Moralizing vs Thinking

[Seattle]

Fair taxation is one way, equality is another.

How you sort out the mess of a broken neighbourhood, low employment, high crime rate, poverty, guns, drugs is a conundrum.
It is best to address these problems however rather than just keep building bigger prisons. Support these low earning communities with your money.
Yours Seattle.

Matthew 25, one of my favourites.

"35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"

That's why I say Progressivism is a religion just without the god. Money enables or prolongs, it doesn't fix the problem. Feeding someone on drugs, doesn't end the drug addition.

You are quitting drinking by just stopping. If it works, great. I hope it does. With that approach it will work eventually if not immediately. What wouldn't work would be for me to send you money for shelter and food so that you could not work and drink more.

If someone lives in the inner cities with all the problems there, if I send money for one to continue to live there, nothing changes.

If a person can't afford the kind of shelter that they would want, for example, then they would have to figure out how to get a better job. If I just send money, they wouldn't do that.

Very few should be in retail for life and be broke and need assistance since when they don't get assistance they will figure out that they have to sell life insurance, join the military, go into plumbing, become a cop or fireman. It takes more effort and just giving money usually just makes it easier to do nothing.

Giving money to problems that aren't really about money isn't helpful, IMO. Quoting the bible and dealing with reality are two different things, wouldn't you agree?

Of course no one is arguing for the total absence of government or government services...

 

[Sarkus]

Most people want everyone to be sheltered, fed and healthy. Giving it to them is like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The former is more intuitive, the latter is more helpful.

So we do both, lest they starve while they're learning to fish, all the while someone else has just dredged the lake of all the fish so as to sell at a market the new fisherman can't afford.
See, noone is advocating just handing out fish. And handing out sticks with a bit of string on the end, and throwing them a "How to Fish" book, also isn't going to help, especially if they can't read.

 

[Sarkus]

That's why I say Progressivism is a religion just without the god. Money enables or prolongs, it doesn't fix the problem. Feeding someone on drugs, doesn't end the drug addition.

I'm not sure you know what progressivism even is. It's not socialism, for one. It's about the need to reform. One can argue about the reforms to be made, and progressives don't all agree on those, but they do generally support a safety-net, reduction of inequality, regulation (to protect the "little guy"), and social responsibility.
Nothing in that is just about handing out money to people as you seem to suggest it is. That aspect is just one element, aimed at helping people who need help while wider reforms to improve society for all, not just those at the top, are put in place. If you want to caricature what you rail against by only seeing one part, sure, whatever.

You don't see inequality as a problem, and that's okay, we don't all have to agree. Personally I don't have an issue with the excessive inequality you see in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, if everyone is above the poverty line, even those who don't work. Unfortunately that isn't the case. And I see progressive policies, not just "throwing money at them", as the better option among those available. But that's just me.

 

[Seattle]

I'm not sure you know what progressivism even is. It's not socialism, for one. It's about the need to reform. One can argue about the reforms to be made, and progressives don't all agree on those, but they do generally support a safety-net, reduction of inequality, regulation (to protect the "little guy"), and social responsibility.
Nothing in that is just about handing out money to people as you seem to suggest it is. That aspect is just one element, aimed at helping people who need help while wider reforms to improve society for all, not just those at the top, are put in place. If you want to caricature what you rail against by only seeing one part, sure, whatever.

You don't see inequality as a problem, and that's okay, we don't all have to agree. Personally I don't have an issue with the excessive inequality you see in the US, and to a lesser extent elsewhere, if everyone is above the poverty line, even those who don't work. Unfortunately that isn't the case. And I see progressive policies, not just "throwing money at them", as the better option among those available. But that's just me.

For me I see the poverty line, which is relative and a percentage below the mean and it's before government welfare programs. After those adjustments most are above the poverty line so I see no problem to fix, but that's just me.

 

[Seattle]

So we do both, lest they starve while they're learning to fish, all the while someone else has just dredged the lake of all the fish so as to sell at a market the new fisherman can't afford.
See, noone is advocating just handing out fish. And handing out sticks with a bit of string on the end, and throwing them a "How to Fish" book, also isn't going to help, especially if they can't read.

There is public education so if it is effective, they can read.

 

[billvon]

Think.

I am thinking.

If you decide to live off the land in a remote part of the US, you can participate very little in the US economy. That does not make that life any less valuable, fulfilling or important.

Everything is not about economics. It's just a field of study. Saying that everything is about that is no more true than saying everything is about politics, or everything is about religion, or everything is about media.

Now you actually COULD make that argument for physics or even chemistry. But not for economics. Use your head.

 

[billvon]

Those are false argument (and you already know that).

Those are 100% true arguments.

The argument is for thinking and for an efficient economy. It's not about no government or safety standards.

It is, of course, about both. If you are thinking that those are things government DOES need to get in the way of, great! You are admitting that government does play a role in protecting the general welfare of the United States, and ending all government involvement in our society/economy/infrastructure is a terrible idea.

 

[Seattle]

I am thinking.

If you decide to live off the land in a remote part of the US, you can participate very little in the US economy. That does not make that life any less valuable, fulfilling or important.

Everything is not about economics. It's just a field of study. Saying that everything is about that is no more true than saying everything is about politics, or everything is about religion, or everything is about media.

Now you actually COULD make that argument for physics or even chemistry. But not for economics. Use your head.

Everything you are talking about does cost money and therefore you can't avoid economics. Think.

 

[Seattle]

Those are 100% true arguments.



It is, of course, about both. If you are thinking that those are things government DOES need to get in the way of, great! You are admitting that government does play a role in protecting the general welfare of the United States, and ending all government involvement in our society/economy/infrastructure is a terrible idea.

Of course no one was suggesting that.

 

[billvon]

That's why I say Progressivism is a religion just without the god.

Progressivism freed the slaves, gave women the vote, allowed women to divorce their husbands, allowed women to own property, credit cards and bank accounts, and gave black people the same rights as white people. Progressivism allowed blacks to marry whites and allowed gays to marry each other. Progressivism allowed gay people to be gay without being arrested, jailed and killed. It is what makes our society what it is today.

Your calling it a religion is just an emotional response on your part because you dislike it, so you feel that calling it a religion will diminish it.

Again, use your head even when your knee begins to jerk.

 

[billvon]

Everything you are talking about does cost many and therefore you can't avoid economics. Think.

How does living off the grid in a remote location "cost many?"

 

[Seattle]

Progressivism freed the slaves, gave women the vote, allowed women to divorce their husbands, allowed women to own property, credit cards and bank accounts, and gave black people the same rights as white people. Progressivism allowed blacks to marry whites and allowed gays to marry each other. Progressivism allowed gay people to be gay without being arrested, jailed and killed. It is what makes our society what it is today.

Your calling it a religion is just an emotional response on your part because you dislike it, so you feel that calling it a religion will diminish it.

Again, use your head even when your knee begins to jerk.

That's not today's progressism.

 

[Seattle]

How does living off the grid in a remote location "cost many?"

"Affordable housing" "livable wages" cost money. It's an economic decision.

 

[billvon]

"Affordable housing" "livable wages" cost money. It's an economic decision.

Neither of those things apply to someone living off the grid.

What is "affordable housing" when you are building your own house out of logs? What does that mean?
What is a "living wage" when you are supporting yourself by farming?

Think first, post later.

That's not today's progressism.

It's not if you really intended to post that word - but that IS today's progressivism. Just because you have an emotional response to the term doesn't make the definition change.

 

[James R]

Most people want everyone to be sheltered, fed and healthy. Giving it to them is like giving a man a fish rather than teaching him to fish. The former is more intuitive, the latter is more helpful.

A person who is living on the streets without shelter, who is struggling for food and who can't afford any kind of health care, doesn't have much time left over to learn how to fish.

You can say some city is too expensive, we need people to do those lower paying jobs, etc. However, free markets do work all that out without talking about "livable wages".

Sure free markets "work all that out". Free market capitalism, left to its own devices, is quite happy to let a certain proportion of population live in abject poverty while the rich get richer. That works out just great if you're one of the lucky ones who starts off with enough wealth to ensure that you get the opportunities to further enrich yourself. Not so great if you don't.

 

[Seattle]

A person who is living on the streets without shelter, who is struggling for food and who can't afford any kind of health care, doesn't have much time left over to learn how to fish.


Sure free markets "work all that out". Free market capitalism, left to its own devices, is quite happy to let a certain proportion of population live in abject poverty while the rich get richer. That works out just great if you're one of the lucky ones who starts off with enough wealth to ensure that you get the opportunities to further enrich yourself. Not so great if you don't.

What does the "rich get richer" have to do with anything?

Most any form of government deals with "adject poverty". Do we have any of that, that isn't addressed?

 

[Sarkus]

For me I see the poverty line, which is relative and a percentage below the mean and it's before government welfare programs. After those adjustments most are above the poverty line so I see no problem to fix, but that's just me.

The official USA “poverty line” is not based on “a percentage below the mean”. It is based on the estimated cost of living from the 1960s, when someone looked at a minimally adequate food budget, and tripled it so as to cover everything else as well. Since then it has simply increased with inflation.

For a single person in the USA, the official poverty line is less than $16k for a single person. For a household of 2 adults it is $21-22k.

Now, whether a single person could live on $16k a year in the USA, my gut says no. Even in your $100k house from earlier, that’s c.$5,200 in interest repayment alone. (80% LTV and 6.5% mortgage rate) – even if someone could get a mortgage. That leaves them just over $10k a year.
What's worse is that if you earn much more than this low "poverty line" then you become ineligible for many, if not all, the programs.

So I really hope that this isn’t the “poverty line” that you’re referring to? The low level which already over 10% of Americans are living under (pre-programs). Because, sure, the programs you have may lift people above that level, but lifting them above such a ridiculously low level is really only something politicians could congratulate themselves about.

There is public education so if it is effective, they can read.

The “if” is doing a lot of the heavy lifting there. The US has a relatively high level of poor literacy, after all.

 

[Pinball1970]

You are quitting drinking by just stopping. If it works, great. I hope it does

I actually stopped because of antibiotics but I get your point.

If someone lives in the inner cities with all the problems there, if I send money for one to continue to live there, nothing changes

Your taxes could be helping to alleviate a problem, drug program, detox, community work.

 

[Sarkus]

Your taxes could be helping to alleviate a problem, drug program, detox, community work.

You'll note, though, how he is framing the issue as simply giving people money to continue as-is. This isn't the reality he claims that others aren't dealing with. It is rather the caricature of progressive policies. I'm left wondering which actual policies he has an issue with: providing a free education? Provision of healthcare? Housing reform? Childcare provision? Employment programs? Criminal-justice reform? Addiction treatment? Infrastructure and other investment in disadvantaged communities? Consumer protections? Or is it really just those policies -whatever they may be? - that hand poor people actual cash with no strings attached, in the vague hope that they use it to better themselves rather than just, well, exist? Or maybe it's something else he's railing against? Who knows.

 

[billvon]

What does the "rich get richer" have to do with anything?

It means that, as a society, we have the means to do more than we are doing now to combat poverty and homelessness. It also exacerbates the plight of the poor, since both the uber rich and the poor are buying real estate (for example) from the same market.

If a person can't afford the kind of shelter that they would want, for example, then they would have to figure out how to get a better job. If I just send money, they wouldn't do that.

Some would, some wouldn't. As a society we need to both provide the means to get someone a better job (education, job placement, vocational training) and a way to keep the ones who cannot do that alive.