Moralizing vs Thinking

billvon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are the poor buying real estate? Are they buying real estate in your neighborhood?
billvon said:
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.
Click to expand...
Like defending the police, decriminalizing drugs, not prosecuting shoplifting, having both open borders and a large welfare state, guaranteeing loans to those who cannot pay, doing little to get people from living on the streets?

Or is it just freeing the slaves and giving women the vote that you often mention? I'm for the latter, not so much the former.
 
Seattle said:
Are the poor buying real estate?
Click to expand...
They used to. They cannot these days. So they rent, with prices set (indirectly) by the value of real estate.

And as the Gini index rises, the "bottom" of the real estate market gets more and more expensive.

Like defending the police, decriminalizing drugs, not prosecuting shoplifting, having both open borders and a large welfare state, guaranteeing loans to those who cannot pay, doing little to get people from living on the streets?
Click to expand...

You mixed a lot of stuff in there.

Defending the police? In general, yes - they are mostly doing a good job, and their work is valuable. There are, of course, exceptions that need to be dealt with.

Decriminalizing drugs? To an extent. I think there are some drugs that can be decriminalized (alcohol, tobacco, marijuana) some that may be able to be decriminalized (ecstasy, ketamine) and some that simply can't because of the risk they pose (meth, heroin.)

Not prosecuting shoplifting? Bad idea. It should not be jail time, but it should also not be zero penalty.

Open borders? Great idea. Do biometric scans at the border, then let anyone in who isn't a criminal. That helps our economy and our society.

Large welfare state? Hard to say without defining "welfare state."

Guaranteeing loans to those who cannot pay? Bad idea.

Doing little to get people from living on the streets? Also bad idea. We should be doing far better at that. Switzerland, for example, has a homeless rate that is 10x lower than ours.
 
You can't have open borders and a large welfare state. Pick one or the other.

The distinction I'm drawing with Progressives is between the Democrat Progressives and moderates. I don't know what the Republicans stand for these days but I would mostly agree with Reagan era economic policies I guess otherwise Democrat moderates are much preferable to the Progressives, IMO.
 
Seattle said:
You can't have open borders and a large welfare state. Pick one or the other.
Click to expand...
Open borders and a _rational_ welfare state.

The distinction I'm drawing with Progressives is between the Democrat Progressives and moderates. I don't know what the Republicans stand for these days but I would mostly agree with Reagan era economic policies
Click to expand...

So - some tax cuts, some tax increases, massive government spending, tripling the national debt and amnesty for all illegals?
 
The blonde w/ the blue Jesus tee-shirt does at least give me some sense where she's coming from on the student debt issue. The problem as always is the inconsistency on the position that governments shouldn't engage in lending or entitlement. It's like, ok, if you want small government and no lending to students then wouldn't you also oppose your taxes going towards businesses and corporations as well? And also dump entitlements like SS and VA benefits? If you want Adam Smith, then you have to go all the way and structure things so granny isn't on the street and colleges becomes affordable again and everyone has a pension plan. If government steps back, we're still a society of humans and we still need to help each other survive. What's Blondie's plan? (I hate that video's format, btw - people need to be able to finish their sentences - moderators need to moderate)
 
TheVat said:
The blonde w/ the blue Jesus tee-shirt does at least give me some sense where she's coming from on the student debt issue. The problem as always is the inconsistency on the position that governments shouldn't engage in lending or entitlement. It's like, ok, if you want small government and no lending to students then wouldn't you also oppose your taxes going towards businesses and corporations as well? And also dump entitlements like SS and VA benefits? If you want Adam Smith, then you have to go all the way and structure things so granny isn't on the street and colleges becomes affordable again and everyone has a pension plan. If government steps back, we're still a society of humans and we still need to help each other survive. What's Blondie's plan? (I hate that video's format, btw - people need to be able to finish their sentences - moderators need to moderate)
Click to expand...
Another aspect which has always perplexed me is that so many people seemingly have very limited numeracy capabilities--and always with respect towards very particular concerns. People get so worked up over contributing literally a few pennies towards another person's education*, say, when they--or their offspring--did not attend college, yet spare little ire for contributing--again, literally--about five thousand bucks towards committing and/or facilitating genocide, murdering fisherman off the coast of Venezuela, and rounding up people and carting them off to gulags and concentration camps. Do they really lack such basic sense of scope and scale, or is it deliberate?

* Or healthcare, food, etc.

Yeah, the format for those Surrounded videos is really annoying. It caters to those with very short attention spans, I think.
 
parmalee said:
Yeah, the format for those Surrounded videos is really annoying. It caters to those with very short attention spans, I think.
Click to expand...
It also preferences fast runners over good debaters, which is far from ideal when you're claiming to be a debate platform.
 
James R said:
It also preferences fast runners over good debaters, which is far from ideal when you're claiming to be a debate platform.
Click to expand...
That aspect is simply ridiculous. It's like they're incorporating elements of a game show, or even a "reality" show like Survivor.

I figure their target demographic skews very young, but that borders on condescension.
 
The examples given of a family saving money to buy a $10,000 home and a car with cash sound very good for the 1950's.

I was born too late, I should have been Tarzan, but I became an adult in the 70's. Years later, when I tried to buy a car or a house, the three "c"s was the rule of those days: Credit, Checking and Cash. I didn't have the first one of that list, and even when I had the cash and full time job, the credit requisite was not to be waived. To have credit one had to start buying furniture or other goods using the store credit. Only after that, after making payments without failures, the big credit card companies started to send applications for credit card.

I didn't use that method. I went to a car dealer, asked to by a $10,000 brand new car located in the middle of the parking lot, even without the battery installed. The manager asked me to wait for the approval of the "big guys". When he called me, he gave me the car keys and told me: "you are not only buying a car but you just have opened the door of credit". And he was right, two weeks later, the first letter came from Visa.

About the student debt.

This is one of the greater scammers and the government does not penalize the tactics made by lenders to borrowers,

Lets say the classes -including books- will cost $5,300 for the first semester. What the lender will do is talking and talking explaining that there are additional spending the student will confront, and the offered loan will be $15,000 for that semester.

Of course any student will accept such an offer.

At the end of his years as student, he will confront a huge debt that must be paid throughout the next years.

I don't see on student loans any sign of moralizing from one side and thinking from the other side.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top