FOX News poll shows Hillary losing in New York 2008 to Gui,McC

[catatonic]

I say vote for someone else. To lose in New York would be humiliating. Only vote for her if she can beat her opponent.

[ASsman]

*sigh*

[GreenEarthAl]

What would make anyone think that Hillary Clinton would be any better than Bill Clinton was?

Why not work between now and then to vote a Non-imperialist into office?

[YoungRemy]

hello, "FOX news poll"???


of course they predict that a Republican will beat a Democrat in the next election...

[catatonic]

It was also a Mason-Dixon poll, and FOX polls were accurate in 2004.

GEA, if the Republican party breaks up over SS or wanting everything then that's the golden opportunity.

But who do you reccomend I help?

[GreenEarthAl]

The electorate.

[catatonic]

OK I pledge. I know how much work people usually have to do to get help with something like this so I just pledge to help the electorate vote for third parties.

One thing that makes it so hard is that often the third party candidates won't compromise on a very unpopular opinion, like gay marriage, and they won't try to put spin on their words to make them look in the best possible light.

We need a mainstream third party candidate because otherwise there's no chance. And they need to run as active of a campaign as they can. No non-shaking of hands.

[synch]

I don't know much about campaigning but my guess that unless a third party gets invited to the presidential debates they have next to no chance of being a serious contender for the election regardless of the amount of exposure they get through other (media) channels.

Oh and yes, Fox "fair and balanced" News polls, wouldn't put too much faith in those.

[GreenEarthAl]

My point only is that without helping the electorate, you have no hope of voting anything better into office.

Progressive people have a long tradition of not being willing to compromise on unpopular issues. Progressive people were told all the way from abolitionism up through "the civil rights movement" (60s) that they were going to have to do the prudent thing and abandon the black folks or just be willing to wait longer.

Really the strategy I advise, is to come up with your own personal list of items you aren't willing to compromise on. Then select the candidate that fits your criteria with the best chance to win. For me it was easy because the Green Party came up with a list of criteria all of which I could agree with: 10KP (http://gp.org/tenkey.html). But even still, for so long as there are candidates in a more advantageous position I support them as well. While Dennis Kucinich was still in the Dem nomination race I supported him. He met my criteria list and had more electability than the Greens.

Allowing fascists to give you multiple choice every four years of [ a) the fast march to fascism b) the slightly less rapid march ] is a recipe that can lead nowhere else but fascism. Back when the Dems and the Whigs were the two major parties everyone was supposed to believe that was the way it was always going to be and there was no hope in considering any alternative.

[catatonic]

I don't have a problem compromising any issue... I simply go for the best I can get.

2008 candidates

# George Allen 2008
# Lance Armstrong 2008
# Joe Biden 2008
# Phil Bredesen 2008
# Tom Brokaw 2008
# Jeb Bush 2008
# Bill Cosby 2008
# John Edwards 2008
# Hillary Clinton 2008
# Russ Feingold 2008
# Bill Frist 2008
# Rudy Giuliani 2008
# Newt Gingrich 2008
# Chuck Hagel 2008
# John Kerry 2008
# Joe Lieberman 2008
# John McCain 2008
# Zell Miller 2008
# Colin Powell 2008
# Condoleezza Rice 2008
# Fred Thompson 2008
# Mark Warner 2008
# Christie Whitman 2008

Factors that lead to the end of the world are that everything seems to be getting worse and we're expected to do more

Consumer debt
Less educated people
Degrading the environment
More aggressive war stance
More drug use
More pornography use
More poverty
Less middle class

Phil Bredesen looks like a good candidate. I'm not sure if he's Republican or Democrat but he's one.

[catatonic]

Mark Warner and Christie Whitman look real good since they're Centrist.

I really like Mark Warner. He seems to be anti-imperialistic.

[Rosie Cotton]

Lance Armstrong?

[catatonic]

I'm having a love-in with Mark Warner.

http://quiz.ontheissues.org/Mark_Warner.htm

He could win very easily if he won at the party level.

[synch]

Factors that lead to the end of the world are that everything seems to be getting worse and we're expected to do more

Consumer debt
Less educated people
Degrading the environment
More aggressive war stance
More drug use
More pornography use
More poverty
Less middle class
Pornography looks a bit out of place in that list but that's a whole other thread :)

[catatonic]

Pornography is worse than all those things.

Pornography may lead to breakup of family, ostracization from Church, lost work productivity, mental health problems, criminal behavior, loss of beauty in life, awkward relationships, harder to have orgasms, and general apathy. It leads to low self-esteem among porn stars, who often drink themselves senseless to be able to participate. It's just another corporation that drains our economy and invades our personal lives without enriching them in any way.

Challenge one of those statements and you will likely get burned. It's more destructive than physical death because at least in physical death the person dies with a soul. With pornography you're the living dead. Challenge that statement and you will likely win, but I still believe it.

[synch]

As said before a discussion about pornography doesn't belong in this thread and I don't intend on having one. I was merely stating that I don't think it belongs in that list.

I also don't agree with most of what you said in your post and doubt I'd get "burned' in a discussion about it, but that's not a challenge or an invitation for discussion, just another statement :)

[DroppinScience]

I say vote for someone else. To lose in New York would be humiliating. Only vote for her if she can beat her opponent.

That's funny, because here (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050606&s=sargent) she's doing great.

Her campaigning in rural New York is actually pretty fascinating...

[EN[i]GMA]

You guys probably don't agree with him very much, but Badnarik is as anti-imperialistic as you can get (Non-interventionist foreign policy).

Getting these warmongers out of office won't be easy when the anti-war forces are split between left and right.

For example, these guys, http://antiwar.com/ , are libertarians as well.

At least check out the Libertarian Party before writing them off.

www.lp.org

[ASsman]

God Damn porn...

Muh, voting, two roads, slow slight change, over pushing for more "radical" canidates and just bashing the nail on the head... hoping one day it'll go in straight.

I prefer leaving this porn ridden nation!!!

[catatonic]

I have checked out the Libertarian party repeatedly.

They seem too anti-imperialist. What always turns me off immediately is they take no thought for the poor.

They don't want to care for the poor unless it's them. It's a moral obligation to care for the poor enough that they aren't simply prey to the rich. The needy need to be comfortable, and they also need to work. If you don't want to care for the poor then in my book you are a greedy coward or else blinded by ideology.

*takes a sip of that mug*

[catatonic]

That's funny, because here (http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050606&s=sargent) she's doing great.

Her campaigning in rural New York is actually pretty fascinating...

Dropping Science, did the article say anything about polls, because just because she's popular among some crowds who gather to see her doesn't mean she's popular overall.

I just want to be practical if she's not winning.

[EN[i]GMA]

I have checked out the Libertarian party repeatedly.

They seem too anti-imperialist. What always turns me off immediately is they take no thought for the poor.

They don't want to care for the poor unless it's them. It's a moral obligation to care for the poor enough that they aren't simply prey to the rich. The needy need to be comfortable, and they also need to work. If you don't want to care for the poor then in my book you are a greedy coward or else blinded by ideology.

*takes a sip of that mug*

They have a defense.

I'm not as studied on it as many, but they say private charity will fill the gap. Private charity is better managed (I believe a study has shown most private charities are less than half as wasteful as the government, but don't quote me on that), morally superiour, and more feasible.

With the lower tax rates, increased economic growth and lack of a safety net that breeds dependance, poverty as we know it would drastically increase.

Couple this with the influx of money into private charity, and the problem is solved.

Do you believe it? Maybe, maybe not, but they aren't forgetting the poor, they just think the best way to help them is to make them un-poor, not hand them money.

[catatonic]

This is a persuasive argument. Thank you for reminding me of it.

My main concern is that there would be some people who wouldn't be lifted out of poverty. There are the attitudinous, the addicted, and the otherwise unemployable. I feel that if people give charity to them, they won't give enough. They should live comfortable lives too.

I don't know what would happen, but I don't want to find out. Didn't people used to die a lot when taxes were low and they were doing this. I know after the stock market crash of 29 many people commited suicide. Our stock market is overinflated now. So likewise now I think many people need more help than people are willing to give on their own.

I'll try doing some research on what life was like before the 1920s.

[catatonic]

With some things, the government does do a better job, like health care and social security.

[synch]

I'll try doing some research on what life was like before the 1920s.First world war was just over, the prohibition started (no booze) and no internet :(

[catatonic]

En[i]gma, the facts seem to be against you I'm sorry to say.

Tax cuts and no welfare seem to increase poverty. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm)

I will check for more websites with which to investigate this interesting topic.

[catatonic]

There seems to have been government welfare beforehand, just by local county governments.

[catatonic]

This is interesting (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/pov-j12.shtml)

[catatonic]

Maybe you're right. Oh never mind. I said that after reading from the Heritage Foundation.

[Ace42]

GMA']morally superiour

Like the scientologists?

[catatonic]

This (http://www.holisticpolitics.org/WelfareThatWorks/Option4.php) welfare system looks better... less government... negative income tax for the poorest people and the income tax is linear... not as much incentive to be poor... affordable.

My favorite is requiring everyone to work.

[catatonic]

Welfare Reform: The Failed Anti-Poverty Prescription (http://www.foodfirst.org/welfare_factsheet)

[EN[i]GMA]

En[i]gma, the facts seem to be against you I'm sorry to say.

Tax cuts and no welfare seem to increase poverty. (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfarepoverty.htm)

I will check for more websites with which to investigate this interesting topic.

So if welfare reduces poverty, we should just give everyone millions of dollars in welfare!

Right?

I've got facts that go the other way.

First of all, the 'poor' in America generally aren't that poor: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm

Second, this book is supposed to be the defining book on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0465042333/ref=pd_sxp_f/102-8674412-9993717?v=glance&s=books

I've not yet read it, so I won't talk about it, but apparently it doesn't portray welfare very well.

I don't think that your website gives it fair acknowledgement though.

Thirdly, let's look at some more facts on poverty. The Economist reported that fewer than 1% of the poor in America finished high-school, got and stayed married and kept a job for longer than a year.

Though this isn't in the data sitting in front of me, I would also add 'not have kids' to the list.

If someone finishes high-school, doesn't have children, keeps a job and gets married, they will not be poor.

Period.

This is really a woefuly complex topic.

I think a good way to summarize it though, is to compare the U.S., and the states of Europe.

Both are relatively free-market, both are prosperous and rich, both house welfare states, but compare the two welfare states, the incentives to work and the economic growth of these 2 areas.

It's a total shutout for Europe. Quite simply, there is little reason to work in countries like Sweden.

France and Germany are stagnant, Italy is regressing, the EU 25 is sluggish and the countries that followed more of a market reform, G.B. and Spain, are prospering.

2 good pieces on the topic of poverty and America vs. Europe, respectively:

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html

and

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

[EN[i]GMA]

This is interesting (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/jan2000/pov-j12.shtml)

I'm not a huge fan of welfare reform, I believe it should be scrapped entirely.

I'll read the studies though.

[EN[i]GMA]

Like the scientologists?

No, like Jews for Jesus.

[EN[i]GMA]

This (http://www.holisticpolitics.org/WelfareThatWorks/Option4.php) welfare system looks better... less government... negative income tax for the poorest people and the income tax is linear... not as much incentive to be poor... affordable.

My favorite is requiring everyone to work.

Decent ideas.

I'll pore over that page, it looks promising.

[EN[i]GMA]

Welfare Reform: The Failed Anti-Poverty Prescription (http://www.foodfirst.org/welfare_factsheet)

The point of Welfare Reform was, quite simply, just to get people off of welfare.

The rolls were enormous and expansive.

I'm sure it was not done in an effective manner.

Here's a good piece on the subject of welfare: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-212.html

[catatonic]

OK. First of all, I've scratched the heritage website off my list because I know how badly they distort data. I was almost convinced when I was reading one of their pages myself.

Second of all, I've scratched CATO website off my list because I know how badly they just don't care about workers.

I'll get to everything else soon.

[EN[i]GMA]

And yes, I do believe it's difficult for people dependant on welfare to adjust to having an actual job.

That's the problem with welfare; it breeds dependancy.

It gives people a since of, surprise, entitlement!

And tell me, if welfare was and is so effective, why are so many still poor? Why are people still poor in Europe with it's massive welfare states (They might not be considered 'poor', but compare the average American poor with the average European, as the study has done, and you see what I mean).

Tell me, how can Europe keep it's massive welfare programs afloat as their economies slow, their unemployment rises, their population retires and their bureuacracies become bloated?

Short answer: They can't.

I mean, you tell me, what's wrong with Europe?

[EN[i]GMA]

OK. First of all, I've scratched the heritage website off my list because I know how badly they distort data. I was almost convinced when I was reading one of their pages myself.

Second of all, I've scratched CATO website off my list because I know how badly they just don't care about workers.

I'll get to everything else soon.

Fair enough, though I'm to take your sources at face value?

I would say most are liberal leaning.

Tell me though, how does Heritage 'distort data'?

The data on that poverty page is almost exactly the same data as is in the Timbro study, even though the Timbro study was done 4 years earlier.

They both use BLS statistics, and the fact that their results are similar makes sense; those things aren't likely to fluctuate much.

And I don't think your generalization of Cato is fair at all.

Can I still use the American Enterprise Institue or the handful of other libertarian think-tanks I know of?

[EN[i]GMA]

My 30 minutes of research at Cato, Heritage, AEI, Stanford Institute and the Economist, taken with your data, has led me to this conclusion: This is one hell of a complex issue, not likely to be solved here today.

[EN[i]GMA]

Revision: The Timbro link was written in 2004 and does source Heritage, my mistake.

I still maintain that the data is correct though.

[catatonic]

I'll look at the Heritage Foundation page and the CATO page, *when I get around to it*.

As for this page,

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_working_poor.html

the argument seems to be that we shouldn't help the poor because they brought this upon themselves. I consider that an immoral argument, partly because we aren't better than each other. If I'm not better than the drug-addict or the abusive-spouse-seeker than why should I withhold my money from them. Saying they deserve to starve because of their mistakes is particularly heinous and gruesome. We're a human family; everyone should be motivated to work but we should take care of each other.
(I also think that we are all beggars before God and therefore if we depend on God and then withhold from others He will condemn us)

[catatonic]

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

I skimmed through it. I'm not so sure Americans are more prosperous. You forgot to look at personal savings and consumer debt. Americans have next to no savings.

Also, one of the indicators of success was that Americans had bigger homes. Is that really a measure of success? Americans are spending more of their money on larger homes which consume valuable environmental resources, driving up the price for Europeans who want to replenish the earth's resources more. It's like we're stealing from them because we aren't saving like they are and we are taking it first.

Natural resources should be worth $400-500 trillion, but we all take them for free, so in a sense this is because we are stealing.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'll re-read the article and respond.

Tommorow.

And check out the whole of that holisticpolitics site, it's fascinating. I love it.

[EN[i]GMA]

http://www.timbro.com/euvsusa/

I skimmed through it. I'm not so sure Americans are more prosperous. You forgot to look at personal savings and consumer debt. Americans have next to no savings.

Also, one of the indicators of success was that Americans had bigger homes. Is that really a measure of success? Americans are spending more of their money on larger homes which consume valuable environmental resources, driving up the price for Europeans who want to replenish the earth's resources more. It's like we're stealing from them because we aren't saving like they are and we are taking it first.

Natural resources should be worth $400-500 trillion, but we all take them for free, so in a sense this is because we are stealing.

To be fair though, Europeans aren't saving much either.

They are also in debt.

And if we are really in such a dire need to save resources, we'll be running out in a few hundred years anyway, so screw it, let's party while we're here.

And I don't think it's fair to say American's use more in terms of resources, broadly; they only consume more because they can. If Europeans were richer, they would no doubt want more DVDs and bigger homes, it's just not on their plate.

[catatonic]

GMA']Here's a good piece on the subject of welfare: http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-212.html

Good? More like scary to no end. Do you realize what this page is advocating? First they say welfare is innefective in helping the poor, so their solution, get rid of it and let the poor starve.

This page is hopelessly false and narrowminded. They say charities should give temporary assistance. What does that mean? Those who can't get back to work after temporary work, according to their solution, get no government help at all and no charity help at all. They die.

Some pathetic diatribe to degrade human life.

The CATO Institute is absolutely pathetic in defending the rights and even the responsibilities of anyone other than the wealthy. If it were up to them we'd all have microchips in our wrists and foreheads for corporations to make us their slaves, and the only people who wouldn't be slaves are the CEOs, and they'd be fighting to not be slaves to each other, and I can only imagine a lot of warfare would result.

The CATO Institute really doesn't care about workers at all. Not one bit. Your article proved that. It was hopelessly false and misguided.

[catatonic]

The fact that Europe is not as successful economically as the United States is a good thing. If the world were as economically successful as America, most of the world would be dead in 15 years from overuse of resources.

My point is that America's consumption is a very bad thing. We have to move past looking at the economy and towards looking at resources if we want to continue to hold our numbers on this planet.

But I digress. Is European lack of prosperity because of their welfare system? Probably. But that's not the point. If Europe ended it's welfare, many Europeans would starve, and that's immoral. They should reform it and we should reform ours, but not end them.

[catatonic]

Regarding the sections from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
on Hunger and Poverty, Poverty and Malnutrition, Nutrition and Poor Children, Poor Children's weight and stature, and Stature:

I've found this statistic that blows all of these out of the water:

Young children in food insecure
households with hunger are 2.3 times
more likely to be food insecure than
children in food secure homes.
• Food insecurity even without hunger
is still harmful. Young children in food
insecure households without hunger are
1.7 times more likely to have fair or
poor health than children in food
secure homes.
• Young children in food insecure
households are 1.3 times more likely
to have a history of hospitalization
than children in food secure homes.
Source: C-SNAP data; 11,539 families at 6 sites
August 1998-December 2001.8

And another little statistic the Heritage foundation could care less about. Sixty-one percent of low-income families have no books for children in their homes. Over 80 percent of childcare centers serving low-income children lack age-appropriate books and other print materials. Source: theliteracysite.com

The Heritage foundation likely fails to mention lack of furnite which is significant. And a lot of those homes don't have hardly any amenities. What about them?

Most of these people are not living in comfort, especially if they don't have books! How are they supposed to go to college? The Heritage Foundation, I think, wants them less-educated.

[catatonic]

Anyway glad to help you out with the holisticpolitics site. Have a nice night on your nonimpoverished mattress and I will too.

[synch]

GMA']To be fair though, Europeans aren't saving much either.

They are also in debt.

And if we are really in such a dire need to save resources, we'll be running out in a few hundred years anyway, so screw it, let's party while we're here.

And I don't think it's fair to say American's use more in terms of resources, broadly; they only consume more because they can. If Europeans were richer, they would no doubt want more DVDs and bigger homes, it's just not on their plate.
There is only so many dvd players you need and I think the bigger home thing is a question of geography.

I think your attitude towards the enviroment is an important thing that distinguishes europe from the US and it reflects on your point about the US consuming more because they can. Normally people here select a car based on mileage and not on whether you could crash it through a wall. It's a cultural difference, not a difference in potential and simply not having it "on our plate".

All in my very uninformed opinion.

[EN[i]GMA]

Good? More like scary to no end. Do you realize what this page is advocating? First they say welfare is innefective in helping the poor, so their solution, get rid of it and let the poor starve.

This page is hopelessly false and narrowminded. They say charities should give temporary assistance. What does that mean? Those who can't get back to work after temporary work, according to their solution, get no government help at all and no charity help at all. They die.

Some pathetic diatribe to degrade human life.

The CATO Institute is absolutely pathetic in defending the rights and even the responsibilities of anyone other than the wealthy. If it were up to them we'd all have microchips in our wrists and foreheads for corporations to make us their slaves, and the only people who wouldn't be slaves are the CEOs, and they'd be fighting to not be slaves to each other, and I can only imagine a lot of warfare would result.

The CATO Institute really doesn't care about workers at all. Not one bit. Your article proved that. It was hopelessly false and misguided.

How would 'the corporations' plant microchips in your head unless you allow them?

A more accurate description of Cato would be 'preventing the Federal Government from isntalling microchips in your forehead'.

If you simply don't like them, that's fine, I can respect that, but don't sensationalize; Cato is very direct about what it does, works to reduce the size of government. Period.

[EN[i]GMA]

Regarding the sections from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Welfare/bg1713.cfm
on Hunger and Poverty, Poverty and Malnutrition, Nutrition and Poor Children, Poor Children's weight and stature, and Stature:

I've found this statistic that blows all of these out of the water:

Young children in food insecure
households with hunger are 2.3 times
more likely to be food insecure than
children in food secure homes.
• Food insecurity even without hunger
is still harmful. Young children in food
insecure households without hunger are
1.7 times more likely to have fair or
poor health than children in food
secure homes.
• Young children in food insecure
households are 1.3 times more likely
to have a history of hospitalization
than children in food secure homes.
Source: C-SNAP data; 11,539 families at 6 sites
August 1998-December 2001.8

And another little statistic the Heritage foundation could care less about. Sixty-one percent of low-income families have no books for children in their homes. Over 80 percent of childcare centers serving low-income children lack age-appropriate books and other print materials. Source: theliteracysite.com

The Heritage foundation likely fails to mention lack of furnite which is significant. And a lot of those homes don't have hardly any amenities. What about them?

Most of these people are not living in comfort, especially if they don't have books! How are they supposed to go to college? The Heritage Foundation, I think, wants them less-educated.


Those statistics don't conflict with Heritage's.

They're not good statistics, but they aren't in confrontation with what Heritage said.

About books, most low income people aren't, I hate to say, the sharpest knives in the drawer. The fact that many of them cannot read, did not finish high school, got pregnant before they could support the child and grew up in a similar home means that reading isn't a very high priority in their household.

The Heritage Foundation isn't saying they're living in comfort, just that their plight has been severely misrepresented by some.

[EN[i]GMA]

The fact that Europe is not as successful economically as the United States is a good thing. If the world were as economically successful as America, most of the world would be dead in 15 years from overuse of resources.

My point is that America's consumption is a very bad thing. We have to move past looking at the economy and towards looking at resources if we want to continue to hold our numbers on this planet.

But I digress. Is European lack of prosperity because of their welfare system? Probably. But that's not the point. If Europe ended it's welfare, many Europeans would starve, and that's immoral. They should reform it and we should reform ours, but not end them.

Let me get this straight. If Europe (Which already consumes massive amounts of resources) were to consume as many as the U.S., we would run out in 15 years?

Well since they already consume almost as much as we Americans, won't the entire world just run out in 30 years?

Can you at all back up this 15 year claim?

And no, millions would not starve if Europe ended it's welfare/regulation states. Millions of people would have jobs.

You don't understand. Europe is in trouble. A downturn in the world economy (A likely occurance) could kill their economies.

There will be no amount of welfare that helps when everyone is poor, which is what is inevietably happening.

The median age is moving into the 50's, the people are retiring and new workers aren't being born to take their place.

Tell me how this is sustainable.

[EN[i]GMA]

There is only so many dvd players you need and I think the bigger home thing is a question of geography.

I think your attitude towards the enviroment is an important thing that distinguishes europe from the US and it reflects on your point about the US consuming more because they can. Normally people here select a car based on mileage and not on whether you could crash it through a wall. It's a cultural difference, not a difference in potential and simply not having it "on our plate".

All in my very uninformed opinion.

Perhaps, but culture differences are find hard to quantify.

Couple that with the fact that European countries tax things like S.U.V's, and I'm lead to believe that we're more similar than many are willing to admit, their nanny states are just more (or less) effective (depending on how you look at it).

[EN[i]GMA]

Anyway glad to help you out with the holisticpolitics site. Have a nice night on your nonimpoverished mattress and I will too.

I don't think my mattress is 'nonimpoverished'. As a matter of fact, in my years I've yet to see a mattress that was either 'impoverished' or 'nonimpovrished'.

[Qdrop]

the argument seems to be that we shouldn't help the poor because they brought this upon themselves. I consider that an immoral argument, partly because we aren't better than each other. bullshit.
i AM better than a jobless junkie sleeping on the sidewalk. IMO, most of them got THEMSELVES there with thier poor life choices. i did not.
i AM better than them.
this idea of all men being considered equal at all times is bullshit. you should be born with a prospect of social equality...from there, it is up to you. if you fuck up repeatedly....you are not equal to those that do not. period.

If I'm not better than the drug-addict or the abusive-spouse-seeker than why should I withhold my money from them. i could not disagree more. could you liberal heart bleed anymore?
it is people like you that drive me to be overall fiscally conservative...and drive otherwise liberal or centrist people to GOP....

Saying they deserve to starve because of their mistakes is particularly heinous and gruesome. i disagree. now children are another story. they are the true innocents.

We're a human family; everyone should be motivated to work but we should take care of each other. we are society- a super organism that exists in nature. organisms don't survive and stay strong by carrying it's weaker parts...it severs them...


as Enigma said, this is a very complex debate....
but i do, in my experiance and research, believe that welfare is a trap...and actually more of a hinderance to the poor then anything else.

welfare should extremely limited with strict timelines....

having more children is NOT an excuse to get more welfare and stay on it longer (yes people, this is what happens- i have first hand knowledge of this)...
i believe if parents cannot afford the children they have...even after a limited helping hand from welfare, their children should be taken away.

you MUST work to survive....if you cannot care for you family, it is not the taxpayer responsibility to do it for you.

[EN[i]GMA]

Catatonic, do you agree with the statement that people who finish high school, get married, keep a job and not have children do not become or stay poor?

[synch]

GMA']Perhaps, but culture differences are find hard to quantify.

Couple that with the fact that European countries tax things like S.U.V's, and I'm lead to believe that we're more similar than many are willing to admit, their nanny states are just more (or less) effective (depending on how you look at it).
How does taxing SUV's make us more similar? The usage of SUV's is being discouraged here.

Oh and in the end we are all human, I'm not saying that we are from different planets or anything :)

[EN[i]GMA]

How does taxing SUV's make us more similar? The usage of SUV's is being discouraged here.

Oh and in the end we are all human, I'm not saying that we are from different planets or anything :)

I mean that Europeans are less likely to purchase SUVs because of the tax.

[catatonic]

Let me first respond to Qdrop.

It's not that I'm a bleeding heart liberal. In fact I'm a moderate (not an idealogical moderate but a moderate). It's not that I think people aren't different.

It's that we're all pathetic beggars. None of us can speak out and say we're anything great. If it weren't for our employer or other people, we'd be on welfare and then starve ourselves. They don't have to hire us. Many poor people have made poor choices but then, we've all made poor choices. How can we say they deserve it and we don't? I'm sure they didn't mean to make those poor choices, just like we don't. We were all beggars to our parents growing up, so none of us can say that we don't owe the world some things that it asks for, and the world ought to ask us to care for these people. Some people have to be rich unless they give their money away. Does that mean that they all deserve to be rich and not share their money? Does Bill Gates deserve to give all his money to his children when he dies, creating an economy problem? What did his children do to deserve it? Didn't he break the law along the way?

If you would find some religion this would be a lot easier argument, because then I could say that we are all beggars before God.

[Qdrop]

It's not that I think people aren't different. that's where we differ.

It's that we're all pathetic beggars. bull.

None of us can speak out and say we're anything great. i can. i'm pretty proud of myself and what i've accomplished so far.

Many poor people have made poor choices but then, we've all made poor choices? not as bad as them. you can't just gloss over this. not all mistakes are equal.
How can we say they deserve it and we don't? we earned it.
what is the incentive to achieve otherwise?

you're talking like a communist.
(and i don't mean that in a derogatory way...)

I'm sure they didn't mean to make those poor choices, just like we don't. so now they're victims? oh come on!!
We were all beggars to our parents growing up, so none of us can say that we don't owe the world some things that it asks for, and the world ought to ask us to care for these people. i believe in giving back to the society and system that you live off of...yes. but if you do not contribute...you cannot expect payment.



If you would find some religion this would be a lot easier argument, because then I could say that we are all beggars before God.
religion for utilitarina purpose.
disgusting.

this is what causes war...

[catatonic]

This is a sad effect of atheism, people don't want to care for the weak.

Hitler used atheism and Darwinism quite persuasively to that end. Where do you draw the line at becoming a fascist?

[catatonic]

i believe in giving back to the society and system that you live off of...yes. but if you do not contribute...you cannot expect payment.


And what about those who are so less able to give back, they can give back a few dollars worth?

[synch]

I haven't read the entire thread but are you saying all atheists have no compassion or empathy?

[catatonic]

I'm saying qdrop doesn't have enough empathy or compassion to help those who have no way of paying back society, and if he believed the Book of Mormon he'd be different. I just wish I could influence him to believe that we are all beggars before God.

This road leads to fascism. "Let's not kill them but let's let all the inferior races die."

Or else it leads to the usual reality of socialism. "We say we're for poor but we don't really help them."

[catatonic]

Qdrop, it's obvious we have a difference. There's no need to discuss it further.

[catatonic]

GMA']How would 'the corporations' plant microchips in your head unless you allow them?

As you give corporations more control, and the same goes with government, they may take more control of you. If corporations have all the control, they'll form monopolies and oligopolies without government to constrain them. Then they'll raise prices so you can live at the level they want you to live at. They'll pay people in coupons for their stores. They'd insert the microchip because then they can monitor you better as a customer, telling you you'll get better deals, and you won't have a choice, because they'll control all the prices.

Government might do it too but I'm more thinking corporations would do it.

[catatonic]

GMA']If you simply don't like them, that's fine, I can respect that, but don't sensationalize; Cato is very direct about what it does, works to reduce the size of government. Period.

CATO is not at all direct about what it does, completely ignoring in it's powergrab-seek for no welfare those who are attitudinous, addicted, and uneducated enough that they can't find jobs. Completely ignoring many things. Subtly suggesting Bill Clinton evil for his liberal philosophy.

[catatonic]

GMA']Those statistics don't conflict with Heritage's.

They're not good statistics, but they aren't in confrontation with what Heritage said.

About books, most low income people aren't, I hate to say, the sharpest knives in the drawer. The fact that many of them cannot read, did not finish high school, got pregnant before they could support the child and grew up in a similar home means that reading isn't a very high priority in their household.

The Heritage Foundation isn't saying they're living in comfort, just that their plight has been severely misrepresented by some.

And what about furniture and books? The Heritage foundation paints the picture that because some have DVD players and color TVs, they must have a lot of other stuff true. I guess it is true. What about the poorest third of the poor, who even the Heritage Foundation can't suggest to me are living in comfort? Also, what about what I said about food insecurity and how it leads to all those health problems?

[catatonic]

GMA']Let me get this straight. If Europe (Which already consumes massive amounts of resources) were to consume as many as the U.S., we would run out in 15 years?

Well since they already consume almost as much as we Americans, won't the entire world just run out in 30 years?

Can you at all back up this 15 year claim?

And no, millions would not starve if Europe ended it's welfare/regulation states. Millions of people would have jobs.

You don't understand. Europe is in trouble. A downturn in the world economy (A likely occurance) could kill their economies.

There will be no amount of welfare that helps when everyone is poor, which is what is inevietably happening.

The median age is moving into the 50's, the people are retiring and new workers aren't being born to take their place.

Tell me how this is sustainable.


Many would starve because people wouldn't be used to giving so much charity, maybe not but I wouldn't want to take that risk. They can reform their welfare, and they will have to. Also, when people give charity to the poor, they just give them a little bit to go find a job. What about those who can't find a job. In the CATO Institute's own words they won't be helped by anyone, left to starve.

[EN[i]GMA]

This is a sad effect of atheism, people don't want to care for the weak.

Hitler used atheism and Darwinism quite persuasively to that end. Where do you draw the line at becoming a fascist?

Morally superior to helping the poor because God sends your ass to help.

Religion makes a mockery of altruism.

You cannot prove that atheists are less helpful, only claim the moral high ground and cry saint at us.

[EN[i]GMA]

I'm saying qdrop doesn't have enough empathy or compassion to help those who have no way of paying back society, and if he believed the Book of Mormon he'd be different. I just wish I could influence him to believe that we are all beggars before God.

This road leads to fascism. "Let's not kill them but let's let all the inferior races die."

Or else it leads to the usual reality of socialism. "We say we're for poor but we don't really help them."

We help them to help themselves.

People are not inherently worthy of help.

I'm not going to give you money 'just because you're poor', when your poverty might very well be your own fault.

[EN[i]GMA]

As you give corporations more control, and the same goes with government, they may take more control of you. If corporations have all the control, they'll form monopolies and oligopolies without government to constrain them. Then they'll raise prices so you can live at the level they want you to live at. They'll pay people in coupons for their stores. They'd insert the microchip because then they can monitor you better as a customer, telling you you'll get better deals, and you won't have a choice, because they'll control all the prices.

Government might do it too but I'm more thinking corporations would do it.

Bullshit.

How can they do ANY of this?

Consumers are just going to say, "Hmm, I think I'll sell my soul to Microsoft today".?

Once these things start happening, won't businesses start up that don't do them, and won't people shop at those businesses?

[EN[i]GMA]

Many would starve because people wouldn't be used to giving so much charity, maybe not but I wouldn't want to take that risk. They can reform their welfare, and they will have to. Also, when people give charity to the poor, they just give them a little bit to go find a job. What about those who can't find a job. In the CATO Institute's own words they won't be helped by anyone, left to starve.

So those people who choose not to help themselves, should be helped by us?

I don't think so.

[EN[i]GMA]

And what about furniture and books? The Heritage foundation paints the picture that because some have DVD players and color TVs, they must have a lot of other stuff true. I guess it is true. What about the poorest third of the poor, who even the Heritage Foundation can't suggest to me are living in comfort? Also, what about what I said about food insecurity and how it leads to all those health problems?

Why would the poor buy DVD players and not furniture? Are they just stupid? They spend their money on TVs an toasters instead of chairs, and I'm supposed to feel sorry for them?

I think the best solution would be to become un-poor, not give them handouts so they can be dependants forever.

[catatonic]

I'm not saying atheists are less altruistic. True and pure religion is that you visit the sick and afflicted whether you're an atheist or not. If you do that you will learn to care. GreenEarthAl is an atheist and he's on my side more or less. I'm thinking Qdrops idealogy against religion is not helping him to care. That's all.

And I don't think they shouldn't help themselves when they can. I've always said if they are able to work they should be required to work (but not 117 hours a week). I've always said that.

I'm talking about the people who can't help themselves and forgiving those who can but didn't and requiring them to work but nonetheless helping them to live comfortable lives.

Saying someone brought the poverty on themself is no excuse in my book, but neither is them not wanting to work. That's what I've been saying all along.