Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:53am PT
|
Madbolter, if you want to have a discussion about what the government "should" do, I'm all ears. But you keep arguing that the government "can't" do things that it very obviously can.
You're reading my "can't" as "incapable of," while I mean it as "can't LEGITIMATELY do". I thought my meaning was pretty obvious, but apparently not. It IS obvious that the government CAN (in your sense) do all sorts of things it SHOULDN'T do (there are countless examples), so your reading of me would utterly fail to make any meaningful distinction. So, again, I take it as pretty obvious that by "can't" I MEAN "shouldn't".
|
|
NutAgain!
Trad climber
South Pasadena, CA
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:54am PT
|
About half think more or less like you, and about half thing more or less like me.
I'm open to hearing more exposition of your viewpoint. I like to understand multiple perspectives and choose. What I have heard so far is mostly destroying another viewpoint, but not creating something in its place.
Please lay out your vision of personal responsibility and accountability, and how you see yourself in the world where some people can't or don't take care of their own needs. Do you just try to stay at home so you don't have to step over the poop in the streets, and face the beggars and crazy people? Do you pay for servants to go out and interact with those undesirables so you can stay in your shell? I'm exaggerating what the short-term world will be, but I honestly think this is the long-term consequence of the view you are espousing. I would like to hear how you think it all plays out according to the vision that you think is best for our future.
I'll admit I suspect your viewpoint is more about hiding the truth from yourself, sticking your head in the sand, and you don't want to face the consequences of your viewpoint. But I can accept being wrong on this. I honestly do want to understand where the difference is in your perception from mine. That is the only hope I see in finding common ground and reconciling viewpoints.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 10:57am PT
|
The vast majority of the country thinks welfare is fine, but a certain chunk more likely to agree with you think that non-whites just don't deserve it.
I disagree. The "vast majority" of the country thinks that "some" welfare is fine, but there is sweeping misunderstanding about what "welfare" even is. That's why I prefaced both "I think" and "you think" with "more or less". The spectrum of thought is pretty sweeping, and as we see on this very thread, we can't even be clear about such terms as "can't".
And I honestly don't believe that the "vast majority" associate welfare with race, as you say. I don't, and I don't know anybody who does. I think that the media has made this comparison "common currency" that is not actually an accurate reflection of how the "vast majority" think about it. The media loves to race-bait, but the "vast majority" of people in this country today are not racist in their thinking about these things.
Just my perspective.
|
|
Larry Nelson
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 01:29pm PT
|
The vast majority of the country thinks welfare is fine, but a certain chunk more likely to agree with you think that non-whites just don't deserve it.
Now that's a pretty loaded statement.
Someone thinks that welfare abuse or inter-generational dependency is not good and it means they're racist?
Yikes!
I would assume the majority of welfare recipients are white, but I may be wrong.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 01:42pm PT
|
Well, taking money from people makes them unhappy as well.
Indeed. And that is why we've reached a limit with the status quo and the 1%-ers making the rules so the tables tilt in their direction, and all the money flows to them.
From Sander's stump: "The top 1/10th of 1 percent have as much money as the bottom 90%."
Does the phrase "Seven-hundred billion dollars" mean anything to you in a way that goes along with "taking money"?
Now that the banks are doing so well, why don't they just pay back that loan?
Look around at government employees on any given day. Are those the people you want working on you in the ER?
Um, do you mean do I want somebody in the IRS, CalTrans, or the Post Office as a doctor?
Escopeta, you have a pretty low view of what a Gov't can provide better than the private sector. Next thing you know, you'll want to privatize our military.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 01:56pm PT
|
I would assume the majority of welfare recipients are white, but I may be wrong.
Larry, you are correct
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 02:04pm PT
|
Next thing you know, you'll want to privatize our military.
Whilst we send the paid experts abroad to project our military might (in needless foreign entanglements lately it seems).
You and others would do well to remember that our real military is, and always has been, privatized.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 03:42pm PT
|
For you that doubt.
This is just one take[there are many] verifying the meme earlier.
The meme is old ,but not much has changed since it's publishing.
Is it true that if you make $50,000 a year, you pay $4,000 a year in "corporate subsidies"?
Saw this image on Facebook and found it a bit hard to believe that we're spending 16 times as much on "corporate subsidies" as we are on defense. The links they cited:
Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business
Your 2012 Federal Taxpayer Receipt
Here is the source of the claim, linked to in your page - but it states 6,000$ a year in corporate subsidies.
$870 for Direct Subsidies and Grants to Companies - " From the link according to Cato this includes "cash payments to farmers and research funds to high-tech companies, as well as indirect subsidies, such as funding for overseas promotion of specific U.S. products and industries...It does not include tax preferences or trade restrictions."
$696 for Business Incentives at the State, County, and City Levels
$722 for Interest Rate Subsidies for Banks
$350 for Retirement Fund Bank Fees - not really a corporate subsidy in my view
$1,268 for Overpriced Medications - this is based on the price drugs have over what their free market price without patent protection would be. I'd call this fairly questionable.
$870 for Corporate Tax Subsidies
$1,231 for Revenue Losses from Corporate Tax Havens
Add It Up: The Average American Family Pays $6,000 a Year in Subsidies to Big Business
If you treat a deduction, etc. as a subsidy (which is a reasonable interpretation). Then yes the average tax payer is heavily subsidizing the wealthy - primarily via forgone taxation via tax loopholes, special tax dispensations, tax incentives, and direct government funds and subsidies.
Edit;Of course you will argue this,but,Corporations have done a great job of NOT publicizing this information.Pulling the wool over our eyes and trying to hide the actual numbers.
Like I said this is just one take on this,there are many that agree with it.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 04:37pm PT
|
Wilbeer, that's why if the dems would put up Bernie, I'd vote for him. But they are gonna put up Clinton (who is, at best, in bed with the corps and banks that will ensure that she doesn't touch their "nest egg"), and I just can't go there.
More and more it's looking like I'll just have to "throw my vote away" on a libertarian or independent candidate. Sad that neither party can field a slam-dunk candidate.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 04:45pm PT
|
MB,I am glad you see my point.
Good Luck.
Edit;Nut Again don't get me started on Energy Subsidies!:)
[See CC thread]
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 05:41pm PT
|
MB,I am glad you see my point.
I do, and I hope you see mine also: If we think that corporate welfare is wrong, we need to get clear on the principles that make it wrong, which is necessarily going to have implications for welfare in general. Theft is theft, and some entity like government claiming that "there's a real need" does not justify it.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 06:05pm PT
|
MB,while I agree with you,I feel not only is there a "Need" ,there is a Duty of our populace to take care of our people.
The COST is of at least importance compared to what I have outlined.
Bernie knows this.
It may be the core of his agenda.
If half of CW was redirected ,the cost of Social Welfare would not even be discussed,anywhere.
But I Agree,theft is theft.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:13pm PT
|
There indeed is a duty. But forced charity funneled through the elected elite's coffers is not the most expedient mechanism for helping people. In fact, its possibly the worst.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:18pm PT
|
Yes, it's so easy, wave a wand, keep the brown people out, and make America great again. God bless Donald Trump, a true Christian.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:24pm PT
|
Take your power back
|
|
nah000
climber
no/w/here
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:43pm PT
|
that mb1 would vote for bernie or that, i suspect, a lot of left leaning independents would vote for kasich before they'd vote for hillary is indicative of what is probably, for me, the most astounding fact about this election cycle [so far]:
both parties are on the verge of putting up their most disliked [by the electorate as a whole] candidates to the general election.
here are recent results of a favourability poll from wsj/nbc:
trump: -39%
clinton: -13%
of the six candidates that the poll asked about at that point, the only two that had overall positive favourability ratings were:
kasich: +17%
sanders: +7%
i dunno, someone else is going to have to explain this one to me... i get party politics... and i thought i understood how polarized the u.s. was...
then again based on these numbers i'm thinking i really didn't.
because basically what these numbers say to me is that both trump and clinton alienate not only all of the members of the opposing party [which is kind of a given], but they also alienate almost all of the independents and even a significant portion of their own party.
that both parties would put this forward as their best hope for the future, just verges on some kind of systemic madness.
if there ever was a time for an actual third party candidate to swoop in and really fUck with the system, a trump/clinton race is probably the best chance we've ever seen...
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:55pm PT
|
there is a Duty of our populace to take care of our people.
Then we have a duty to take care of our corporations as well. After all, they are the backbone of our economy. Too big to fail (too much job-loss), etc.
"Need" is a VERY slippery thing, and the minute you are stealing from me to give to any"body" that's in "need," you have crossed a line.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:57pm PT
|
that both parties would put this forward as their best hope for the future, just verges on some kind of systemic madness.
That is a beautiful summation, imho.
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Mar 22, 2016 - 07:58pm PT
|
Blame the people who aren't running then, instead of the one's working their ass of to win the election.
Elizabeth Warren passed.
Joe Biden passed.
Jerry Brown passed.
Al Gore passed
Tim Caine passed
Lincoln Chafee, Jim Webb, Martin O'Malley got no support.
You need 50.1% of people and the electoral votes that come with them to win. They don't have to love you, just believe that you're the best choice still standing.
It's not madness, it's called democracy.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!