old saying
if your not a democrat when your 20..you have no heart
if your not a republican when your 40..you have no brain
if your not a democrat when your 20..you have no heart
if your not a republican when your 40..you have no brain
I'd say that if you identify with a political party at any age you have neither brain or heart.
LeeTJ - Whoa! Apples and oranges. You missed the total point. 1 is no better than the other, get rid of them both!
But: A lot of people on this forum don't realize that their are people in this country that WOULD rather live in a box than work. We need to learn to allow them to do so. Don't you agree?
But: A lot of people on this forum don't realize that their are people in this country that WOULD rather live in a box than work. We need to learn to allow them to do so. Don't you agree?
NOT apples and oranges. BOTH deal with the free rider problem. the problem of people trying to take advantage of society.
I don't disagree that we should try and prevent free riders in ANY situation. welfare, defense contractors, . . .
i think you missed the point. i never said get rid of free riders. i just said they exist in many other areas and it could be argued that the welfare free rider problem is the least signficant of the bunch.
LeeTJ - "i never said get rid of free riders".
I know I did. What I originally said was:
"Now explain to me clearly and concisely why we should pay for people who WILL NOT WORK!"
I am equally against those who cheat and steal, but after working 55 hours a week I especially detest LAZY! the thread started out pointing out how Mary would rather party than work. Not that the other girl stole the grades. Now we can start a thread on stealing too, if you want.
So why should I pay?
I know I did. What I originally said was:
"Now explain to me clearly and concisely why we should pay for people who WILL NOT WORK!"
I am equally against those who cheat and steal, but after working 55 hours a week I especially detest LAZY! the thread started out pointing out how Mary would rather party than work. Not that the other girl stole the grades. Now we can start a thread on stealing too, if you want.
So why should I pay?
It's an insurance policy that the majority of americans agreed to because most of them realized that any of us are susceptible to losing work for whatever reason. they designed it to be a helping hand so that you can get some support while you get work.
Is there a problem with the system, yes, are there those that take advantage of it?? yes, that's like asking if there are those that commit insurance fraud. BUT does that mean we should get rid of it?? my opinion is no.
get rid of free riders but acknowledge that the system has a purpose.
on the other hand, if you don't think your tax dollars are going to help pay for enron or worldcom your mistaken. if you think the shenanigans of CPA's playing with the books of these corporations hasn't cheated us out of tax dollars that should have been in the pot, ur mistaken. if you think all these frivolous lawsuits don't hurt your pocketbook think again. . .
do i need to keep going.
recognize.
O.K. ,I agree about the Enron(s)et.al ,no problem. Now w/o the poli-speak, why should we pay for people who WILL NOT WORK. Not for those who need a hand while trying to work, but for those who will not even support their own kids! If the father is able-bodied, why should you or I pick up the support tab. I have no problem with temporary assistance. Educational aid is a great idea. But we cannot continue to reward laziness. Your children, if you have any, will not be able to support the system in 20 years. At least the Enron(s) are accountable to shareholders. These people are accountable to no one.
Coming from the british tradition of a welfare state I can very quickly identify four justifications for providing a basic minimum standard of living for those not currently in work.
(1) We live at a time when enterprises are at liberty to dismiss their employees on minimal notice in order to respond to the needs of their business. This state of affairs is justified by the greater economic return that comes from having efficient and competitive business. But inherent in this market freedom is the reciprocal duty to support the people getting laid off during their search for employment. On average in the Uk a person will have to change their job 11 times in the course of their career, and three of these changes will be to a completely different industry and thus require retraining and reskilling. If the market profits by their misfortune, why should it not also bear a proportion of the cost?
(2) The people that get made redundant may have families or dependants. By ensuring minimum standards of living we protect the next generation for poverty and ignornance, through strenghtening the family unit and making education accessible for their kids.
(3) Inherent in the idea that 'those who will not work ought not get support' is the desert based notion that a person only deserves a quality of life if he puts in hard graft. I think this is a great idea, but cannot stand alone. Take for example artists, writers, philosophers, dancers etc who do not put in the conventional 40+ hours a week and may at some point in their career rely on state benefits. It is uncontroversial to say that these people enrich society even though they do not correspond to the work ethic described above. I believe that when deciding who 'deserves' benefits we should have an open mind and include those whose life work is not immediately of value.
(4) There is the humanitarian argument that it is repugnant for fellow human beings to be deprived of the basic needs of life (shelter, warmth, food) simply because other human beings happen to believe they are lazy. This is at heart a moral judgement and one I am unwilling to make given the abundance of wealth in the western world.
(1) We live at a time when enterprises are at liberty to dismiss their employees on minimal notice in order to respond to the needs of their business. This state of affairs is justified by the greater economic return that comes from having efficient and competitive business. But inherent in this market freedom is the reciprocal duty to support the people getting laid off during their search for employment. On average in the Uk a person will have to change their job 11 times in the course of their career, and three of these changes will be to a completely different industry and thus require retraining and reskilling. If the market profits by their misfortune, why should it not also bear a proportion of the cost?
(2) The people that get made redundant may have families or dependants. By ensuring minimum standards of living we protect the next generation for poverty and ignornance, through strenghtening the family unit and making education accessible for their kids.
(3) Inherent in the idea that 'those who will not work ought not get support' is the desert based notion that a person only deserves a quality of life if he puts in hard graft. I think this is a great idea, but cannot stand alone. Take for example artists, writers, philosophers, dancers etc who do not put in the conventional 40+ hours a week and may at some point in their career rely on state benefits. It is uncontroversial to say that these people enrich society even though they do not correspond to the work ethic described above. I believe that when deciding who 'deserves' benefits we should have an open mind and include those whose life work is not immediately of value.
(4) There is the humanitarian argument that it is repugnant for fellow human beings to be deprived of the basic needs of life (shelter, warmth, food) simply because other human beings happen to believe they are lazy. This is at heart a moral judgement and one I am unwilling to make given the abundance of wealth in the western world.
sthreallyobscure - That I or anyone else should support an "artist" because he is an artist is absurd. I am not talking about unemployment benefits. I am not talking about people changing careers, I am speaking of people who WILL NOT WORK! The jobs are available, they don't go to work. Should I support them? I offered to give him a job. What else should I do?
Originally posted by: etech
The spirit of Kyoto is to reduce pollution. Everything you've said is true; however it does not excuse the US for for not leading the way; instead the most prosperous of countries decides instead to b!tch about its economic impact. It is left to Japan and te EU, on the other hand, who is going through a historic recession of its own. In the long run, innovations and resulting new markets (from the need to reduce pollution) could offset any economic hit caused by Kyoto.
Typical arrogant american reply. Because, as we all know, there's no middle ground between being someone's b!tch and making someone your b!tch...
So its okay to drain any emergency coffers we might have designated because we didn't know 9/11 would happen? This isn't a case of hindsight being 20/20; it just really comes down to common sense...
How about defense? Anyone who thinks a rogue country will one day start heaving missles at the US is just being paranoid. Other than the US, there are no more superpowers. Bush's isolationist agenda is very dangerous, and as part of a global community we are really taking a huge step backward.
busmaster11
If the spirit and intent of Kyoto was only to reduce pollution than it could have been accomplished in a method that the US could have agreed to. Leaving the undeveloped countries out and not allowing the trading of pollution credits made it unworkable and unacceptable to the US.
That seems to be the attitude that France and Germany are now taking. It seems to be rather arrogant on their part. What?s your point besides your typical stereotypical insults of America.
What emergency coffers are you referring to? Tax cuts help boost the economy. That?s common sense.
As soon as Europe and all the other countries start spending enough to shoulder their fair share of the world?s defense then perhaps the US could reduce it?s defense spending. Instead Europe only seems to want to make the world a more dangerous place by keeping dictators that like WMD in power. That?s sad.
Bush?s agenda is not isolationist, keep your terms straight.
.
If the spirit and intent of Kyoto was only to reduce pollution than it could have been accomplished in a method that the US could have agreed to. Leaving the undeveloped countries out and not allowing the trading of pollution credits made it unworkable and unacceptable to the US.
That seems to be the attitude that France and Germany are now taking. It seems to be rather arrogant on their part. What?s your point besides your typical stereotypical insults of America.
What emergency coffers are you referring to? Tax cuts help boost the economy. That?s common sense.
As soon as Europe and all the other countries start spending enough to shoulder their fair share of the world?s defense then perhaps the US could reduce it?s defense spending. Instead Europe only seems to want to make the world a more dangerous place by keeping dictators that like WMD in power. That?s sad.
Bush?s agenda is not isolationist, keep your terms straight.
America has one party.
Inside that one party, there is an imaginary division line, to keep sleepers like you occupied with bickering.
Inside that one party, there is an imaginary division line, to keep sleepers like you occupied with bickering.
To complain of shouldering more of the responsibility when you are one of few lucky enogh to be in a position to do so, to me, is justifying a lack of humanity. Just how are 3rd world countries going to find the money and technology to advance quick enough to meet the same stringent guidelines? Whats that you say? It's not our problem? Typical...
I am an american, and damn proud of it. If I wasn't such an out of shape coward who can't hold a gun to save his life, I'd consider dropping everything and enlisting. And I guess it is human nature to progress toward such arrogance when you're in a position to be able to, but its still wrong. I've never said to take another country as an example or guideline. But if the US is taking unilatteral action that no other country wants but can afford to object, thats very dangerous.
Again, Alan Greenspan doesn't agree with the steps Bush is taking. No wonder the repubs are trying to shut him up...
I was referring to the missile defense plan, and unilattterally dropping out of the treaty with the USSR. (yeah they no longer exist, yeah the treaty's antiquidated, blah blah blah.)
I love how people bring up Anderson as some high and mighty moral example. It shows their TOTAL IGNORANCE of the situation. I won't even go into the fact that Anderson was sued and Enron never was, or that most of the information about what Anderson "did" was totally spun; they really didn't do half of the things people think.
Rather, look at this. At the most, there were 12 people involved with the Enron account, one of which was high ranking. In order to "punish" these 12 people, the company was sent into bankruptcy, which cost 80,000 people their jobs. Meanwhile, Enron executives walk away scott free. You think that's FAIR or JUST? No. It's not.
So?? how does that change the fact that those 12 people and Enron has cost our society a lot of money?? your saying arthur anderson as a whole wasn't the problem, fine i have no problem conceding that, do you deny any wrong doing at all on the parts of the parties involved? do you deny that it put a significant burden on our economy??
The jury found that the combined actions of 12 people (many of which were not even in contact with one another) might be construed as a collective wrong. MIGHT. The judge gave them a jury instruction that this was an acceptable finding. Had the instruction been any less vague, then Anderson would still be a company, and 80,000 people would still be employes, 79,988 of which had NO INVOLVEMENT in the Enron account, and even those 12 still didn't really do anything wrong. They were given lots of false info out of Enron, beyond their control. Shredding documents? Hate to break this to all you who are so sure this is so evil, but 1) those documents were duplicates, and 2) it's prat of the contract that those duplicates have to be shredded after a certain time has elapsed. What they were doing was standard in the accounting industry.
Who cost the country all the money? Enron. Who paid for it? Anderson.
With those morals you claim to have, how can you justify this?
busmaster11
It seems that you really don?t understand the ramifications or what was really behind the Kyoto treaty. The year of the baseline was chosen for some special reasons. Do I really need to explain it or have you done your research?
Look up when the reunification of the two Germanys occurred and what that meant to Europe and their CO2 emissions. The deck was stacked.
I am also proud of being an American and have already served my country for four years in the US Navy. What you are calling arrogance can also be construed as seeing a problem that has been allowed to exist for twelve years and trying to deal with it now. A problem which if left to fester will only grow more dangerous and harder to deal with. You also misstate that ?no other country wants? to deal with it. There are many countries that see the problem and a few that are obstructing for their own reasons the handling of it.
Again, Greenspan did agree to the tax cuts in question before 9/11.
Have you read the reports about N. Koreas missiles and their range. I guess if you don?t live on the west coast you don?t have to be concerned.
As for the treaty with the now non-existent USSR, you answered your own question. You should also consider that times and the world situation changes. Treaties that were effective between super powers may not be effective between one super power and rouge states.
It seems that you really don?t understand the ramifications or what was really behind the Kyoto treaty. The year of the baseline was chosen for some special reasons. Do I really need to explain it or have you done your research?
Look up when the reunification of the two Germanys occurred and what that meant to Europe and their CO2 emissions. The deck was stacked.
I am also proud of being an American and have already served my country for four years in the US Navy. What you are calling arrogance can also be construed as seeing a problem that has been allowed to exist for twelve years and trying to deal with it now. A problem which if left to fester will only grow more dangerous and harder to deal with. You also misstate that ?no other country wants? to deal with it. There are many countries that see the problem and a few that are obstructing for their own reasons the handling of it.
Again, Greenspan did agree to the tax cuts in question before 9/11.
Have you read the reports about N. Koreas missiles and their range. I guess if you don?t live on the west coast you don?t have to be concerned.
As for the treaty with the now non-existent USSR, you answered your own question. You should also consider that times and the world situation changes. Treaties that were effective between super powers may not be effective between one super power and rouge states.
I don't have to justify it. with my morals or anyone elses. my point has nothing to do w/ arthur anderson. sure give them a pass if you want. i probably shouldn't have mentioned them. i only did based obviously if what you state is accurate on bad information.
How does that change my thesis tho?? that there are free riders in every aspect of the economy?? then change everything i said previously about arthur anderson to Enron. it doesn't change my point. in fact what you say would only support my point because Enron has caused our society a lot of grief. more so than the free riders you find with welfare.
actually i disagree when you say they have nothing to do with the story. the parable as written originally imply that only the "mary's" of the world take advantage of society and then expect hand outs. this is known as the free rider problem, my contention is that the Enrons are just as much "marys" as any poor bloke collecting his welfare check because he doesn't want to work. HOWEVER, i'm also claiming that the enrons of the world cost each of us MORE money than the poor welfare bum.
Enron is a rare occurance. Welfare is constant. With some minor changes to welfare, it would become a much cleaner system. Workman's Comp has come leaps and bounds from how badly it was once abused.
Your arguements that lawyers and doctors and accountants are "free riders" has a fundamental flaw. No matter how much you may dislike what they do, or think it's useless, or think they're abusing something...at least they're out there doing SOMETHING. And it's not like these people serve no purpose. Plus, most of these "crooked" upper class people get caught if they actually do something illegal (rather than just immoral).
as for tax evasion (which I just noticed you mentioned), I still am pro-flat tax (3 tiered flat tax...10%, 14%, 18%)...solves that problem.
I didn't say ALL doctors, Lawyers and accountants are "free riders" I said among them are the bad eggs that comprise free riders. and no they do not do SOMETHING, what they do is abuse the system that costs taxpayers money. that increases the cost of insurance for EVERYONE. what some of them do is nothing less than insurance fraud. There are criminals in all fields just like there are undeserving welfare receipients. the only difference is undeserving welfare reciepients has a much lower maximum they can take from society vs a bad egg lawyer, doctor or accountant that wants to milk the system. the fact that you say your pro flat tax also is consistent with the belief that there are people who have money who choose NOT to pay their fair share.
and btw, they don't get caught. a lot of it is done legally. all these frivolous lawsuits costs taxpayers money. I could name a whole host of things that doctors do that increases the amount they receive from insurance companies beyond what is just. these things are marginally ethical at best and are often ignored because they cost more to track down.
an insurance company gives me auto insurance. when they do so they base my rate on my risk, the possibility of accidents, tickets, etc. but guess what, when i get a ticket they RAISE my rates, when i get into an accident they RAISE my rates. This is outright stealing. those accidents / tickets were within their original calculations and yet they raise my rates based on the fact that they had to pay out. this is hiway robbery.
the point is, YES, welfare can and is abused but so is EVERYTHING else in society. that in itself is not sufficient cause to get rid of it or claim that it is wrong. it just means we have to find better ways of deliverying it.
There are laws against what Enron did.
There were laws that made living off of the dole more palatable to many than working for a living.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter