Fewest working, or looking for work, since.........1978!!!

[Vic]

Yeah, a great investment just like how well it worked out for drug testing Florida welfare recipients!

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/01/us/florida-law-on-drug-testing-for-welfare-is-struck-down.html
I'm sure the problem is we just didn't spend ENOUGH money micromanaging the lives of poor people! It's like a reverse Laffer curve - the more we spend on deciding and enforcing how other people live, the more money we'll save!

Even worse is it's exactly the kind of big government that Nehalem would otherwise claim to fear and hate, but in this case, he's all for it!

 

[nehalem256]

lol, nice attempt to plug in a totally separate issue with the bus passes. Are you even capable of sticking to a single, rational argument?

Its not a totally seperate issue. How do you expect the poor people to get to the grocery store?:hmm:

Buy in bulk and then distribute. Then hire people to run the distribution at each government housing structure. Then hire delivery services. Then hire people to coordinate all that.

Yeah, that's totally going to be cheaper.

Lets see. Cheaper housing, check. Cheaper food due to buying in bulk and cutting out retailer mark up, check. Not sure how delivery is really more expensive to deliver food to government housing than Walmart, and you cut out on having to drive/buspass to the grocery store, so saved money check.

 

[fskimospy]

Its not a totally seperate issue. How do you expect the poor people to get to the grocery store?:hmm:

Lets see. Cheaper housing, check. Cheaper food due to buying in bulk and cutting out retailer mark up, check. Not sure how delivery is really more expensive to deliver food to government housing than Walmart, and you cut out on having to drive/buspass to the grocery store, so saved money check.

I'm guessing you have literally no experience with program management or logistics in your entire life. Is this accurate?

The idea that the federal government is going to set up food distribution contracts for every federal housing assistance project across the entire country and then manage those deliveries, etc is simply baffling in its naivety and basic lack of understanding of the costs involved.

And quit it with the bus pass nonsense, which is just you trying to bolster an argument that even you should understand is stupid. People who have state subsidized bus passes do not simply have them to go to the grocery store. They would not be eliminated.

 

[fskimospy]

Even worse is it's exactly the kind of big government that Nehalem would otherwise claim to fear and hate, but in this case, he's all for it!

Nehalem is not actually against big government at all. He is against social groups that he doesn't like. He loves to use the power of government to attack women, the poor, and minorities. He once explicitly stated that he would use the power of the police to arrest women and forcibly abort their children.

The guy is a psychopath.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Or was it that the work was too strenuous? Or the boss is a total dick? Or any other number of factors?

Sometimes people bite off more than they can chew. They'll try to do things they can't. How many 50 year old guys are there climbing wind turbines? How many years can much younger men hold up to it? It's the same with many other kinds of physical work.

If you're experiencing voluntary high turnover in this economy, it's not the workers. People who have decent jobs that they can handle (I didn't say like) are currently holding on for dear life. You can beat 'em like rented mules. Job scarcity insures that.

Claims to the contrary are fantasy.

Yet the company I work for and our competitor have thousands of workers that do this week end, week out. Our competitors experience the same thing. These people work within crews up to 20 people so the odds of having a supervisor being a prick is not that high. Most of those who are being hired are 35 years old and younger, they are put to shame by workers that are their 40's and early 50's. The fact of the matter these younger people don't want to work a job that really requires them to get dirty and sweat. There are more who apply for the job but can't make it through the employment drug screen, the funny thing is they're told up front of the company's/client's requirement of no drug use yet somehow think they will get pass the screen.

 

[BoberFett]

If you want to create jobs and grow the economy, yes. Burger flipper is almost guaranteed to spend all of the wage increase he sees, meaning more business for places like burger joints.

They already spend everything they make. Why would spending every they make as a larger number make things better?

Some of you are so focused on numbers, as if numbers mean anything. Numbers an abstraction. Take it back to consumption. Do you really believe the US can consume more of the world's resources than it already does? Because that's what you're really asking for, more consumption by the average American.

 

[BoberFett]

At pumping taxpayers' money to corporate execs & the investor class, for sure. Privatization works great for that, however.

Privatize everything to send as much money as possible to the tippy top. That's efficiency.

First, learn to read. Second, take it up with eskimospy. I said that I'd like to see welfare move to become government provided rather than handing people cash that they can spend at the retail outlets of greedy capitalists.

 

[BoberFett]

Even worse is it's exactly the kind of big government that Nehalem would otherwise claim to fear and hate, but in this case, he's all for it!

I don't like big government either, but how is the system we have now NOT big government?

What's the problem we're trying to solve? Are people unable to survive without the state? Or are they unable to partake in life's luxuries without the state?

If it's the latter, then we have a much bigger problem, because it's not the state's duty to provide luxury.

If it's the former, then I fail to see how caring how that money spent is a bad thing. If it's spent on luxuries instead of necessities, then that person is still not able to survive, and they need to be instructed on how to spend that money. Easier than tracking their spending is to provide them with bags of beans and rice, basic government clothing, etc.

If people want something for nothing, then they should expect the something that they get to be very close to nothing.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm guessing you have literally no experience with program management or logistics in your entire life. Is this accurate?

The idea that the federal government is going to set up food distribution contracts for every federal housing assistance project across the entire country and then manage those deliveries, etc is simply baffling in its naivety and basic lack of understanding of the costs involved.

And quit it with the bus pass nonsense, which is just you trying to bolster an argument that even you should understand is stupid. People who have state subsidized bus passes do not simply have them to go to the grocery store. They would not be eliminated.

<hillbilly>

You might just be a Democrat if....

you believe the government is so inept that it can't move bulk food around but is capable of handling an incredibly complex health care system.

</hillbilly>

 

[boomerang]

<hillbilly>

You might just be a Democrat if....

you believe the government is so inept that it can't move bulk food around but is capable of handling an incredibly complex health care system.

</hillbilly>

LOL! :thumbsup:

 

[fskimospy]

<hillbilly>

You might just be a Democrat if....

you believe the government is so inept that it can't move bulk food around but is capable of handling an incredibly complex health care system.

</hillbilly>

You might just be boberfett if you think complexity is the issue and not market efficiencies.

 

[werepossum]

Do you have any clue about the economy in the 1970s ? Those of us who were around do.

Carter inherited a terrible economy from Nixon/Ford. An economy completely unlike our current one. Inflation was rampant, unless you were there you can't really imagine what its like when the price of everything is going up all the time, at much higher rates than increases in income.

Carter actually managed to get a handle on inflation, but preoccupation with the Iran hostage crisis and being probably too fiscally responsible, he was pretty conservative, kept growth low.

Which led to Reagan, who had two factors that led to a better economy, at least for a while. 1. pent-up demand. The economy is cyclical and the doldrums of the 70s had run their course.
2. Reagan was a BIG spender who greatly increased government spending, which is good for growth. But it did create massive deficits, something Carter wasn't willing to do, which didn't get fixed until Clinton and the Democrats raised taxes.

Which, btw, is one reason Obama will succeed in the long run, because he finally got the worst of the Bush tax cuts reversed which were fiscally irresponsible and destroyed the delicate balance Clinton had achieved.

LOL Funny how that works. Carter's economy was actually Ford's and Nixon's economy and Reagan's economy was actually Carter's economy, because the economy is cyclical. However, Barack Obama singlehandedly saved the nation if not the world, because without his massive stimulus program (which was of course actually too small) the economy would have remained tanked instead of becoming the well-honed engine of employment we see today because the economy is not cyclical, it's at the mercy of politicians. If only there was some sort of code we could use to predict these things, some sort of letter after a politician's name to let us know whether or not he gets credit or blame . . .

Some of us remember Carter's years with a much less rosy glow. When he took office in January 1977, inflation stood at 5.2%. When Reagan tool office in January 1981, inflation stood at 11.8%. If you prefer to use the preceding December numbers, the last full month of office for each's predecessor, they are 5.8% and 13.5% respectively. Carter couldn't get a handle on his dick without tweezers and a spotter. There's a reason why he goes around certifying as honest foreign elections he later admits were rigged rather than doing anything useful - he CAN'T do anything useful. The guy's a joke who merely happened to be a Democrat outsider right after a Republican insider got caught doing terrible things.

http://www.usinflationcalculator.com/inflation/historical-inflation-rates/

<hillbilly>

You might just be a Democrat if....

you believe the government is so inept that it can't move bulk food around but is capable of handling an incredibly complex health care system.

</hillbilly>

😀

 

[BoberFett]

You might just be boberfett if you think complexity is the issue and not market efficiencies.

Then get government out of healthcare and let those market efficiencies work!

 

[fskimospy]

Then get government out of healthcare and let those market efficiencies work!

They don't work, that's the problem. There is a reason why the more government is involved with health care the more efficient it gets.

 

[Vic]

I don't like big government either, but how is the system we have now NOT big government?

What's the problem we're trying to solve? Are people unable to survive without the state? Or are they unable to partake in life's luxuries without the state?

If it's the latter, then we have a much bigger problem, because it's not the state's duty to provide luxury.

If it's the former, then I fail to see how caring how that money spent is a bad thing. If it's spent on luxuries instead of necessities, then that person is still not able to survive, and they need to be instructed on how to spend that money. Easier than tracking their spending is to provide them with bags of beans and rice, basic government clothing, etc.

If people want something for nothing, then they should expect the something that they get to be very close to nothing.

I see your point, but using intrusive means (like drug testing) to control how welfare recipients spend their money is an expansion of the welfare system, not a reduction. It means higher administrative costs, and an infringement on individual liberties that government should only be allowed to do to criminals.
If you want to cut welfare back to food stamps and public housing, be my guest. But drug testing crosses a very disturbing line.

 

[Vic]

Then get government out of healthcare and let those market efficiencies work!

Unfortunately medicare makes that impossible. If you want to challenge the senior citizen vote on this, go for it.

 

[Vic]

They don't work, that's the problem. There is a reason why the more government is involved with health care the more efficient it gets.

The only reason I know why government is involved in health care is because the people who need it most (the sick and the elderly) are the ones least able to pay for it.

 

[Jhhnn]

First, learn to read. Second, take it up with eskimospy. I said that I'd like to see welfare move to become government provided rather than handing people cash that they can spend at the retail outlets of greedy capitalists.

So we should create a new bureaucracy to distribute stuff, as you said in #103-

Certain people here have made it perfectly clear that you're not allowed to question how they spend their free money that you gave people.

I still say welfare should be in the form of food staples, government issued clothing, and a government run housing. If you're incapable of taking care of yourself, then you're a ward of the state you should live like one. [

As if people aren't subject to economic forces beyond their control, and as if a scarcity of essentials justifies rationing them excessively on the basis of current employment. Modern programs are designed to support the system, not supplant it in part, as you seem to want to do.

The govt would probably just buy the clothes from Walmart, anyway. Or should we have pauper uniforms?

 

[BoberFett]

They don't work, that's the problem. There is a reason why the more government is involved with health care the more efficient it gets.

Not sure if serious...

 

[fskimospy]

Not sure if serious...

Again, I'm just telling you what the empirical evidence shows. You are free to do whatever you want with that information.

Sometimes the facts tell us things we don't want to believe. The thing is, they don't cRe what you believe.

 

[BoberFett]

So we should create a new bureaucracy to distribute stuff, as you said in #103-

So a distribution bureaucracy is bad, but a bureaucracy that just sends out cash is OK?

As if people aren't subject to economic forces beyond their control, and as if a scarcity of essentials justifies rationing them excessively on the basis of current employment. Modern programs are designed to support the system, not supplant it in part, as you seem to want to do.

Unemployment still exists, does it not? If you run out of unemployment and have no savings, you're not unemployed, you're on welfare. You shouldn't be eating at McDonald's, smoking, drinking, or anything else that you can't afford.

The govt would probably just buy the clothes from Walmart, anyway. Or should we have pauper uniforms?

Sounds OK to me. Poor people living in drab government housing, eating boring government provided food, wearing pauper uniforms.

I simply can't understand the mindset of the American liberal. You love to harp on the fact that "taxes are the price you pay for a civil society" and "we all have to do our part" except that for millions of people, you want to give them the American dream without them giving anything back or doing their part. I don't understand your motivation.

 

[Vic]

Sounds OK to me. Poor people living in drab government housing, eating boring government provided food, wearing pauper clothes.

I'm okay with this as long as their children (who are blameless for their parents poverty) are given access to a proper education.

 

[Vic]

I simply can't understand the mindset of the American liberal. You love to harp on the fact that "taxes are the price you pay for a civil society" and "we all have to do our part" except that for millions of people, you want to give them the American dream without them giving anything back or doing their part. I don't understand your motivation.

This one took me a long time too. The reason is because most of them don't have any motivation. They just think life is a lottery.

Edit : you also need to remember the difference between urban and rural dwellers, which is why I'm a big fan of states (and local) rights. To me, cities are a business, created for profit. You show me a small town and I'll show you a failed real estate deal. As such, city dwellers have different needs from government than rural dwellers do. And as you're always free to cash out of the city and move out if you don't like it, your freedoms are not necessarily infringed.
Food for thought.

 

[BoberFett]

I'm okay with this as long as their children (who are blameless for their parents poverty) are given access to a proper education.

I think even adults in that situation should be giving access to retraining. I would even support colorful billboards on every government run apartment building advocating education and a better life.

If they choose to remain there and turn down education, then clearly it's not a bad life.

 

[BoberFett]

This one took me a long time too. The reason is because most of them don't have any motivation. They just think life is a lottery.

Edit : you also need to remember the difference between urban and rural dwellers, which is why I'm a big fan of states (and local) rights. To me, cities are a business, created for profit. You show me a small town and I'll show you a failed real estate deal. As such, city dwellers have different needs from government than rural dwellers do. And as you're always free to cash out of the city and move out if you don't like it, your freedoms are not necessarily infringed.
Food for thought.

I knew there was a reason I always liked you Vic.