable feature of his ideal state would not expose it to the danger of conquest from richer neighbors, Socrates (in Plato’s words) replies:
“But what should we call the others [communities that are not an ideal state]?,” he asked.11 “We ought to find a grander name for them,” [Socrates] replied. “Each of them is, as the proverb says, not so much a single state as a collection of states. For it always contains at least two states, the rich and the poor, at enmity with each other.... Treat them as plurality, offer to hand over the property ... of one section [of population] to another, and you will have allies in plenty and very few enemies.”


But in those cases where we think that the leveling of incomes—the absence both of the carrot of success and of the stick of failure—has gone so far that people will not try harder unless allowed to keep the fruits of their labor or investment more fully, we should, as odd as it may seem, opt out and call forth greater inequality.


Milanovic, Branko (2010-12-28). The Haves and the Have-Nots: A Brief and Idiosyncratic History of Global Inequality (pp. 12-18). Basic Books. Kindle Edition.

[RandomGuy]

Stats:
http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Assuming they are accurate:
Total amount of time spent on Aid to Families with Dependent Children for five years or less:
80.4%

Kind of hard to say that people spend their whole lives on this program when 80% use it, as I have mentioned for less than 5 years.

35% are on for less than a year.

[RandomGuy]

Contrary to "Entitlement Society" Rhetoric, Over Nine-Tenths of Entitlement Benefits Go to Elderly, Disabled, or Working Households
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/2-10-12bud-f1.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Five Media Myths About Welfare

1. Poor women have more children because of the "financial incentives" of welfare benefits.
Repeated studies show no correlation between benefit levels and women's choice to have children. (See, for example, Urban Institute Policy and Research Report, Fall/93.) States providing relatively higher benefits do not show higher birth rates among recipients.
In any case, welfare allowances are far too low to serve as any kind of "incentive": A mother on welfare can expect about $90 in additional AFDC (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) benefits if she has another child.
Furthermore, the real value of AFDC benefits, which do not rise with inflation, has fallen 37 percent during the last two decades (The Nation, 12/12/94). Birth rates among poor women have not dropped correspondingly.
The average family receiving AFDC has 1.9 children -- about the same as the national average.

http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/five-media-myths-about-welfare/

[RandomGuy]

2. We don't subsidize middle-class families.
Much of the welfare debate has centered around the idea of "family caps"--denying additional benefits to women who have children while receiving aid. This is often presented as simple justice: "A family that works does not get a raise for having a child. Why then should a family that doesn't work?" columnist Ellen Goodman wrote in the Boston Globe (4/16/92).
In fact, of course, families do receive a premium for additional children, in the form of a $2,450 tax deduction. There are also tax credits to partially cover childcare expenses, up to a maximum of $2,400 per child. No pundit has suggested that middle-class families base their decision to have children on these "perks."


http://fair.org/extra-online-articles/five-media-myths-about-welfare/

[RandomGuy]

3. The public is fed up with spending money on the poor.
"The suspicion that poorer people are getting something for nothing is much harder to bear than the visible good fortune of the richer," wrote columnist Mary McGrory (Washington Post, 1/15/95). But contrary to such claims from media pundits, the general public is not so hard-hearted. In a December 1994 poll by the Center for the Study of Policy Attitudes (CSPA), 80 percent of respondents agreed that the government has "a responsibility to try to do away with poverty." (Fighting Poverty in America: A Study of American Attitudes, CSPA)
Support for "welfare" is lower than support for "assistance to the poor," but when CSPA asked people about their support for AFDC, described as "the federal welfare program which provides financial support for unemployed poor single mothers with children," only 21 percent said funding should be cut, while 29 percent said it should be increased.

[RandomGuy]

be interesting to see that updated. It is, admitted old. Most of the studies available are from the late nineties with few follow ups done post 2005.

[RandomGuy]

And a bit more on inequality from a book I read a while back and recommend if you're interested. Sorry for the length...

No need to apologize. I am a quick reader.

[RandomGuy]

Distribution of Tax Expenditure Benefits Differs Greatly, and Is Much Less Favorable to the Middle Class and Low-Incomes Families
The distribution of entitlement benefits stands in sharp contrast to the distribution of benefits for tax expenditures, which former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has called “tax entitlements.” The Tax Policy Center finds that under current tax policy:a

The top fifth of the population receives 66 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 10 percent of entitlement benefits).
The middle 60 percent of the population receives a little over 31 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 58 percent of entitlement benefits).
The bottom fifth receives just 2.8 percent of tax-expenditure benefits (compared to 32 percent of entitlement benefits).b
The top 1 percent of the population receives 23.9 percent of tax-expenditure benefits — more than eight times as much as the bottom fifth of the population, and nearly as much as the middle 60 percent of the population.



a These TPC figures refer to 2011 tax policy. The figures are for individual tax expenditures and do not include corporate tax expenditures. If corporate tax expenditures were included, the results would be skewed even more heavily to the top of the income spectrum.
b The TPC figures are based on tax filing units, rather than entire households (thus, the “bottom fifth” means the 20 percent of tax units with the lowest incomes). If our analysis had been based on smaller units similar to tax units rather than on households, it would have shown that the bottom fifth of the population received a somewhat smaller share of the entitlement benefits (about 25 percent rather than 32 percent) and the middle slightly more (64 percent rather than 58 percent).
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

or put into graphic form:
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//2-10-12bud-f3.jpg

Here is the entitlement bit:

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//2-10-12bud-f2.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Obviously the tax code encourages unearned income over earned income which is ridiculous. You don't need to convince me of the economic argument for investment in human capital and the need for a social safety net. I'm just dumbfounded by the fact that you actually have people who still deny hyper inequality is a problem.

Pretty much. Labor, earned income, is penalized through a higher tax rate than capital gains. You can't tell me that is not a subsidy.

That very, very disproportionately benefits the hyperweathy.

[boutons_deux]

Randian Ryan's massive budget cuts to the "dishonestly framed" "entitlements", while cutting taxes on business and wealthy so that Ryan's budget actually INREASES the deficit over a decade, approved at least 3 times by the House Repugs, is, like ALL Repug policies, is based on LIES baiting their white, old, rural, low-information, low-wage male base into a spittle-flying rage. What Repugs don't have, and won't have, in voter demographics is replaced, they hope, with emotional intensity.

CBPP is of course dismissed as "socialist" and "left leaning" for not sucking up to the criminal, predatory 1% and welfare-queen corporations.

[RandomGuy]

I'm all for helping the temporarily disabled or involuntary layoffs--but I'm also not naive enough to assume they represent the majority of those receiving FS.

It isn't "naive", it is what the data show. Cynicism is a poor way to formulate public policy, IMO.

[RandomGuy]

RG, do you think poor people who can't support themselves or provide a certain quality of life for others have children? I want your personal opinion, preferably a succinct yes or no.

Not sure you formed your question the way you intended.

Yes, it is a certainty that these people have kids, that is not a matter of opinion.

If you want to know if I think they should, I have stated I don't think people should have children if they can't afford it. This has been happening, however, since our species has existed. It is naive to think that we can wave a magic wand and legislate this absent forced sterilization programs.

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3677

http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms/2-10-12bud-f1.jpg

53% is spent on people who look like this:

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Society/Pix/pictures/2008/09/30/1disability.jpg

Look at that filthy lazy woman, just sitting there taking my money. She should be starving in the streets, right vy?

20% is spent on people who look like this:
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/images/attachement/jpg/site1/20130714/f04da2db1484134c4c1460.jpg

Yet another worthless human being making bad choices like sitting in that fucking chair all day.

18% is spent on people who look like this:
http://laborlou.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/nickelanddimed1_large1.jpg

Look at that! She obviously needs to be tossed out in the trash as well. Too lazy to look for a better job with all that spare time I bet she has.

So now we have the real scumbags, the 9% is spend on people who don't fall into those categories...

I bet they stay on these programs for their entire lives, just soaking up my hard earned tax money, just having kids year after year that they can't afford...

http://www.statisticbrain.com/welfare-statistics/

Total % of people who spent five years or less on Aid to Families with Dependent Children:
80.4%

[RandomGuy]

Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

Of course, I don't even have to speculate what your choice of social policy looks like for the children of this filth. It is fully in place in parts of eastern europe.

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/659042_orphans300.jpg

http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/jn/images/JN0016RIN.jpg

http://media.courierpress.com/media/img/photos/2010/11/12/20101112-165710-pic-498933685_t607.jpg

http://wegottobefree.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/crib1.jpg?w=300&h=192

http://www.webklik.nl/user_files/2010_03/114793/emaciated.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-1y6A5A3RNok/T0d-5cCcQBI/AAAAAAAAAoo/riLtiAwG-IE/s1600/orphan5.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ZLIf6uOyIFI/T0eFL9j4ylI/AAAAAAAAAo4/u8g0viwYfLI/s1600/orphans12.jpg

http://www.worldwidesmiles.biz/USERIMAGES/Romania%202000-14.jpg



Go ahead. Respond with some more glib callousness, and tell me how stupid liberals are taking your precious money.

Regards,
Bleeding Heart Liberal who thinks people are more important than money.

[RandomGuy]

I'm waiting.

[RandomGuy]

Thread Information
There are currently 3 users browsing this thread. (3 members and 0 guests)
RandomGuy, vy65, Th'Pusher

[boutons_deux]

And a bit more on inequality from a book I read a while back and recommend if you're interested. Sorry for the length...

"But in those cases where we think that the leveling of incomes—the absence both of the carrot of success and of the stick of failure—has gone so far that people will not try harder unless allowed to keep the fruits of their labor or investment more fully, we should, as odd as it may seem, opt out and call forth greater inequality."

what bullshit propaganda for the 1%

[RandomGuy]

"But in those cases where we think that the leveling of incomes—the absence both of the carrot of success and of the stick of failure—has gone so far that people will not try harder unless allowed to keep the fruits of their labor or investment more fully, we should, as odd as it may seem, opt out and call forth greater inequality."

what bullshit propaganda for the 1%



I will ask you a question or two though in all fairness:

You do acknowledge there is some fraud in the system?

Do you agree that we should encourage those who can work to do so?

Do you agree that we should try to minimize such fraud, yes?


I will admit:
Yes.
Yes. and
Yes.

I am comfortable with the cost of some fraud in these programs, if the benefit is generally that people who really need help, either permanently, or temporarily, get that help.

[Th'Pusher]

"But in those cases where we think that the leveling of incomes—the absence both of the carrot of success and of the stick of failure—has gone so far that people will not try harder unless allowed to keep the fruits of their labor or investment more fully, we should, as odd as it may seem, opt out and call forth greater inequality."

what bullshit propaganda for the 1%




In those cases...he's simply saying that some inequality is good and necessary. There is a balance. Do you disagree?

[boutons_deux]

In those cases...he's simply saying that some inequality is good and necessary. There is a balance. Do you disagree?

straw man. nobody is arguing for perfect income equality. The objective is everybody paying their fair share to run society smoothly, reliably. There will always be inequality. What's been proven bad is extreme inequality with the 1% gaming the system to be highly regressive, to pay a much lower tax rate than the 99%.

[vy65]

We have long denounced the capitalistic, economic exploitation of the poverty of the'other half of the world' [['autre monde]. We must today denounce the moral and sentimental exploitation of that poverty - charity cannibalism being worse than oppressive violence. The extraction and humanitarian reprocessing of a destitution whichhas become the equivalent of oil deposits and gold mines. The extortion of the spectacle of poverty and, at the same time, of our charitable condescension: a worldwide appreciated surplus of fine sentiments and bad conscience. We should, in fact, see this not as the extraction of raw materials, but as a waste-reprocessing enterprise. Their destitution and our bad conscience are, in effect, all part of the waste-products of history-the main thing is to recycle them to produce a new energy source.We have here an escalation in the psychological balance of terror. World capitalist oppression is now merely the vehicle and alibi for this other, much more ferocious, form of moral predation. One might almost say, contrary to the Marxist analysis, that material exploitation is only there to extract that spiritual raw material that is the misery of peoples, which serves as psychological nourishment for the rich countries and media nourishment for our daily lives. The 'Fourth World' (we are no longer dealing with a 'developing' Third World) is once again beleaguered, this time as a catastrophe-bearing stratum. The West is whitewashed in the reprocessing of the rest of the world as waste and residue. And the white world repents and seeks absolution - it, too, the waste-product of its own history. The South is a natural producer of raw materials, the latest of which is catastrophe. The North, for its part, specializes in the reprocessing of raw materials and hence also in the reprocessing of catastrophe. Bloodsucking protection, humanitarian interference,Medecins sans frontieres, international solidarity, etc. The last phase of colonialism: the New Sentimental Order is merely the latest form of the New World Order. Other people's destitution becomes our adventure playground. Thus, the humanitarian offensive aimed at the Kurds - a show of repentance on the part of the Western powers after allowing Saddam Hussein to crush them - is in reality merely the second phase of the war, a phase in which charitable intervention finishes off the work of extermination. We are the consumers of the ever delightful spectacle of poverty and catastrophe, and of the moving spectacle of our own efforts to alleviate it (which, in fact, merely function to secure the conditions of reproduction
of the catastrophe market ); there, at least, in the order of moral profits, the Marxist analysis is wholly applicable: we see to it that extreme poverty is reproduced as a symbolic deposit, as a fuel essential to the moral and sentimental equilibrium of the West.In our defence, it might be said that this extreme poverty was largely of our own making and it is therefore normal that we should profit by it

[vy65]

There can be no finer proof that the distress of the rest of the world is at the root of Western power and that the spectacle of that distress is its crowning glory than the inauguration, on the roof of the Arche de la Defense, with a sumptuous buffet laid on bythe Fondation des Droits de l'homme, of an exhibition of the finest photos of world poverty. Should we be surprised that spaces are set aside in the Arche d' Alliance. for universal suffering hallowed by caviar and champagne? Just as the economic crisis of the West will not be complete so long as it can still exploit the resources of the rest of the world, so the symbolic crisis will be complete only when itis no longer able to feed on the other half's human and natural catastrophes (Eastern Europe, the Gulf, the Kurds, Bangladesh, etc.). We need this drug, which serves us as anaphrodisiac and hallucinogen. And the poor countries are the best suppliers - as, indeed,they are of other drugs. We provide them, through our media, with the means to exploi tthis paradoxical resource, just as we give them the means to exhaust their natural resources with our technologies. Our whole culture lives off this catastrophic cannibalism,relayed in cynical mode by the news media, and carried forward in moral mode by ourhumanitarian aid, which is a way of encouraging it and ensuring its continuity, just as economic aid is a strategy for perpetuating under-development. Up to now, the financial sacrifice has been compensated a hundredfold by the moral gain. But when thecatastrophe market itself reaches crisis point, in accordance with the implacable logic of the market, when distress becomes scarce or the marginal returns on it fall from overexploitation, when we run out of disasters from elsewhere or when they can no longer be traded like coffee or other commodities, the West will be forced to produce its own catastrophe for itself, in order to meet its need for spectacle and that voracious appetite for symbols which characterizes it even more than its voracious appetite for food. It will reach the point where it devours itself. When we have finished sucking out the destiny of others, we shall have to invent one for ourselves. The Great Crash, the symbolic crash, will come in the end from us Westerners, but only when we are no longerable to feed on the hallucinogenic misery which comes to us from the other half of theworld. Yet they do not seem keen to give up their monopoly. The Middle East, Bangladesh, black Africa and Latin America are really going flat out in the distress and catastrophe stakes,and thus in providing symbolic nourishment for the rich world. They might be said to be overdoing it: heaping earthquakes, floods, famines and ecological disasters one uponanother, and finding the means to massacre each other most of the time. The 'disaster show' goes on without any let-up and our sacrificial debt to them far exceeds theireconomic debt. The misery with which they generously overwhelm us is something weshall never be able to repay. The sacrifices we offer in return are laughable (a tornado or two, a few tiny holocausts on the roads, the odd financial sacrifice) and, moreover, by some infernal logic, these work out as much greater gains for us, whereas our kindnesses have merely added to the natural catastrophes another one immeasurably worse: the demographic catastrophe, a veritable epidemic which we deplore each day in pictures. In short, there is such distortion between North and South, to the symbolic advantage of the South (a hundred thousand Iraqi dead against casualties numbered in tens on ourside: in every case we are the losers), that one day everything will break down. One day,the West will break down if we are not soon washed clean of this shame, if an international congress of the poor countries does not very quickly decide to share out this symbolic

[vy65]

privilege of misery and catastrophe. It is of course normal, since we refuse to allow the spread of nuclear weapons, that they should refuse to allow the spread of the catastrophe weapon. But it is not right that they should exert that monopoly indefinitely.

In any case, the under-developed are only so by comparison with the Western system and its presumed success. In the light of its assumed failure, they are not under-developed at all. They are only so in terms of a dominant evolutionism which has always been the worst of colonial ideologies. The argument here is that there is a line of objective progress and everyone is supposed to pass through its various stages (we find the same eyewash with regard to the evolution of species and in that evolutionism which unilaterally sanctions the superiority of the human race). In the light of current upheavals, which put an end to any idea of history as a linear process, there are no longer either developed or under-developed peoples. Thus, to encourage hope of evolution - albeit by revolution - among the poor and to doom them, in keeping with the objective illusion of progress, to technological salvation is a criminal absurdity. In actual fact, it is their good fortune to be able to escape from evolution just at the point when we no longer know where it is leading. In any case, a majority of these peoples, including those of Eastern Europe, do not seem keen to enter this evolutionist modernity, and their weight in the balance is certainly no small factor in the West's repudiation of its own history, of its own utopias and its own modernity. It might be said that the routes of violence, historical or otherwise, are being turned around and that the viruses now pass from South to North, there being every chance that, five hundred years after America was conquered, 1992 and the end of the century will mark the comeback of the defeated and the sudden reversal of that modernity. The sense of pride is no longer on the side of wealth but of poverty, of those who - fortunately for them - have nothing to repent, and may indeed glory in being privileged in terms of catastrophes. Admittedly, this is a privilege they could hardly renounce, even if they wished to, but natural disasters merely reinforce the sense of guilt felt towards them by the wealthy– by those whom God visibly scorns since he no longer even strikes them down. One day it will be the Whites themselves who will give up their whiteness. It is a good bet that repentance will reach its highest pitch with the five-hundredth anniversary of the conquest of the Americas. We are going to have to lift the curse of the defeated - but symbolically victorious - peoples, which is insinuating itself five hundred years later, byway of repentance, into the heart of the white race.No solution has been found to the dramatic situation of the under-developed, and none will be found since their drama has now been overtaken by that of the overdeveloped, of the rich nations. The psychodrama of congestion, saturation, super abundance, neurosis and the breaking of blood vessels which haunts us - the drama of the excess of means over ends – calls more urgently for attention than that of penury, lack and poverty. Tha tis where the most imminent danger of catastrophe resides, in the societies which have run out of emptiness. Artificial catastrophes, like the beneficial aspects of civilization,progress much more quickly than natural ones. The underdeveloped are still at the primary stage of the natural, unforeseeable catastrophe. We are already at the second stage, that of the manufactured catastrophe - imminent and foreseeable - and we shall soon be at that of the pre-programmed catastrophe, the catastrophe of the third kind,deliberate and experimental. And, paradoxically, it is our pursuit of the means for averting natural catastrophe - the unpredictable form of destiny - which will take us there. Because it is unable to escape it, humanity will pretend to be the author of its destiny. Because it cannot accept being confronted with an end which is uncertain or governed by fate, it will prefer to stage its own death as a species.

[vy65]

- Jean Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End.

[boutons_deux]

You do acknowledge there is some fraud in the system?

you mean public assistance programs? sure

Do you agree that we should encourage those who can work to do so?

encouragement isn't enough. nearly everybody wants to work, for a living wage, but 8M jobs were lost in 09, and living wage is not current minimum wage or, even double it.

Do you agree that we should try to minimize such fraud, yes?

of course, but all policing, security, enforcement has costs. Smart people know how to weight cost of anti-fraud vs saving from stopping it. eg, IRS knows that every $1 they spend on tax cheats returns way more than $1.

world tax authorities know increasing tax rate too much cause non-compliance which reduces the tax take.

public assistance fraud, the St Ronnie's Welfare Queen which is supposed to be rampant (it ain't), ain't nothing compared to the REAL FRAUD of the 1% and UCA

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/welfare-fraud-tax-avoidance

[RandomGuy]

You do acknowledge there is some fraud in the system?

you mean public assistance programs? sure

Do you agree that we should encourage those who can work to do so?

encouragement isn't enough. nearly everybody wants to work, for a living wage, but 8M jobs were lost in 09, and living wage is not current minimum wage or, even double it.

Do you agree that we should try to minimize such fraud, yes?

of course, but all policing, security, enforcement has costs. Smart people know how to weight cost of anti-fraud vs saving from stopping it. eg, IRS knows that every $1 they spend on tax cheats returns way more than $1.

world tax authorities know increasing tax rate too much cause non-compliance which reduces the tax take.

public assistance fraud, the St Ronnie's Welfare Queen which is supposed to be rampant (it ain't), ain't nothing compared to the REAL FRAUD of the 1% and UCA

Welfare fraud is a drop in the ocean compared to tax avoidance

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/01/welfare-fraud-tax-avoidance






So you would agree in principle with a lot of the things that concern conservatives, even moderates, bellicosity aside.

[RandomGuy]

- Jean Baudrillard, The Illusion of the End.

Okaaay.

...and all that means, in your own words, what?

We should hand books of French philosophy to poor people?

I am a lot less concerned with esoterics than pragmatic solutions to real world problems.

[vy65]

Okaaay.

...and all that means, in your own words, what?

We should hand books of French philosophy to poor people?

I am a lot less concerned with esoterics than pragmatic solutions to real world problems.

You're a (self-labeled) smart guy. Read it and figure it out. I'd be more than happy to answer specific questions, but I don't have the time or the patience to hold your hand for the entire thing.

Funny that someone who's so concerned about morals is so quick to disregard criticisms of those morals.

[RandomGuy]

You're a (self-labeled) smart guy. Read it and figure it out. I'd be more than happy to answer specific questions, but I don't have the time or the patience to hold your hand for the entire thing.

Funny that someone who's so concerned about morals is so quick to disregard criticisms of those morals.

I'm not disregarding it, merely asking for a distilled version of what you think it means.

I am (self-labeled) smart enough to figure out what *I* think it means, but that will not get me to what you think it means, and how that relates to the subject at hand.

[RandomGuy]

You're a (self-labeled) smart guy. Read it and figure it out. I'd be more than happy to answer specific questions, but I don't have the time or the patience to hold your hand for the entire thing.

Funny that someone who's so concerned about morals is so quick to disregard criticisms of those morals.

You do realize this is a critique of Western aid to what is commonly called developing countries, and isn't really all that applicable to the aid within the United States between its own citizens, yes?

On that particular subject, I would mildly agree with him, although I am hardly as cynical about peoples' motives. Cynicism is lazy thinking, in my opinion, and worse than useless, because it keeps people from seeing reality for what it is, and finding realistic solutions to problems identified by available evidence.

Personally I am less concerned about handing people in the developing world simple food handouts, than giving them the capacity to educate, and innovate in their own economies. At some point, I will be taking part in micro-lending and other programs.

I care little for feel-good handouts than for actually doing something. I want something that works, and that sticks.

It is a criticism, but not of me or what I tend to believe. Even so, the failure of its line of reasoning is that very cynicism. I would reject a good part of it for that reason, and would be happy to expand on that, if you wish.

(edit)

That is what I think it means. I will wait for you to tell me what it means and how it is applicable to the topic at hand, specifically welfare and entitlement spending within the US.

[vy65]

You do realize this is a critique of Western aid to what is commonly called developing countries, and isn't really all that applicable to the aid within the United States between its own citizens, yes?

Disagree. I think what you've identified is a (rather small) component, but not the overall point. The overall point is how those in privileged positions consume the plight of those afflicted by disaster, poverty, war, etc... The concept is commonly called disaster pornography: there's a sense of satisfaction associated with consuming images of people afflicted with pain; essentially, we get off on other people's suffering. Representations of that suffering is the mode in which consumption takes place.

This is really an indictment of (the way in which) you presented all those pictures up thread: its an indictment of the sanctimonious moralization of how great we are in helping out the poor downtrodden masses represented in those images.


On that particular subject, I would mildly agree with him, although I am hardly as cynical about peoples' motives. Cynicism is lazy thinking, in my opinion, and worse than useless, because it keeps people from seeing reality for what it is, and finding realistic solutions to problems identified by available evidence.

Not relevant. See above


Personally I am less concerned about handing people in the developing world simple food handouts, than giving them the capacity to educate, and innovate in their own economies. At some point, I will be taking part in micro-lending and other programs.

I care little for feel-good handouts than for actually doing something. I want something that works, and that sticks.

It is a criticism, but not of me or what I tend to believe. Even so, the failure of its line of reasoning is that very cynicism. I would reject a good part of it for that reason, and would be happy to expand on that, if you wish.

(edit)

That is what I think it means. I will wait for you to tell me what it means and how it is applicable to the topic at hand, specifically welfare and entitlement spending within the US.

Not relevant. See above.

[vy65]

I'm not disregarding it, merely asking for a distilled version of what you think it means.

I'm not so sure why what I think it means is all that important? In any event, I was a good sport and give you a clue.


I am (self-labeled) smart enough to figure out what *I* think it means, but that will not get me to what you think it means, and how that relates to the subject at hand.

See above.

[DeadlyDynasty]

I'm not so sure why what I think it means is all that important? In any event, I was a good sport and give you a clue.



See above.

I'm sorry but you're going on my ignore list since you don't wanna support 4th generation welfare queens.

You fucking Nazi.

[vy65]

I'm sorry but you're going on my ignore list since you don't wanna support 4th generation welfare queens.

You fucking Nazi.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2zdq7tv.gif

[RandomGuy]

I'm not so sure why what I think it means is all that important? In any event, I was a good sport and give you a clue.

See above.

I all see is a lot of vacuous cynicism, with no data supporting it, or even quantifying the effects of anything claimed.

Worse than useless.

Frankly, if you can't put it into your own words, I'm not even sure you understand it.

[RandomGuy]

Disagree. I think what you've identified is a (rather small) component, but not the overall point. The overall point is how those in privileged positions consume the plight of those afflicted by disaster, poverty, war, etc... The concept is commonly called disaster pornography: there's a sense of satisfaction associated with consuming images of people afflicted with pain; essentially, we get off on other people's suffering. Representations of that suffering is the mode in which consumption takes place.


Ok, even if I were to grant this as true, what use is this idea?

Real world problems, require real world solutions.

I would define starving human beings as a problem that requires someone with any sense of morality to take some small action.

[RandomGuy]

its an indictment of the sanctimonious moralization.


sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.



Why should I give a fuck about your or any other bottom feeder who sees me as a ticket to providing them with money


Who decides what sacrifice from whom?

... I don't believe in living to provide for the mass of human filth that is the poor.



Poor = people on the government dole (i.e., TANF and SNAP) = filth


Fuck them. Let them starve. Social Darwinism is my solution.

Hypocrite much?

[baseline bum]

http://i46.tinypic.com/2zdq7tv.gif

my nigga :tu

[RandomGuy]

its an indictment of the sanctimonious moralization.


sanc·ti·mo·ni·ous
ˌsaNG(k)təˈmōnēəs/Submit
adjectivederogatory
1.
making a show of being morally superior to other people.

I am not making a point that *I* am morally superior to other people.

I am making the point that *you* are morally inferior to other people.

Subtle difference, probably lost on you. You think of yourself as a moral person, no doubt, and will resolve the cognitive dissonance of being shown that you are immoral by holding up some useless philosophy as if that is the kind o thing that makes a shits worth of difference in the real world that we find ourselves in.

Pretty bloody ironic for somoene who says that the study of economics is "useless" in everyday life.

[vy65]

Ok, even if I were to grant this as true, what use is this idea?

Real world problems, require real world solutions.

I would define starving human beings as a problem that requires someone with any sense of morality to take some small action.

You're still not getting it. The indictment is of the interplay between the images of suffering, poverty, catastrophe, etc. and a sanctimonious moral display of concern. It's a critique of the satisfaction people receive from consuming these images and feeling so much better than other people because of said concern. It's also an indictment of how those who consume such imagery actually desire the suffering, pain, horrors, etc. they consume to continue, else they would run out of disaster to consume.

You'll notice in all of this I've said images/representations/etc. The issue is how the use of such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering. Hence the example of the caviar/champagne before the photographs of suffering at the human rights foundation.

The reason this is all relevant is because of the tirade you went on and the use of pictures in that tirade. It was the use of those photographs along with the moral claim that you made that made me think of this blurb from JB. That's also why my calling them filth has no relevance to the issue here.

More importantly, just because you think it has no application to real world problems doesn't mean that it *in fact* has no application to real world problems. We're on a fucking internet message board. We're not changing anything, hate to break it to you. This forum is a forum of the powerless. What we do here is discuss ideas and maybe learn something from time to time. The expectation that an idea has no applicability in the "real world" is stupid because nothing we do or say here has any applicability in the "real world." What we do have power to do here is discuss ideas and maybe change the way we think about things. Hence the indictment of how imagery of others suffering is consumed. It's an indictment of an idea (or really, a set of morals or the way those morals are used) and of a way of relating to the world.

[vy65]

I all see is a lot of vacuous cynicism, with no data supporting it, or even quantifying the effects of anything claimed.

Worse than useless.

Frankly, if you can't put it into your own words, I'm not even sure you understand it.

Again, I've done a lot of 'splaining, and I'm not hearing much in terms of a substantive response.

You're righty there's no data behind this. It's philosophy not social science. Just because there are no numbers doesn't make it less true. Data isn't everything.

And again, even if I didn't know what it said at all, so what? It doesn't make it less applicable.

[vy65]

I am not making a point that *I* am morally superior to other people.

I am making the point that *you* are morally inferior to other people.

Subtle difference, probably lost on you. You think of yourself as a moral person, no doubt, and will resolve the cognitive dissonance of being shown that you are immoral by holding up some useless philosophy as if that is the kind o thing that makes a shits worth of difference in the real world that we find ourselves in.

Pretty bloody ironic for somoene who says that the study of economics is "useless" in everyday life.

You got frothy with moral outrage and used those images to convey said frothiness. That's the trigger. Whether you think you are more or less moral than me is besides the point -- the point is how that imagery is deployed with a sense of moral outrage and how that covers a deeper desire for more of said suffering as a conduit for more moral outrage.

[vy65]

And for the record, I don't think of myself as a moral person at all. I don't think myself evil, but I do t bandy myself about as some model citizen or perfect individual. Intimating that I think myself moral is irrelevant and spot wrong.

[vy65]

And isn't it ironic that someone who decries nazism and fascism to start speaking of moral inferiority? I mean, not only are the words you're using convey the sense of moral superiority (ie, look I'm better than him) (and I acknowledge you disagree on this point but whatevs), but it's the same linguistic turn the nazis used to demonize the Jews, isn't it?

[vy65]

And where'd I say economics was useless?

[RandomGuy]

And for the record, I don't think of myself as a moral person at all. I don't think myself evil, but I do t bandy myself about as some model citizen or perfect individual. Intimating that I think myself moral is irrelevant and spot wrong.

Fair enough, you don't think of yourself as moral. Let's just substitute then the word evil. You don't think of yourself as evil, even though you openly advocate actions that most would consider evil.

How do you reconcile that in your head?

You simply call my arguments "not relevant", the intellectual equivalent of clapping your hands over your ears and going "lalalalalalalalalala".

The cognitive dissonance is still there. "RG can't be right about me being evil, because i am not evil."

For the record, I don't hold myself up as some paragon of morality. I have my flaws as anybody does.

But I never wish death on people for imaginary moral flaws.

[vy65]

I fail to see where I've openly advocated for killing someone. I've pretty consistently said that I should t bear others financial load. If that has undesired consequences, so be it. But it's not accurate to portray me as some sociopathic serial murderer.

More to the point, why do you feel the need to personalize everything? I'm really not that interesting, or important, in the grand scheme of things. What I say think or do probably won't mean much when all is said and done. So why make this conversation about me?

You're deflecting a conversation about numerous other more interesting topics and turning it into a fucking witch trial where you can boast about your moral superiority to others (see the pictures tirade ) while denigrating others.

Why do you do this? Are you incapable of discussing a social issue without making it personal? Are you seriously that insecure?

[RandomGuy]

You're still not getting it. The indictment is of the interplay between the images of suffering, poverty, catastrophe, etc. and a sanctimonious moral display of concern. It's a critique of the satisfaction people receive from consuming these images and feeling so much better than other people because of said concern. It's also an indictment of how those who consume such imagery actually desire the suffering, pain, horrors, etc. they consume to continue, else they would run out of disaster to consume.

You'll notice in all of this I've said images/representations/etc. The issue is how the use of such imagery is deployed in the real world to create the psychological drive for more suffering. Hence the example of the caviar/champagne before the photographs of suffering at the human rights foundation.

The reason this is all relevant is because of the tirade you went on and the use of pictures in that tirade. It was the use of those photographs along with the moral claim that you made that made me think of this blurb from JB. That's also why my calling them filth has no relevance to the issue here.

More importantly, just because you think it has no application to real world problems doesn't mean that it *in fact* has no application to real world problems. We're on a fucking internet message board. We're not changing anything, hate to break it to you. This forum is a forum of the powerless. What we do here is discuss ideas and maybe learn something from time to time. The expectation that an idea has no applicability in the "real world" is stupid because nothing we do or say here has any applicability in the "real world." What we do have power to do here is discuss ideas and maybe change the way we think about things. Hence the indictment of how imagery of others suffering is consumed. It's an indictment of an idea (or really, a set of morals or the way those morals are used) and of a way of relating to the world.

So fucking what? "pornography" or not, the moral thing to do is to help people who need it. The label of the images means jack shit. Call them hats for all that matters. They simply relate conditions. It is data, no more no less, represented in visual format that humans find effective in communicating.

I was simply contrasting your ignorance and spite with data and normal human decency, and making a case that you are ignorant, and your viewpoints immoral. I will leave it to others to judge whether I was effective.

It isn't an indictment because you wave your hands and say it is. I reject that.

I noticed you haven't bothered trying to show that the poor are filth or people on the dole are all somehow deserving of death. You are right to abandon that, but don't expect me to not rub your nose in that vomit until you have the decency to admit it was fucked up and hyperbolic.

[RandomGuy]

You got frothy with moral outrage and used those images to convey said frothiness. That's the trigger. Whether you think you are more or less moral than me is besides the point -- the point is how that imagery is deployed with a sense of moral outrage and how that covers a deeper desire for more of said suffering as a conduit for more moral outrage.

Proof?

Please show that I have a desire fore more suffering.

I call bullshit, and fucking resent the implication that I, even subconsciously desire more human misery. I do not.