ot; romney’s 47% statement

[jstoesz]

You guys are missing the core issues here.

Nobody wants all the money concentrated in the hands of the rich (well
maybe a few rich people do).  But by and large, conservatives want a
larger middle class and fewer poor people.  The disagreement is not
over the goal, it is over the solution.

Redistributive policies may temporarily achieve the goal, but at
substantial unintended costs. In many people, they have a reverse
effect creating a culture of dependency.  If we are serious about
solving the disparate income problems, we must be serious about the
unintended consequences.

Housing is a perfect example of where our social policy produced an
unintended consequence.  We said, “look people who own houses are more
involved in their communities, value education more highly, have
better marriage rates and few single parent households.  We should
encourage more people to buy houses so that they will be better
citizens.”  It was the classic correlation is causation fallacy.
People who owned homes had all those characteristics because they had
the personal and financial skills to achieve home ownership.  Home
ownership did not bring about those attributes.  And now look at the
unintended consequences.

I think too many people believe that if we support the poor to enable
them to live like the middle class, they then will acquire the life
skills to then self sustain that lifestyle and eventually the support
can be removed.  I think again the opposite occurs, people lose the
impetus to acquire those necessary skills.

[jstoesz]

Hell, we lost the CCC and alphabet soup and got permanent disability, food stamps, and 99 weeks. We have changed how we support the poor. We only have a few widened roads to show for the stimulus. Will anyone look at those roads in 70 years like we look at the hoover dam or the perfectly graded trails of the Sierra. Anyone been up the 99 switchbacks lately? We have lost our ability to build shit quick and for cheap.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]You guys are missing the core issues here.

Nobody wants all the money concentrated in the hands of the rich (well
maybe a few rich people do).  But by and large, conservatives want a
larger middle class and fewer poor people.  The disagreement is not
over the goal, it is over the solution.

Redistributive policies may temporarily achieve the goal, but at
substantial unintended costs. In many people, they have a reverse
effect creating a culture of dependency.  If we are serious about
solving the disparate income problems, we must be serious about the
unintended consequences.

Housing is a perfect example of where our social policy produced an
unintended consequence.  We said, “look people who own houses are more
involved in their communities, value education more highly, have
better marriage rates and few single parent households.  We should
encourage more people to buy houses so that they will be better
citizens.”  It was the classic correlation is causation fallacy.
People who owned homes had all those characteristics because they had
the personal and financial skills to achieve home ownership.  Home
ownership did not bring about those attributes.  And now look at the
unintended consequences.

I think too many people believe that if we support the poor to enable
them to live like the middle class, they then will acquire the life
skills to then self sustain that lifestyle and eventually the support
can be removed.  I think again the opposite occurs, people lose the
impetus to acquire those necessary skills.[/quote]

You are totally correct about the previous relationship between home ownership and personal responsibility, but the truth behind the housing bubble had nothing to do providing people with the opportunity to buy their own home. That was the cover provided by those who wanted to see unchecked credit expansion. The bubble was pushed by people in the financial industry who saw an opportunity to expand creditat an incredible pace, and make money on each transaction. Look at transaction volume over that time:

http://www.fdic.gov/bank/analytical/regional/ro20062q/na/2006_summer04.html

If people were only encouraged (even allowed!) to buy a *single* home as a a primary residence, the housing bubble would have been much, much smaller. What pushed things over the edge were speculators competing with traditional buyers, increasing demand at an accelerated rate via loose lending, and pushing up prices as a result. Loose lending, by itself, did not cause the housing bubble/bust. It was the combination of loose lending and speculation that caused the problem to become so large and damaging.

[jstoesz]

For once I Agee. Although, left unchecked it still has the similar negative repercussions. The extent of the damage was not exclusive to single homebuyers. Clearly the repercussions were greater. But the same flawed logic was in play. The unintended consequences must be analyzed for every well-intentioned policy!

CAR, argue the intent of the previous statement, the extent of the devastation is another discussion. If you disagree at all, that is.

[CA renter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Brutus][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you how wrong you are. I agree with most of that. The difference between you and me is that you think that millions of poor people are suddenly going to embrace these ideas and goals without any impetus other than what they already have, whereas I think that’s not realistic. I think that they need to be educated to study, stop doing crack, stop being gangbangers, to think, work, work hard, read, go to college, learn about money, not have babies they can’t afford, not blame others for their problems, to do what they can to break the cycle that they’re in. And I think that if you’re really concerned with the future of this country and not with opposing any government program besides the military, you’ll agree.

———————–

I don’t think teaching diversity is socialist dogma. I don’t think it has anything to do with socialism. I think you’re just using that buzzword without really even knowing what it means. That said, I agree that teaching diversity is bullshit. I think America worked better when it was a melting pot, and I think it should still be a melting pot.

I don’t think we should be teaching black history any more than we should be teaching Asian history or Hispanic history. Unless we include the part about how so many blacks got to where they are today. Which is stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence. I think we should teach that so that they know how there, which will help them understand how to get out of there.

Not sure what you mean by “gender issues,” but I’m pretty sure that’s not socialist dogma, either.

Neither is “environmental awareness” socialist dogma. I’m curious why you think we shouldn’t teach environmental awareness.[/quote]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.[/quote]

Wow – I think Brutus is trying to be as judgmental as Brian.

As a fatty, I can take it. But, in defense of fat people, being fat doesn’t make me a drain on society. (Currently don’t have any health issues associated with my weight, thank goodness.)

The rules espoused are pretty mostly the same rules I impose on my kids. But they are minors. Teaching tolerance (as a parent, or in the classroom) is not mutually exclusive with teaching math/science/language arts.

And I’m not sure how well it would fly to tell folks (adults) no tv or rap music in a country that is supposed to be about personal liberties.

But… to each their own.[/quote]

You’re not a fatty. You’re a very attractive woman, and I’m pretty sure Mr. UCGal would agree that he’s lucky to have you as his wife.

And you’re right, the fact that someone is “overweight” does not mean that they are a greater drain on society. Not by a long shot.

————-

In study after study, overweight and moderately obese patients with certain chronic diseases often live longer and fare better than normal-weight patients with the same ailments. The accumulation of evidence is inspiring some experts to re-examine long-held assumptions about the association between body fat and disease.

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]For once I Agee. Although, left unchecked it still has the similar negative repercussions. The extent of the damage was not exclusive to single homebuyers. Clearly the repercussions were greater. But the same flawed logic was in play. The unintended consequences must be analyzed for every well-intentioned policy!

CAR, argue the intent of the previous statement, the extent of the devastation is another discussion. If you disagree at all, that is.[/quote]

Okay, while I agree that we should not hand out “free homeownership” vouchers to every indigent person, I do believe that society is better served when everybody has something at stake.

Owners, even the less responsible ones during the bubble, tend to be more concerned about the appearance and maintenance of their homes than landlords and renters. They are also inclined to get more involved in their communities and watch out for each other if they feel they have roots in an area. I believe these are desirable traits.

What I would like to see in the housing market is subsidized, government loans (100% public, no private middlemen) with very tight lending standards. These would be made available to lower-middle income earners who are buying a single, owner-occupied home. They could not have two loans at the same time (cannot keep one “subsidized” house as a rental if one moves up).

I also believe that anyone who buys an investment property that already exists (they are not building a new building) should not have Prop 13 protection, and should not be able to deduct any expenses from their taxes unless they agree to certain forms of rent control.

The “investors” should have to rely 100% on the private mortgage market.

This would give people who want to own their own home an advantage over speculators/investors, and would strengthen communities and help people during their retirement years because they would have a better chance of having a fully paid-off house in retirement.

I believe in an “Ownership Society,” but not one that is infested with middlemen and speculators.

[jstoesz]

CAR, I can understand some of your positions. And I potentially don’t disagree with them based on the way the policy is written. I am talking about the broader disincentives related to these policies. If the repercussions of good decisions by society are not reinforced, We will have less good decisions being made on the aggregate.

[jstoesz]

By the way, I believe in charity (and participate in it to the detriment of my own financial well being, it hurts to say the least). But private charity engenders a sense of guilt. That guilt is necessary to wean oneself off of charity. Governmental charity does not engender that sense of shame. It engenders a sense of entitlement. No one wants poor people starving in the street, and our government policy should protect people from this. But too much Governmental charity engenders a sense of entitlement, which can be damaging to the long-term well-being of the recipient.

Why don’t we replace long-term unemployment with a CCC type employment. Is complacency more effective in buying votes then picking up a shovel for the government?

[CA renter]

[quote=jstoesz]By the way, I believe in charity (and participate in it to the detriment of my own financial well being, it hurts to say the least). But private charity engenders a sense of guilt. That guilt is necessary to wean oneself off of charity. Governmental charity does not engender that sense of shame. It engenders a sense of entitlement. No one wants poor people starving in the street, and our government policy should protect people from this. But too much Governmental charity engenders a sense of entitlement, which can be damaging to the long-term well-being of the recipient.

Why don’t we replace long-term unemployment with a CCC type employment. Is complacency more effective in buying votes then picking up a shovel for the government?[/quote]

We’re in total agreement on this, jstoesz. The welfare reform enacted in the 90s was absolutely necessary and just, IMHO.

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

After the bubble started breaking down, I sent massive numbers of letters, faxes, made phone calls, etc. to legislators, and anyone who would have a voice, promoting a jobs program instead of bank bailouts to help ameliorate the suffering that we’d have to endure as the credit bubble deflated. Unfortunately, we largely got the opposite of that.

We definitely need to encourage productivity and self-reliance, but we also have to realize that not everyone is as capable as the next, and it is a humane and just society that seeks to help everyone to become the best that they can be.

It’s also important to realize that there will always be an underclass. Even if one were to kill every single “freeloader” today, in ~10 years, we’d have a new crop of “freeloaders.” That’s what you get with heterogeneous societies and bell curves. Welfare isn’t for the poor, it’s for the rich. Without some way of providing for at least the basic necessities, if there is a tremendous amount of wealth at the top, the poor will rise up and take what they want, however they need to do it. There is ample historical evidence to show how this happens, almost without exception.

Again, I have very little problem with truly productive people making lots of money if they are the ones who personally created all the value and did so in a way that didn’t take advantage of, nor exploit, others. Very few rich people got there without stepping on others, and very few made it entirely on their own. I abhor when these people then try to frame the issue as “the lazy, freeloading poor” (usually those who’ve been stepped on) vs. “the deserving, productive, hard-working rich.” It’s very rarely that clear-cut.

[Anonymous]

[quote=jstoesz]By the way, I believe in charity (and participate in it to the detriment of my own financial well being, it hurts to say the least). But private charity engenders a sense of guilt. That guilt is necessary to wean oneself off of charity. Governmental charity does not engender that sense of shame. It engenders a sense of entitlement. No one wants poor people starving in the street, and our government policy should protect people from this. But too much Governmental charity engenders a sense of entitlement, which can be damaging to the long-term well-being of the recipient.

Why don’t we replace long-term unemployment with a CCC type employment. Is complacency more effective in buying votes then picking up a shovel for the government?[/quote]

Because then you would be called a “racist” or “slave-driver.” The left would say that CCC employment is tantamount to slavery. You know they would.

[Anonymous]

[quote=CA renter][quote=UCGal][quote=Brutus][quote=zk][quote=Brutus]
Here’s what they can do about it:
Stop watching trash TV. Stop watching MOST TV.
Read a friggin’ book or two. Go to school.
Study.
Stop listening to rap “music.”
Stop believing that all Liberals want to do is help you.
Stop smoking pot.
Stop smoking crack.
Stop getting drunk.
Stop having babies you can’t afford.
Go to school.
Be a nerd.
Get a job, ANY job. Keep it until you can get the job you want.
Work harder.
Work better.
Think.
Read books of all types.
Read some more.
Stop watching TV.
Think.
Stop watching trash TV.
Stop blaming everyone else for your problems.
Stop waiting for the government to help you.
It ain’t 1955 anymore.
If you want to see how a poor person can get ahead, observe how a typical Asian immigrant handles America.
Do what they do.
It works.

We need to teach kids how to use capitalism to achieve their dreams. Schools should have classes in Stock Market Trading, Investing, how to handle Bank Accounts, how to accumulate capital for investing, why capitalism works and HOW it works, in short, schools should teach financial literacy.

Instead, they teach “diversity” and “social responsibility” and “gender issues” and socialist dogma of all kinds. No wonder Johnny can’t spell, read, or do basic math.

That’s what I propose.
Now you can tell me how wrong I am, how we should teach sex ed in school, teach sensitivity to “cultural issues” and “black history” and “environmental awareness” and the “tragedy of European Colonialism and American Imperialism.”[/quote]

I’m not going to tell you how wrong you are. I agree with most of that. The difference between you and me is that you think that millions of poor people are suddenly going to embrace these ideas and goals without any impetus other than what they already have, whereas I think that’s not realistic. I think that they need to be educated to study, stop doing crack, stop being gangbangers, to think, work, work hard, read, go to college, learn about money, not have babies they can’t afford, not blame others for their problems, to do what they can to break the cycle that they’re in. And I think that if you’re really concerned with the future of this country and not with opposing any government program besides the military, you’ll agree.

———————–

I don’t think teaching diversity is socialist dogma. I don’t think it has anything to do with socialism. I think you’re just using that buzzword without really even knowing what it means. That said, I agree that teaching diversity is bullshit. I think America worked better when it was a melting pot, and I think it should still be a melting pot.

I don’t think we should be teaching black history any more than we should be teaching Asian history or Hispanic history. Unless we include the part about how so many blacks got to where they are today. Which is stuck in a cycle of poverty and violence. I think we should teach that so that they know how there, which will help them understand how to get out of there.

Not sure what you mean by “gender issues,” but I’m pretty sure that’s not socialist dogma, either.

Neither is “environmental awareness” socialist dogma. I’m curious why you think we shouldn’t teach environmental awareness.[/quote]

We need to start being judgmental about “lifestyle choices,” such as gangsta life, out-of-wedlock babies, dropping out of high school, obesity, casual drug use, etc.
It’s NOT okay to dress and act like a thug. It’s not okay to have kids when you’re 17 and unmarried. It’s not okay to be fatter than hell. Tattoos usually aren’t cool if you want to get a good job.
When I see someone with a lot of tattoos or piercings, I immediately assume they are either 1. A rock star 2. An MMA fighter. 3. A loser.

Be judgmental. Be more open about it. It’s not “all good.”

And teaching “environmental awareness” to people who can barely read, write, or do basic math, is a waste of time. Teach the basics, first. Then the rest.[/quote]

Wow – I think Brutus is trying to be as judgmental as Brian.

As a fatty, I can take it. But, in defense of fat people, being fat doesn’t make me a drain on society. (Currently don’t have any health issues associated with my weight, thank goodness.)

The rules espoused are pretty mostly the same rules I impose on my kids. But they are minors. Teaching tolerance (as a parent, or in the classroom) is not mutually exclusive with teaching math/science/language arts.

And I’m not sure how well it would fly to tell folks (adults) no tv or rap music in a country that is supposed to be about personal liberties.

But… to each their own.[/quote]

You’re not a fatty. You’re a very attractive woman, and I’m pretty sure Mr. UCGal would agree that he’s lucky to have you as his wife.

And you’re right, the fact that someone is “overweight” does not mean that they are a greater drain on society. Not by a long shot.

————-

In study after study, overweight and moderately obese patients with certain chronic diseases often live longer and fare better than normal-weight patients with the same ailments. The accumulation of evidence is inspiring some experts to re-examine long-held assumptions about the association between body fat and disease.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/18/health/research/more-data-suggests-fitness-matters-more-than-weight.html%5B/quote%5D

That’s because they are constantly in the doctor’s office, soaking up healthcare at the expense of the rest of us.

And sure, they’re fine until their first heart attack or bout of diabetes, or when their knees give out and they need replacements.

Fat is ugly. Fat is unhealthy. Being fat is not good, therefore, it is bad, especially when it drives up healthcare costs, which it DOES.

If ObamaCare is implemented, I am going to become an advocate for the “Fat Police.” When healthcare becomes universal, YOUR health becomes MY business.
And I don’t like it when fat people eat cheeseburgers and other fatty foods. Being fat is a drain on the healthcare system as much as smoking or participating in extreme sports.

[livinincali]

[quote=CA renter]

We definitely need to encourage productivity and self-reliance, but we also have to realize that not everyone is as capable as the next, and it is a humane and just society that seeks to help everyone to become the best that they can be.

It’s also important to realize that there will always be an underclass. Even if one were to kill every single “freeloader” today, in ~10 years, we’d have a new crop of “freeloaders.” That’s what you get with heterogeneous societies and bell curves. Welfare isn’t for the poor, it’s for the rich. Without some way of providing for at least the basic necessities, if there is a tremendous amount of wealth at the top, the poor will rise up and take what they want, however they need to do it. There is ample historical evidence to show how this happens, almost without exception.
[/quote]

I agree that there will always be a bell shaped curve in which there’s a top 20% a bottom 20% and a range in between. That’s just always going to be the way it is with any size population. In your own social group you can probably identify the top 20% and the bottom 20% pretty easily, even if that social group contains mostly people in the top 20%. Providing the necessities of life is fairly cheap (Shelter, Food, Clothing). There’s billions of people that survive with basic necessities on less than a couple dollars a day. It’s trying to provide our increasing expectations of a middle class lifestyle for that bottom 20% that gets hard and more expensive.

[quote]

Again, I have very little problem with truly productive people making lots of money if they are the ones who personally created all the value and did so in a way that didn’t take advantage of, nor exploit, others. Very few rich people got there without stepping on others, and very few made it entirely on their own. I abhor when these people then try to frame the issue as “the lazy, freeloading poor” (usually those who’ve been stepped on) vs. “the deserving, productive, hard-working rich.” It’s very rarely that clear-cut.[/quote]

Well if you step on people and exploit them then you’ve likely committed some crime. Fraud is a crime that nearly all of the rich bankers should be prosecuted for. The one real problem with our version of capitalism is that those with the most money get to circumvent the laws in place. It’s not really capitalism that’s a problem it’s an inability to apply to laws equally depending on social status. There’s countless examples of celebrities and wealthy individuals getting off of crimes that any normal person would be locked up for. Equality under the rule of law is really the solution.

[ocrenter]

not much new from the article, I’m afraid.

bottom line is it is all genetics and where your ancestors were from.

the upside of the article is it makes people that are overweight and obese feel better.

the downside of the article is it would cause some people that REALLY need to lose weight to say, hey, I don’t really have to try losing any more. And given weight loss IS difficult, I’d say MORE people would jump to that conclusion.

We all know northern Europeans can handle the extra weight, sometimes up to 50-100 lbs and they still do not have metabolic findings such as diabetes and cholesterol and hypertension.

And we all know southern Europeans can probably handle just 20-30 extra lbs on them.

Most Americans are of mixed origin, unless you know you are of pure German stock, you are still better off trying to aim for the low end of overweight or normal weight.

[UCGal]

[quote=Brutus]

That’s because they are constantly in the doctor’s office, soaking up healthcare at the expense of the rest of us.

And sure, they’re fine until their first heart attack or bout of diabetes, or when their knees give out and they need replacements.

Fat is ugly. Fat is unhealthy. Being fat is not good, therefore, it is bad, especially when it drives up healthcare costs, which it DOES.

If ObamaCare is implemented, I am going to become an advocate for the “Fat Police.” When healthcare becomes universal, YOUR health becomes MY business.
And I don’t like it when fat people eat cheeseburgers and other fatty foods. Being fat is a drain on the healthcare system as much as smoking or participating in extreme sports.[/quote]

Brian? Is that you? Seriously – you’re as obnoxious as him.

You changed political stripes – but other than that – your as judgmental as the old Brian. I’m becoming convinced you’re the same guy… with the same pet issues.

[ocrenter]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Brutus]

That’s because they are constantly in the doctor’s office, soaking up healthcare at the expense of the rest of us.

And sure, they’re fine until their first heart attack or bout of diabetes, or when their knees give out and they need replacements.

Fat is ugly. Fat is unhealthy. Being fat is not good, therefore, it is bad, especially when it drives up healthcare costs, which it DOES.

If ObamaCare is implemented, I am going to become an advocate for the “Fat Police.” When healthcare becomes universal, YOUR health becomes MY business.
And I don’t like it when fat people eat cheeseburgers and other fatty foods. Being fat is a drain on the healthcare system as much as smoking or participating in extreme sports.[/quote]

Brian? Is that you? Seriously – you’re as obnoxious as him.

You changed political stripes – but other than that – your as judgmental as the old Brian. I’m becoming convinced you’re the same guy… with the same pet issues.[/quote]

that’s a new low, even for Brian…

[Author]

Posts