Honest Political Question

[Archaic_Entity]

Hypothetically, if it's stealing or starving, which do you pick?

I feel like everyone else does have the rest of this thread under wraps. And, to be honest, I don't know near enough of Austrian nor Keynesian economics to play in this game.

However, I am reminded of a stand-up comedian I watched when you give this statement. I want to say it was Dave Chappelle, but I could easily be wrong. He was talking about how a lot of homeless and jobless people make a living. You have a Mexican, and black man, and a white man. All are homeless. The Mexican is selling fruits to make a living, has a little fruit stand. The black guy is selling flowers, has a little flower shop. The white guy is just begging for change. Now, the joke was that the white guy isn't attempting to do anything except get a hand-out while the two minorities are trying to do what they can to turn a profit. Buy oranges in a store for cheaper than you're selling them on the street.

The point I'm trying to make is that it really won't get down to steal or starve. I haven't had a job for 6 months. I haven't stolen anything. I've been able to rely on people I know to make it through. The point Fletch is trying to make in this case ( I believe, of course, I don't actually know) is that the idea of charity to make it by on tough times does work. When people are more likely to be charitable. I was denied unemployment, and went through all legal recourse to try and get whatever I could in the legal system without attempting to use welfare or any other system where the company that fired me did not foot the bill. After exhausting those means, I turned to friends and family. Fortunately, it worked. I owe some people... but it's better than taking from the rich to give to me.

Stealing is defined by Webster as 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice. Taxes that I disagree with are, arguably, exact that. I feel they are wrong to take, and it is habitual. I disagree with the idea of food stamps, welfare, or anything of that sort because I then become a thief. I then become the person benefiting from the act of theft from another. Rather, I relied on charity 2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need.

It will never be so clear cut as to have only the options of 'steal or starve.' Because life is never so clear cut as that. It's a matter of being willing to do what it takes to live within legal means available. To do any less is to demean yourself and others.

 

[dross]

Liberals are just trying to take advantage of everyone, eh? No legitimate disagreement exists, just a bunch of tricksters with made up theories, right?

I would expect administrative costs per beneficiary to be higher because there is more medical treatment necessary. It's more complicated to actually treat someone than it is to try to find reasons not to.

Medicare reimbursement rates have been problematic. First they were super high, then they were low, etc. It's an ongoing job to make sure the rates are fair.

Actually, they really have a difference in opinion on how the world works, and come to different conclusions on how to solve problems as a result.

You're fast becoming someone I don't want to address anymore. Please argue your point fairly. You asserted that Medicare was more efficient than private insurance. As evidence, you presented the percentage of admin costs. I refuted that assertion by explaining why that number was misleading.

Your response was to change your argument and say in effect that admin costs are higher for Medicare but there's a good reason. This is the opposite of your original assertion.

I despise this type of argument. If you are not indeed a troll, as I'm beginning to suspect, please reconcile your first assertion with your "rebuttal."

 

[dross]

Neither. If I were living on the streets and had nothing to feed my family with, I'd knock on every door until I found somebody who was willing to exchange my labor for a loaf of bread.

I love these people who hold the "will work for food" signs. 99% of them won't accept an offer for work. "Will work for food" = I want something for nothing. If you come to my house demanding a loaf of bread for your family for nothing, I will take your kids into my house and fill their bellies to the point of explosion while you stand in the street getting nothing. If you come to my house and ask what you can do to earn a meal to feed your family, I will find something for you to do and fill all of your bellies to the point of explosion and send a bag of groceries with you. Even if I had nothing for you to do, I'd still fill your bellies and send a bag of groceries with you.

I've said it on here before. My sense of charity is directly proportional to your sense of entitlement to it. Meditate on that a little.

There's a guy here in Denver who for years has run a "tough love" homeless shelter. He is a formerly homeless person with drug and alcohol problems. He runs a very good shelter that helps people who are truly ready to get their lives together. He advocates never giving beggars money. He sells coupon books to people who want to give to panhandlers. Each coupon is worth a free meal at his shelter. He's sold hundreds of books over the years. You know how many coupons he's had to redeem with a meal? None.

He tells a story about how some group purchased a bunch of Army surplus wool blankets and handed them out to the homeless in Denver. In a couple of days the pawn shops were full of Army surplus blankets.

 

[Fletch]

Two perfectly intelligent people can look at the same facts and come to completely different conclusions. The fact that you consider yourself correct is no proof that anyone who disagrees with you is stupider than you.

I have not called you stupid, nor have I implied that you are. I actually believe you're fairly intelligent -- I've seen nothing in your posts that indicates stupidity in any form.

I have however, stated emphatically that you are ignorant, specifically with regard to what Austrian economics has to say about anything. I stand by this assessment, as what follows is a perfect example:

I agree. Greenspan should not have lowered interest rates, as per his understanding of Austrian economics.

I've already covered this. Greenspan abandoned Austrian economics when he went to work for the Fed. He converted to Keynesian economics, and followed the policy prescriptions thereof.

If you think Austrians approve, in any way, the manipulation of the interest rate, once again, you have not studied Austrian economics. Interest rate manipulation is usually covered by about chapter 5 or 6.

Again, have you actually read anything beyond someone else's summary?

If you think he isn't, then you don't know what capitalism or socialism are.

Capitalism does not include government intervention in business. If you equate interventionist policy with capitalism, you are wrong. At best, you are describing mercantilism, which is not capitalism.

 

[tuoder]

So I can sleep with every $2 whore and you will be share in the risks that I take? Aids, Herpes Simplex 10, etc.? The fact is the consequences of promiscuity prevent many people from doing it. I can't expect you or anyone else to share in my risk if I choose to bag skanks. You can't take part of my aids if I get it and diffuse my losses from it. Why should anyone else suffer the burdens of my decisions?

I'm not advocating the people don't suffer for their poor decisions. I'm advocating that if you fall off your horse, somebody helps you up if you need it. I'm not saying people should be restored to their original position after a great failure, only that they are kept from losing the ability to try.

If I risk my dollar on a stock and lose it, it's my loss. What you are suggesting is that everyone else must provide me insurance against my loss. If I know that I invest my dollar and it goes south and society is going to insure me against that loss, I will be much more reckless in the investments I choose. I'll go to the casino with your money all day every day. If I come out with a loss, what did I lose other than my time? If I go there with my money and come out with a loss, I have to think about how I'm going to buy groceries, pay my bills etc. The fact that I have obligations deters me from wasting my money.

I agree, for the most part. I just think there should be a solid safety net if you fall of your trapeze (I'm going to see if I can slip in one more silly metaphor).

Trust me, those debating you here are being extremely civil and I do think they have a great level of respect for you. I know you're not a troll and you really believe what you are saying. If not, you'd be dropping bombs in here and watching the frenzy.

If I've been accused of one thing, it's ignorance.

What I'm truly sorry about is the amount of respect you have for your fellow citizens' abilities. I'm reminded of Bush's phrase "the soft bigotry of low expectations". Google Answers: soft bigotry of lowered expectations It is human nature to only achieve to the level of which you are expected. Did you just wake up one day and decide you wanted to do well in school and go on to college or did your parents expect it of you? Those of us on the other side of you expect people to take care of themselves and you are telling those people that they are incapable of doing it. I assume you don't have any children yet but would you give them the same expectations that you give your fellow Americans? I certainly hope not.

I just think that if someone really is in a desperate situation, that help should be available should people choose to avail themselves of it, not that I expect nothing from them. I expect that people should be working in ways that will improve their situation while they are being helped, even if those activities aren't directly profitable.

 

[JetGirl]

Hypothetically, if it's stealing or starving, which do you pick?

I'm not a thief. I'd barter, trade, work off debt of the product, etc..
Or do without.
You can believe it or don't.

I don't like having things in my possession that don't belong to me.
There are people on this very board who can vouch for that... non-hypothetically.

 

[antsi]

I have seen the Republicans provide tax cuts, but allow the nation's deficit to skyrocket. Also, I've seen Democrats tax people to the hilt, but drastically reduce the deficit.

This part is not correct.

The only government we've had since Eisenhower that reduced the deficit was a Clinton Democrat Whitehouse and a Gingrich Republican Congress. They didn't do it all on their own virtues - they had big economic growth, which boosted revenues and made the job easier. Even then, they just eliminated the annual budget deficit - but they didn't make any substantive progress paying down the cumulative national debt. They did do a decent job of controlling spending growth, which helped.

Another thing that made Clinton-Gingrich look good on paper was that Social Security at the time was running a surplus. There were more workers paying in than disabled and retirees receiving payments. All that additional revenue was put into the general fund, which helped to balance the budget for those years. Just this year, SocSec started running a deficit - payouts to retirees/disabled are now larger than revenues from workers paying in. With the coming retirement of 48.5 million baby boomers (leaving the workforce so no longer paying in, and starting to collect payouts instead) those numbers will never happen again. From now on, SocSec will need extra funds put in each year, and that amount will keep increasing for the forseeable future.

The debt problems we are facing today are a totally different order of magnitude than Clinton/Gingrich faced. We need to be actually paying down the debt, not just eliminating the budget deficit. Unless someone is willing to make some substantial cuts in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, spending is going to increase. There is no way we can grow the economy enough to compensate.

 

[antsi]

I actually work in the health care industry. You are factually incorrect in almost everything you are saying.

I would expect administrative costs per beneficiary to be higher because there is more medical treatment necessary. It's more complicated to actually treat someone than it is to try to find reasons not to.

Wrong. Administrative costs are basically the cost of maintaining a beneficiary's account. These costs do not increase very much with increasing treatment.

So a young healthy person who never goes to the doctor has 100% admin costs and 0% treatment costs.

An elderly or chronically ill person has only slightly higher admin costs, and treatment costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands. Result: miniscule admin costs, very high treatment costs.

Medicare reimbursement rates have been problematic. First they were super high, then they were low, etc. It's an ongoing job to make sure the rates are fair.

What planet are you living on? Medicare only pays a fraction of the actual cost of treatment. The rest is made up by shifting costs to privately insured patients, who pay substantially more than the actual costs of treatment. Nobody's trying to "make sure the rates are fair." Medicaid reimbursement rates are in fact scheduled to be cut even lower, which will result in even greater cost shifting.

Actually, they really have a difference in opinion on how the world works, and come to different conclusions on how to solve problems as a result.

The view that there is no objective reality, and that "reality" is determined by how people feel about things, is widespread. It works pretty well in literature, psychology, and art, but there are fields like medicine, engineering, and accounting, where objective reality matters. If the bridge collapses, it's objectively going to fall down, even on people who don't believe in gravity. If entitlement costs are growing and fewer workers are paying into the system, it will go bankrupt, and no amount of feeling sad is going to change that.

 

[hornadylnl]

I'm not advocating the people don't suffer for their poor decisions. I'm advocating that if you fall off your horse, somebody helps you up if you need it. I'm not saying people should be restored to their original position after a great failure, only that they are kept from losing the ability to try.

I agree, for the most part. I just think there should be a solid safety net if you fall of your trapeze (I'm going to see if I can slip in one more silly metaphor).

I just think that if someone really is in a desperate situation, that help should be available should people choose to avail themselves of it, not that I expect nothing from them. I expect that people should be working in ways that will improve their situation while they are being helped, even if those activities aren't directly profitable.

Most everyone here wants a safety net as well. We want to do it by voluntary charity. You want to do it by the force of government. I'm not saying that I'm above receiving a helping hand but it is only as a last resort. I don't like owing anyone anything. If I ask you as a friend to come over and help me roof my shed, I will forever feel an obligation to you until I am able to repay that favor. I don't like being beholden to anyone. I may help you roof your shed and usually I won't expect anything in return. I'd rather be on the giving than the receiving end of that arrangement.

Who can better tell the needs of your neighbor? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who can better tell if your neighbor is gaming the system? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who does your neighbor feel more accountable to? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? You can see how your neighbor is dealing with his situation. The bureaucrat in Washington can't.

I believe you said you are a college student so I will try to give examples that make more sense to you. There is an old internet email that I'll paraphrase.

A father goes to college to pick up his daughter for Christmas break after her first semester away from home. On the car ride home, he asks her everything she's learned. She rambles on and on about the great ideas that her liberal professors and friends spout. How unfair it is that there are rich and poor, you get the picture. So he then ask her about her grades and she replies that she made the dean's list, etc. He then asks her about her friend Suzy that she went on to the same college with her. She replied that her grades were terrible and she was on the verge of failing out. The dad told her that she should practice her new found liberal ideas and share some of her gpa with her friend Suzy. The daughter immediately piped up that wasn't fair. While she was spending her nights staying up late studying, her friend Suzy was out partying it up and living the good life and skipping class. The dad's only response was "Welcome to the Republican Party".

Is it fair that Bill Gates's son will probably go to Harvard with an unlimited credit card while a poor black kid will be lucky to get into a local community college? If you think so, you are ignoring the work that Bill Gates put in to pay for his son's schooling and the sloth of the poor black kid's parent(s).

What you are in effect advocating is that a D- student at the local podunk community college should have an identical diploma worth equally as much as the magna *** laude graduate of Harvard.

I work in industrial maintenance at a factory. In my current job, I'm essentially a firefighter. I work a non production shift so most nights are spent fixing things that couldn't be done while production was running or projects fabricating or installing new fixtures, running conduit, etc. Some nights, there really isn't much of anything to do and I actually feel guilty when I hit the time clock and head home on those nights. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I hit that time clock and feel that I gave the company a good 8 (10 hours in my case). I get a great deal of satisfaction when production supervisors ask for me when they need something fixed. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I complete a job and stand back and look at the quality of work and craftsmanship that I put into it.

That satisfaction comes from ME doing the work and seeing the fruits of it. What you are advocating is the "a trophy for everyone" approach. That approach robs everyone of the satisfaction of personally achieving something. I don't get any satisfaction when YOU pull an all nighter studying for a final exam and ace it. I don't get the same satisfaction as you do when you are forced to share some of that A+ with me when I put in a D- effort. Your method robs people of sense of achievement and the satisfaction that comes along with it.

 

[dross]

Most everyone here wants a safety net as well. We want to do it by voluntary charity. You want to do it by the force of government. I'm not saying that I'm above receiving a helping hand but it is only as a last resort. I don't like owing anyone anything. If I ask you as a friend to come over and help me roof my shed, I will forever feel an obligation to you until I am able to repay that favor. I don't like being beholden to anyone. I may help you roof your shed and usually I won't expect anything in return. I'd rather be on the giving than the receiving end of that arrangement.

Who can better tell the needs of your neighbor? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who can better tell if your neighbor is gaming the system? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who does your neighbor feel more accountable to? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? You can see how your neighbor is dealing with his situation. The bureaucrat in Washington can't.

I believe you said you are a college student so I will try to give examples that make more sense to you. There is an old internet email that I'll paraphrase.

A father goes to college to pick up his daughter for Christmas break after her first semester away from home. On the car ride home, he asks her everything she's learned. She rambles on and on about the great ideas that her liberal professors and friends spout. How unfair it is that there are rich and poor, you get the picture. So he then ask her about her grades and she replies that she made the dean's list, etc. He then asks her about her friend Suzy that she went on to the same college with her. She replied that her grades were terrible and she was on the verge of failing out. The dad told her that she should practice her new found liberal ideas and share some of her gpa with her friend Suzy. The daughter immediately piped up that wasn't fair. While she was spending her nights staying up late studying, her friend Suzy was out partying it up and living the good life and skipping class. The dad's only response was "Welcome to the Republican Party".

Is it fair that Bill Gates's son will probably go to Harvard with an unlimited credit card while a poor black kid will be lucky to get into a local community college? If you think so, you are ignoring the work that Bill Gates put in to pay for his son's schooling and the sloth of the poor black kid's parent(s).

What you are in effect advocating is that a D- student at the local podunk community college should have an identical diploma worth equally as much as the magna *** laude graduate of Harvard.

I work in industrial maintenance at a factory. In my current job, I'm essentially a firefighter. I work a non production shift so most nights are spent fixing things that couldn't be done while production was running or projects fabricating or installing new fixtures, running conduit, etc. Some nights, there really isn't much of anything to do and I actually feel guilty when I hit the time clock and head home on those nights. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I hit that time clock and feel that I gave the company a good 8 (10 hours in my case). I get a great deal of satisfaction when production supervisors ask for me when they need something fixed. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I complete a job and stand back and look at the quality of work and craftsmanship that I put into it.

That satisfaction comes from ME doing the work and seeing the fruits of it. What you are advocating is the "a trophy for everyone" approach. That approach robs everyone of the satisfaction of personally achieving something. I don't get any satisfaction when YOU pull an all nighter studying for a final exam and ace it. I don't get the same satisfaction as you do when you are forced to share some of that A+ with me when I put in a D- effort. Your method robs people of sense of achievement and the satisfaction that comes along with it.

Good post, well said.

The other piece of the puzzle is that if you need help and I'm forced to help you, I've been turned into a victim, and you've been turned into a thief.

If I help you on my own, I'm a philanthropist, and you're a grateful recipient, as it should be.

Any way you look at it, your misfortune, whether caused by yourself or circumstances beyond your control, does not incur an obligation on me to make it right.

 

[smoking357]

if...I'm forced to help you, I've been turned into a victim, and you've been turned into a thief.

Explain the Indianapolis Colts.

 

[dross]

Explain the Indianapolis Colts.

Take your threadjack back underneath your bridge, or start your own thread about the Colts. I'll respond there.

 

[mrjarrell]

Explain the Indianapolis Colts.

It goes under the heading of being victimised by government to enrich another. That's been explained plenty, upthread.

 

[hornadylnl]

It goes under the heading of being victimised by government to enrich another. That's been explained plenty, upthread.

And there have been multiple threads about the Colts. Don't ask me how I know.

 

[smoking357]

Take your threadjack back underneath your bridge, or start your own thread about the Colts. I'll respond there.

This is the original post:

I'm working on becoming better informed on some of the current political issues. I don't pretend to be absolutely ignorant, but I also do not want to believe that my viewpoints are absolutely without fault, either. I am honestly looking for help and not attempting to start flames in any way. And, I don't plan to respond with any smart mouthed responses.

Now, I have seen the Republicans provide tax cuts, but allow the nation's deficit to skyrocket. Also, I've seen Democrats tax people to the hilt, but drastically reduce the deficit. Now, without placing blame as to how we got where we currently are, is there a way to get out of this? Is there a way to get rid of our deficit; reinstitute Bush's tax breaks, which are ending; provide more tax cuts in the future and return some of the power to the states, which many say is currently in the hands of the federal government? All suggestions are welcomed as long as you can also discuss the ramifications.

For instance, we simply stop all welfare programs. If so, the result will be the "states may have to..." Some suggestions may sound harsh, but may still be the right way to go. Your thoughts?

It's a pretty open-ended inquiry into the spending escapades of both parties. Your response and my request for clarification are both well on-topic.

 

[BloodEclipse]

And there have been multiple threads about the Colts. Don't ask me how I know.

Are you a member of the Capital Improvement Board?

 

[smoking357]

Are you a member of the Capital Improvement Board?

Agghhh! Dem's fightin' words.

 

[BloodEclipse]

Agghhh! Dem's fightin' words.

hornadylnl happens to be one of our most outspoken members on this subject.

I just happen to like to poke him every now and then.

 

[hornadylnl]

Are you a member of the Capital Improvement Board?

I think that may be worse than being called a politician.

 

[tuoder]

TEXTWALL PART 2:

Neither. If I were living on the streets and had nothing to feed my family with, I'd knock on every door until I found somebody who was willing to exchange my labor for a loaf of bread.

I suspect that if you attempted this, you'd end up bloody knuckles before you had a job.

I love these people who hold the "will work for food" signs. 99% of them won't accept an offer for work. "Will work for food" = I want something for nothing. If you come to my house demanding a loaf of bread for your family for nothing, I will take your kids into my house and fill their bellies to the point of explosion while you stand in the street getting nothing. If you come to my house and ask what you can do to earn a meal to feed your family, I will find something for you to do and fill all of your bellies to the point of explosion and send a bag of groceries with you. Even if I had nothing for you to do, I'd still fill your bellies and send a bag of groceries with you.

When it comes to helping poor people, it's really tough. Every couple of months I'm helping somebody put a tire on a car that isn't worth driving to drive to a home that isn't worth living in in a school district not worth sending your kids to. Did I help, really? Yes, on one day I helped one person. The problem of poverty is bigger than me, however. The problem is systemic, and systemic problems require systemic solutions.

I've said it on here before. My sense of charity is directly proportional to your sense of entitlement to it. Meditate on that a little.

I want to say this in a way that doesn't come across as snide. You mean that it is inversely proportional, not directly proportional.

I don't think anyone who lacks any gumption at all should just be given something for nothing. I'm saying that I've seen people work themselves to death and barely make it by, or worse yet, fail, and whether or not it is their fault that it happened (although I'm inclined to think that it usually isn't), one may only be able to recover if they are assisted, and private assistance has done a better an more comprehensive job with the assistance of government.

I feel like everyone else does have the rest of this thread under wraps. And, to be honest, I don't know near enough of Austrian nor Keynesian economics to play in this game.

However, I am reminded of a stand-up comedian I watched when you give this statement. I want to say it was Dave Chappelle, but I could easily be wrong. He was talking about how a lot of homeless and jobless people make a living. You have a Mexican, and black man, and a white man. All are homeless. The Mexican is selling fruits to make a living, has a little fruit stand. The black guy is selling flowers, has a little flower shop. The white guy is just begging for change. Now, the joke was that the white guy isn't attempting to do anything except get a hand-out while the two minorities are trying to do what they can to turn a profit. Buy oranges in a store for cheaper than you're selling them on the street.

I remember that one. It was the Dave Chappelle show. I tried to find video online, but I couldn't find it. There are just too many good clips to wade through.

The point I'm trying to make is that it really won't get down to steal or starve. I haven't had a job for 6 months. I haven't stolen anything. I've been able to rely on people I know to make it through. The point Fletch is trying to make in this case ( I believe, of course, I don't actually know) is that the idea of charity to make it by on tough times does work. When people are more likely to be charitable. I was denied unemployment, and went through all legal recourse to try and get whatever I could in the legal system without attempting to use welfare or any other system where the company that fired me did not foot the bill. After exhausting those means, I turned to friends and family. Fortunately, it worked. I owe some people... but it's better than taking from the rich to give to me.

I think I get what Fletch is trying to say, and he's mostly correct. I just don't think private charity can help everyone worth helping. Also, when times are tough, as they are now, charitable contributions fall. There is simply less that people have that they can give. This leads to good workers not being able to find jobs, creating a self-reinforcing downward spiral. But if you introduce a little temporary intervention, it can be stopped.

If you can find family or friends to help you and support you, of course that's better than relying on government help, but it should be there as a last resort. Not everyone has family or friends or even a church that has much to spare. In the most poverty-stricken areas, this is more likely than not the case.

Stealing is defined by Webster as 1 : to take the property of another wrongfully and especially as a habitual or regular practice. Taxes that I disagree with are, arguably, exact that. I feel they are wrong to take, and it is habitual. I disagree with the idea of food stamps, welfare, or anything of that sort because I then become a thief. I then become the person benefiting from the act of theft from another. Rather, I relied on charity 2 a : generosity and helpfulness especially toward the needy or suffering; also : aid given to those in need.

I agree that it taking of property, and even that it is regular, just on that it is wrong, and so it isn't theft.

It will never be so clear cut as to have only the options of 'steal or starve.' Because life is never so clear cut as that. It's a matter of being willing to do what it takes to live within legal means available. To do any less is to demean yourself and others.

I was posing a hypothetical situation to make a point. If you are given the choice, you'll choose to live. Life can be that clear cut.

People do die of hunger in this country. Do you think they didn't fight for their life?

You're fast becoming someone I don't want to address anymore. Please argue your point fairly. You asserted that Medicare was more efficient than private insurance. As evidence, you presented the percentage of admin costs. I refuted that assertion by explaining why that number was misleading.

Your response was to change your argument and say in effect that admin costs are higher for Medicare but there's a good reason. This is the opposite of your original assertion.

I despise this type of argument. If you are not indeed a troll, as I'm beginning to suspect, please reconcile your first assertion with your "rebuttal."

My point was that they are indeed different animals, and they're either directly comparable, and so we can draw conclusions from the comparison, or that they're not comparable.

There's a guy here in Denver who for years has run a "tough love" homeless shelter. He is a formerly homeless person with drug and alcohol problems. He runs a very good shelter that helps people who are truly ready to get their lives together. He advocates never giving beggars money. He sells coupon books to people who want to give to panhandlers. Each coupon is worth a free meal at his shelter. He's sold hundreds of books over the years. You know how many coupons he's had to redeem with a meal? None.

Sounds like a great idea to me.

He tells a story about how some group purchased a bunch of Army surplus wool blankets and handed them out to the homeless in Denver. In a couple of days the pawn shops were full of Army surplus blankets.

I once found a scarf on the CTA in Chicago (I had a temp job there in 2006 doing some obscenely boring paperwork, but the pay was excellent, so what the heck). I tried to turn it in to some kind of lost and found with the conductor, but she didn't want to deal with it. Maybe if it had been something more valuable, she would have cared, but maybe not. Chicago city workers are pretty useless. I thought I'd go ahead and give it to a homeless person, it being winter and all. I gave it to a guy, and he said something like "I need money. You got money?" Of course, my initial reaction was to think he was an ungrateful bastard. It's the kind of thing that churns around in your head for a while. He likely wanted money for drugs. I don't think the homeless need blankets. I think they need jobs and or drug and mental health treatment.

I have not called you stupid, nor have I implied that you are. I actually believe you're fairly intelligent -- I've seen nothing in your posts that indicates stupidity in any form.

I have however, stated emphatically that you are ignorant, specifically with regard to what Austrian economics has to say about anything. I stand by this assessment, as what follows is a perfect example:

Here, after Greenspan stepped down, he admitted that his totally deregulationist stance was flawed:
Greenspan Concedes to `Flaw' in His Market Ideology (Update2) - Bloomberg.com

How could he have said it was flawed if he never had it?

Later, he clarified by saying that unregulated capitalism was the best alternative for a free and democratic society:

Interview With Alan Greenspan - ABC News

Also, you are the one of the most ardent users of the ad hominem here. Quotes:

At this point it is not safe to assume any knowledge on your part.

I actually laughed out loud at this one. I'm beginning to wonder if you've been paying attention at all to the world around you.

You seriously need to get out more. I've been monitoring the few major threads you've been involved with, and if you think you've been insulted, I wonder how you ever made it through junior high school.

Keynesianism is not capitalist. If you think it is, you have a lot to learn.

And so on with the mentions of needing to learn this or that, or needing to read a book, etc. I sincerely doubt that you did not intend this to be insulting. Speaking of which:

I've already covered this. Greenspan abandoned Austrian economics when he went to work for the Fed. He converted to Keynesian economics, and followed the policy prescriptions thereof.

If you think Austrians approve, in any way, the manipulation of the interest rate, once again, you have not studied Austrian economics. Interest rate manipulation is usually covered by about chapter 5 or 6.

Again, have you actually read anything beyond someone else's summary?

Capitalism does not include government intervention in business. If you equate interventionist policy with capitalism, you are wrong. At best, you are describing mercantilism, which is not capitalism.

Greenspan seems to be of the opposite impression.

Your idea of capitalism does not include intervention. Many other's does.

I'm not a thief. I'd barter, trade, work off debt of the product, etc..
Or do without.
You can believe it or don't.

I don't like having things in my possession that don't belong to me.
There are people on this very board who can vouch for that... non-hypothetically.

I'm with you up to the point of not being able to do without.

I actually work in the health care industry. You are factually incorrect in almost everything you are saying.



Wrong. Administrative costs are basically the cost of maintaining a beneficiary's account. These costs do not increase very much with increasing treatment.

So a young healthy person who never goes to the doctor has 100% admin costs and 0% treatment costs.

An elderly or chronically ill person has only slightly higher admin costs, and treatment costs that can run into the hundreds of thousands. Result: miniscule admin costs, very high treatment costs.

The point I was trying to illustrate is clarified above.

What planet are you living on?

Medicare only pays a fraction of the actual cost of treatment. The rest is made up by shifting costs to privately insured patients, who pay substantially more than the actual costs of treatment. Nobody's trying to "make sure the rates are fair." Medicaid reimbursement rates are in fact scheduled to be cut even lower, which will result in even greater cost shifting.

That's an interesting assertion. If it isn't profitable to accept Medicare, then why do hospitals do it. They aren't required to. There are people trying to make sure the rates are fair, they've just failed.

Medicare reimbursement rates, as I understand it, are not going to be cut, but the rate of increase is going to be reigned in. Congress is no longer going to be allowed to reset the rates to benefit their home district, as has been the case.

I'm not really sure what point you're trying to assert. Wouldn't this be evidence that Medicare is placing downward pressure on the cost of healthcare for senior citizens, thus benefiting everyone?

The view that there is no objective reality, and that "reality" is determined by how people feel about things, is widespread. It works pretty well in literature, psychology, and art, but there are fields like medicine, engineering, and accounting, where objective reality matters. If the bridge collapses, it's objectively going to fall down, even on people who don't believe in gravity. If entitlement costs are growing and fewer workers are paying into the system, it will go bankrupt, and no amount of feeling sad is going to change that.

I don't recall asserting that there is no objective reality. I do recall asserting that people who are perfectly intelligent can evaluate the same facts and come to different conclusions. That is, not everyone who disagrees with you is an idiot.

If you don't believe in objective reality, you'll be pretty useless in the field of psychology. Literature and art less so, but still so.

Most everyone here wants a safety net as well. We want to do it by voluntary charity. You want to do it by the force of government. I'm not saying that I'm above receiving a helping hand but it is only as a last resort. I don't like owing anyone anything. If I ask you as a friend to come over and help me roof my shed, I will forever feel an obligation to you until I am able to repay that favor. I don't like being beholden to anyone. I may help you roof your shed and usually I won't expect anything in return. I'd rather be on the giving than the receiving end of that arrangement.

I realize that fully. I'm just saying that the situation is not the same for everyone. Some people don't have neighbors with money to spare. In some places in America, the social safety net is threadbare, and in many cases, especially in the city, there is not much in the way of publicly available charity from private donors.

Who can better tell the needs of your neighbor? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who can better tell if your neighbor is gaming the system? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? Who does your neighbor feel more accountable to? You or some bureaucrat in Washington? You can see how your neighbor is dealing with his situation. The bureaucrat in Washington can't.

Private charity is generally superior to welfare. But welfare is superior to nothing, and in many places, that is the choice presented to the poor. There are just far more needy people per productive people in many areas.

I believe you said you are a college student so I will try to give examples that make more sense to you. There is an old internet email that I'll paraphrase.

A father goes to college to pick up his daughter for Christmas break after her first semester away from home. On the car ride home, he asks her everything she's learned. She rambles on and on about the great ideas that her liberal professors and friends spout. How unfair it is that there are rich and poor, you get the picture. So he then ask her about her grades and she replies that she made the dean's list, etc. He then asks her about her friend Suzy that she went on to the same college with her. She replied that her grades were terrible and she was on the verge of failing out. The dad told her that she should practice her new found liberal ideas and share some of her gpa with her friend Suzy. The daughter immediately piped up that wasn't fair. While she was spending her nights staying up late studying, her friend Suzy was out partying it up and living the good life and skipping class. The dad's only response was "Welcome to the Republican Party".

I'm not advocating sharing with those who will not succeed. I'm advocating helping those who do not have the resources to attempt it. If you don't want to work hard in school, then to hell with you, but if you can't afford a graphing calculator for class, that's different.

Is it fair that Bill Gates's son will probably go to Harvard with an unlimited credit card while a poor black kid will be lucky to get into a local community college? If you think so, you are ignoring the work that Bill Gates put in to pay for his son's schooling and the sloth of the poor black kid's parent(s).

What you are in effect advocating is that a D- student at the local podunk community college should have an identical diploma worth equally as much as the magna *** laude graduate of Harvard.

Not at all, I'm not. What I'd like to see is the smartest students going to Harvard instead of those with the richest and most influential parents.

I work in industrial maintenance at a factory. In my current job, I'm essentially a firefighter. I work a non production shift so most nights are spent fixing things that couldn't be done while production was running or projects fabricating or installing new fixtures, running conduit, etc. Some nights, there really isn't much of anything to do and I actually feel guilty when I hit the time clock and head home on those nights. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I hit that time clock and feel that I gave the company a good 8 (10 hours in my case). I get a great deal of satisfaction when production supervisors ask for me when they need something fixed. I get a great deal of satisfaction when I complete a job and stand back and look at the quality of work and craftsmanship that I put into it.

That satisfaction comes from ME doing the work and seeing the fruits of it. What you are advocating is the "a trophy for everyone" approach. That approach robs everyone of the satisfaction of personally achieving something. I don't get any satisfaction when YOU pull an all nighter studying for a final exam and ace it. I don't get the same satisfaction as you do when you are forced to share some of that A+ with me when I put in a D- effort. Your method robs people of sense of achievement and the satisfaction that comes along with it.

I'm not advocating the same reward for different effort. I'm advocating equal opportunity to try.

Good post, well said.

The other piece of the puzzle is that if you need help and I'm forced to help you, I've been turned into a victim, and you've been turned into a thief.

If I help you on my own, I'm a philanthropist, and you're a grateful recipient, as it should be.

Any way you look at it, your misfortune, whether caused by yourself or circumstances beyond your control, does not incur an obligation on me to make it right.

We are all responsible for the conditions of society because we are the society. If there is going to be any justice at all in the world, it's going to have to be us that work for it.