Why are there so many left-wingers on NSG?

[The Reasonable]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation on welfare, I'll clear some up.

Food stamps wise (the program is called SNAP and there are no actual stamps, instead they have EBT cards), it's a very regulated program. In order to qualify for food stamps, you must either qualify for other welfare programs of all things, and if you are an able-bodied adult, you have to either be working a part time job (20 hours of work a week) or have to be applying for a job or looking for one through some federal program. EBT cards are hard to abuse, mostly because they can only be used to buy food (doesn't include alcohol). The SNAP program does keep statistics on abuse, and only about 1% of the EBT cards in use is estimated to be abused. Many food stamp users are what anyone with a sane mind would call "needy", they include the elderly, the disabled, and adults with children, in large numbers (IIRC, the majority of food stamp users, on the order of 80%, were categorized as the above categories).

On the other hand, Food stamps are probably the greatest welfare program the U.S. has. Why? Because it stimulates the economy. Economists differ on how much, but the estimates are that for ever $1 spent on Food Stamps, the overall economy grows by $1.73-$1.84. In comparison, cutting taxes on all income earners will only yield, IIRC, about $1.02 to every $1 cut. Clearly, raising food stamp benefits benefits the economy plenty (in fact, Bush did that in the U.S. Farm Bill of 2008).

Of my mini-mottos, one of them is "Of all the welfare programs, don't talk shit about food stamps."

Very well said.

[Not Safe For Work]

That world changed with the Industrial Revolution, too. Did it mean that everyone was out of jobs? For some time, yes, but other kinds of jobs, jobs more appropriate for the method of production of resources, appeared.

The important thing, perhaps, is that you concede that there will be massive unemployment. You seem to be content to assume that it's temporary, and to ignore the cost to the people who become unemployed.

Now, what you said is true- there will be more automation of resource production in the future. You still need a class of people to work to maintain the machines and another to distribute those resources and allocate them.

Indeed. Although, as we've seen with the Wal-Mart model, for example - the replacement 'classes' tend to need far less people than what they replace. So your manned factory of 100 workers becomes an automated factory that hires 2 techies and three resource allocators.

And 95 people have to find new employment.

The service sector needs to be expanded at the expense of the industrial sector. Does that necessarily mean more unemployment? In the short run, structurally, yes, but gradually there will still be employment.

Optimistic at best. What services, exactly, do you thing we're going to expanding-ly need?

So you would prevent a breakdown of society by providing bread and circuses...when it was actually the bread and circuses that eventually tore apart the empire as people stopped caring about what went on around them and simply lived for the moment while a small class of elites took all the power...

The bread and circuses did not tear the empire apart. They were, at worst, a symptom of the fact that people no longer cared about the Empire.

We're actually in that situation in America - increasingly, people don't care about America. Sure, there's a lot of nationalism and jingoism - but what there isn't is a lot of people prioritizing the good of Americans.

No wonder you vote conservative...you blind the unemployed with cheap entertainment and freebies while your technic class as you would call it, who manages all the resource production gained all power...it's fitting that you even mentioned Rome, because you think just like one of their emperors...and we know how Rome turned out.

Yes, they were massively successful. It's a bit of a strawman of course, the 'technic' class in my discussion would be maintaining the automation, not managing all the resources and gaining all the power.

[AuSable River]

Welfare was introduced in the Great Depression, which started in 1929. Before that, there were still rises in unemployment rate. And after welfare was introduced...was there any increase in unemployment? Not really besides the usual business cycle-- the reasonable

your wrong -- as can be plainly seen from the graph --- welfare spending expanded from LBJ's great society in the mid-1960s. hence, FDR may have instituted some modest welfare reforms, but welfare spending didnt increase in earnest until the failed great society experiment.



not coincidentally, thats when the decade long decline in poverty STOPPED!



And you are aware that the Center of Budget and Policies Priorities is a leftwing front group ?

They frequently can data to suit their ideological bias. Hence, I need to see the article and the data -- please provide the source where you got the graph.

Nonetheless, welfare payments, food stamps, govt spending as a percentage of GDP have all expanded under obamanomics ---

and with it the poverty levels have risen to near record highs



not surprisingly, since the money that government allocates doesnt go to those who really need it ---- it goes to get politicians re-elected:

[Zaras]

I agree with your beliefs. Liberals say they believe in free speech, but then they are all about censorship.

Also, they support censorship because they do not want the truth to be leaked out by us conservatives. The liberals fear the truth.

Nord, can you make a post that's even more condescending, generalising, insulting, unsupported, blatantly false and "All X are Y" than this?

Removing allow mentioning of God from the public, believing in freedom from religion.

Nord, stop confusing the religious right not getting everything it wants with censorship. Mentioning "God" in a political context, no matter how much you want to avoid it, is never inclusive. Mentioning "God" always refers to a specific idea of god, and thus it's an insult to every non-believer and religious person who doesn't follow your exact same beliefs. People are elected to represent their voters, not to tell a chunk of them to go fuck themselves because they don't care about people who don't share their beliefs.

After all, religion should be a private thing. Jesus himself said so in the Bible, at the part where he condemned the Pharisees and how they prayed loudly in public wearing sacks over their heads. That shit is just tacky.

Also, you claim to be for freedom, yet you believe in banning firearms (Democrats in general believe this)

Yes, because America's gun culture is idiotically bizarre and incomprehensible to a non-USAer.

Seriously, try advocating gun ownership in the UK. People'll look at you like you're a mental asylum escapee.

Compulsory healthcare should be optional to the individual.

Nope, it's supposed to be compulsory. Healthcare is a lottery, essentially: you can't control who gets sick and when. Best to spread the risk as wide as possible.

I am a self-admitted moderate, which explains why a lot of people hate me around here, right and left.

Hey, I don't hate you! Sorry if I ever gave that impression.

2: That's the slang term for members of the unification church, except with an ism attached.

No, that's Moonies.

Zaras doesn't even feel that way- at least he acknowledges that the majority of people on welfare do want to work and don't want to be dependent.

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that this assumption that people who are on welfare are somehow "lesser" than people who work is a loathsome remnant of Puritanism, and should be purged. We're not going to be able to find the best solution if we go into a problem with the assumption that welfare recipients are lazy bums and shit.

To quote Mark Rosenfelder again, "Neurotic hangups about sin lead to more sin, not less." He was talking about abortion, but it's probably not a stretch to think America's... history of being founded by people who were kicked out of England for being too dickish might've saddled it with unhelpful assumptions about people who need help because they don't fit in the Protestant work ethic somehow.

That being said, is it wrong to ask them to find work or train them to find work in a changing economy?

Nope, it isn't.

After all, the New Deal and the Great Society, both of which had good intentions, placed making the destitute productive to society to be the highest priority- hence the job training programs and the alphabet soup agencies.

Can't disagree there.

I apologize if my posts on this thread made you think that I was against helping the poor- I personally do benefit from Medicaid and free/reduced lunches at school. I am not against either program- in fact they should be expanded- but I'm just saying that job training should be placed in even higher priority and importance than the benefits themselves. I understand that I made you think that I was against it by my word choice, which was more typical of conservatives/libertarians, so I'm sorry.

I'm sorry for misreading your posts then - my mistake, making assumptions.

[AuSable River]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation on welfare, I'll clear some up.

Food stamps wise (the program is called SNAP and there are no actual stamps, instead they have EBT cards), it's a very regulated program. In order to qualify for food stamps, you must either qualify for other welfare programs of all things, and if you are an able-bodied adult, you have to either be working a part time job (20 hours of work a week) or have to be applying for a job or looking for one through some federal program. EBT cards are hard to abuse, mostly because they can only be used to buy food (doesn't include alcohol). The SNAP program does keep statistics on abuse, and only about 1% of the EBT cards in use is estimated to be abused. Many food stamp users are what anyone with a sane mind would call "needy", they include the elderly, the disabled, and adults with children, in large numbers (IIRC, the majority of food stamp users, on the order of 80%, were categorized as the above categories).

On the other hand, Food stamps are probably the greatest welfare program the U.S. has. Why? Because it stimulates the economy. Economists differ on how much, but the estimates are that for ever $1 spent on Food Stamps, the overall economy grows by $1.73-$1.84. In comparison, cutting taxes on all income earners will only yield, IIRC, about $1.02 to every $1 cut. Clearly, raising food stamp benefits benefits the economy plenty (in fact, Bush did that in the U.S. Farm Bill of 2008).

Of my mini-mottos, one of them is "Of all the welfare programs, don't talk shit about food stamps."

your assertion that $1 spent on food stamps adds $1.73-1.84 to the economy is manifestly absurd.

for example, by your definition we need only expand food stamps to every single American and thereby increase economic growth over 70% ??!!!

indeed, when clinton enacted more strident welfare reforms, hence made it more difficult to get welfare --- the welfare roles naturally declined !!!!!

These people got jobs !

and contrary to leftwing dogma -- the most effective social tool known to mankind is not a welfare check -- it is a job .

indeed, conservatives and libertarians understand the unintended consequences, moral hazard, and opportunity costs of these type of schemes, even if liberal dont.

Moreover, allowing government the power to redistribute wealth does not eliminate poverty -- it increases it. How so you ask?

politicians use this power to pad their own pockets and those of their cronies in the private and public sector at the expense of the poor. hence, they use the poor as a pawn to plunder more taxpayer wealth for their own self-serving schemes.

FDR did this during the great depression when he spent most of tax money in battleground states than in states where the poverty was higher.

things are no different today:






lastly, those on the left dont understand the dynamic when you take money from demonstrably productive firms in the private sector and give it to the poor --- you transfer wealth from entities that engage in production to those that consume

this will work for a small time --- but eventually the productive capacity of a nation declines and soon you cant build, transport, research, manufacture, innovate, et al.

you have a nation of consumers, unemployed and not much else. You have effectively chased away the producers by denying them the capital they need to build plants, factories, R&D, hiring, training, et al for long term dependence on food stamps that dont produce anything and simply perpetuate poverty -- albeit at acceptable levels for a little while.

provide the necessities of society for a day -- or give society the means to expand production of these necessities -- which is better?

[AuSable River]

Indeed. Although, as we've seen with the Wal-Mart model, for example - the replacement 'classes' tend to need far less people than what they replace. So your manned factory of 100 workers becomes an automated factory that hires 2 techies and three resource allocators.

And 95 people have to find new employment.--not safe for work

what the Left doesnt understand is that when you free up people who were previously doing menially jobs --- you add tremendous momentum and productive power to the economy.

moreover, everytime a wal-mart is built, spin off businesses are created, more money is freed up for the local economy through lower cost goods, higher employment, and increased tax revenues. Out with the old, in with the new.

indeed, people are the most important and productive input to the economy.

I am reminded of the old adage regarding chinese productive capacities and senseless leftwing policies.

a US businessman observes hundreds of chinese workers digging ditches with shovels for a large construction project. So the American informs that chinese politician overseeing the project that he could dramatically decrease the time and expense needed to build the project if he purchased some American-made moving equipment. But the politician stated that this would cause the loss of hundred of jobs.

So the American responded, that if jobs were the goal of the project --- why not give all the workers spoons and hire hundreds more??!!

The Left has this mentality. It doesnt matter that certain jobs are a drag on the economy or that these workers would be better served retraining, working in new emerging industries, or opening their own small businesses --- what matters to the Left is simply to preserve old outdated menial jobs.

Ironically, under obamanomics --- manufacturing is in decline at the very time that obama was tooting his own horn at the convention and GM was spending billions in china building new plants, selling more cars than in America, and hiring tens of thousands of chinese workers ---- all with US taxpayer dollars --- thanks to barack obama, george bush and the US government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/business/economy/us-factory-output-shrinks.html

[PapaJacky]

There seems to be a lot of misinformation on welfare, I'll clear some up.

Food stamps wise (the program is called SNAP and there are no actual stamps, instead they have EBT cards), it's a very regulated program. In order to qualify for food stamps, you must either qualify for other welfare programs of all things, and if you are an able-bodied adult, you have to either be working a part time job (20 hours of work a week) or have to be applying for a job or looking for one through some federal program. EBT cards are hard to abuse, mostly because they can only be used to buy food (doesn't include alcohol). The SNAP program does keep statistics on abuse, and only about 1% of the EBT cards in use is estimated to be abused. Many food stamp users are what anyone with a sane mind would call "needy", they include the elderly, the disabled, and adults with children, in large numbers (IIRC, the majority of food stamp users, on the order of 80%, were categorized as the above categories).

On the other hand, Food stamps are probably the greatest welfare program the U.S. has. Why? Because it stimulates the economy. Economists differ on how much, but the estimates are that for ever $1 spent on Food Stamps, the overall economy grows by $1.73-$1.84. In comparison, cutting taxes on all income earners will only yield, IIRC, about $1.02 to every $1 cut. Clearly, raising food stamp benefits benefits the economy plenty (in fact, Bush did that in the U.S. Farm Bill of 2008).

Of my mini-mottos, one of them is "Of all the welfare programs, don't talk shit about food stamps."

your assertion that $1 spent on food stamps adds $1.73-1.84 to the economy is manifestly absurd.

for example, by your definition we need only expand food stamps to every single American and thereby increase economic growth over 70% ??!!!

indeed, when clinton enacted more strident welfare reforms, hence made it more difficult to get welfare --- the welfare roles naturally declined !!!!!

These people got jobs !

and contrary to leftwing dogma -- the most effective social tool known to mankind is not a welfare check -- it is a job .

indeed, conservatives and libertarians understand the unintended consequences, moral hazard, and opportunity costs of these type of schemes, even if liberal dont.

Moreover, allowing government the power to redistribute wealth does not eliminate poverty -- it increases it. How so you ask?

politicians use this power to pad their own pockets and those of their cronies in the private and public sector at the expense of the poor. hence, they use the poor as a pawn to plunder more taxpayer wealth for their own self-serving schemes.

FDR did this during the great depression when he spent most of tax money in battleground states than in states where the poverty was higher.

things are no different today:






lastly, those on the left dont understand the dynamic when you take money from demonstrably productive firms in the private sector and give it to the poor --- you transfer wealth from entities that engage in production to those that consume

this will work for a small time --- but eventually the productive capacity of a nation declines and soon you cant build, transport, research, manufacture, innovate, et al.

you have a nation of consumers, unemployed and not much else. You have effectively chased away the producers by denying them the capital they need to build plants, factories, R&D, hiring, training, et al for long term dependence on food stamps that dont produce anything and simply perpetuate poverty -- albeit at acceptable levels for a little while.

provide the necessities of society for a day -- or give society the means to expand production of these necessities -- which is better?

It isn't absurdity if you understand basic macroeconomics. Food stamps, unlike other welfare programs, directly increases demand, by incentivizing the purchase of foods. This in turn forces an increase in supply, and because most food in America is American grown, an increase in labor and thus, jobs. There's an obvious limit to how far this works, as Americans can't keep buying food that they don't need to artificially stimulate the economy, but Americans can keep buying food that they do need to stimulate the economy. In this way, people get employed, and people get fed, hence why food stamp are a win-win. In fact, I'll just give you the sources (https://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/docu ... t-2008.pdf and http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw1s17tt5t ... rr26-6.pdf).

On your last paragraph, if you did not know, we're all consumers. There will be no point in life without consumption. Your "future scenario" has already came, and has already been, since the dawn of man, to the fabled hero Reagan, up to the present days of Obama, we have always, and always will be, consumers. If you want to stimulate the economy, buy a car.

[AuSable River]

It isn't absurdity if you understand basic macroeconomics. Food stamps, unlike other welfare programs, directly increases demand, by incentivizing the purchase of foods. -- papajacky

yeah thats liberal dogma for ya -- but what you dont understand is that you have taken that money from someone else and denied them the opportunity to spend it -- maybe they would have spent it on food to.

or more importantly on building a food processing plant or increasing productivity on a farm and hiring new workers.

in sum, those on the Left seem to think you can plunder a money making private company and this has no effect on their consumption or productive capacity.

you only look at one side of the equation and also fall to see the high transaction costs associated with the govt middle man.

This in turn forces an increase in supply, and because most food in America is American grown, an increase in labor and thus, jobs. There's an obvious limit to how far this works, as Americans can't keep buying food that they don't need to artificially stimulate the economy, but Americans can keep buying food that they do need to stimulate the economy. In this way, people get employed, and people get fed, hence why food stamp are a win-win.--papajacky

it aint a 'win-win' dude -- your scheme simply moves wealth around with government taking a big cut for themselves at the very expense of the poor your trying to help --- thats why poverty has increased under obama despite huge outlays in stimulus and welfare spending.

indeed, manufacturing declined last month.

On your last paragraph, if you did not know, we're all consumers. There will be no point in life without consumption.--papajacky

what you dont understand is that you cant have consumption until you have PRODUCTION. And you cant have production unless you have jobs and companies have an economic environment that they feel an investment in production goods will reap benefits.

And if tax rates are high -- then companies are less inclined to invest in America.


hence, the greatest social tool known to mankind is a job --- not a welfare check.

and not a government job that is economically unsustainable and requires plunder of another job on the free market. It is a free market job that actually supports itself without coercive plunder.

and a free market job actually increases government revenue as opposed to consume it.

[PapaJacky]

It isn't absurdity if you understand basic macroeconomics. Food stamps, unlike other welfare programs, directly increases demand, by incentivizing the purchase of foods. -- papajacky

yeah thats liberal dogma for ya -- but what you dont understand is that you have taken that money from someone else and denied them the opportunity to spend it -- maybe they would have spent it on food to.

As I've shown in the other thread (the one about taxes), the Top 10%ers pay 70% of the total income tax. If you're earning over $112k a year, you'd think food isn't your top priority. This is why redistribution of wealth works. When you are "rich", you have nothing to spend your money on. You already have your fancy car, your fancy house, etc, what's left to buy? However, give that tax money to someone who will spend it, i.e., the poor and the needy, and they will spend it, further stimulating the economy.

or more importantly on building a food processing plant or increasing productivity on a farm and hiring new workers.

That would only be economically sound if there's a demand for more food, you got to have demand to warrant an increase in supply. This is where food stamps come in, as they can only be spent on predominantly American made foods, it in turns, forces those who produce food to produce more.

in sum, those on the Left seem to think you can plunder a money making private company and this has no effect on their consumption or productive capacity.

you only look at one side of the equation and also fall to see the high transaction costs associated with the govt middle man.

it aint a 'win-win' dude -- your scheme simply moves wealth around with government taking a big cut for themselves at the very expense of the poor your trying to help --- thats why poverty has increased under obama despite huge outlays in stimulus and welfare spending.

I don't think you seem to understand how much of spending is actually administration costs and how much actually helps increase demand, and thus supply (thus the whole economy)? According to this graph: http://www.fns.usda.gov/fns/key_data/march-2012.xlsx the entire FNS (Food and Nutrition Service) costed the tax payer about $103 billion USD. Of that, $149 million USD went into administration costs, while $75 billion USD and $17 billion USD went to the SNAP and Child Nutrition programs respectively. Doing the simple math will show you that administration costs were only 0.14% of the total cost, not exactly "siphoning money" if you ask me.

On your last paragraph, if you did not know, we're all consumers. There will be no point in life without consumption.--papajacky

what you dont understand is that you cant have consumption until you have PRODUCTION. And you cant have production unless you have jobs and companies have an economic environment that they feel an investment in production goods will reap benefits.

You can't have production without consumption, it's basic economics. No one sane will produce any product unless there's a demand for it. It works both ways around.

And if tax rates are high -- then companies are less inclined to invest in America.

If Capital Gains taxes are high, sure. Fortunately for companies, the capital gains tax is less than 18%. There's a difference between a capital gains tax and an income tax.

hence, the greatest social tool known to mankind is a job --- not a welfare check.

and not a government job that is economically unsustainable and requires plunder of another job on the free market. It is a free market job that actually supports itself without coercive plunder.

and a free market job actually increases government revenue as opposed to consume it.

[/quote]

That would be a foolish thing to both say and enact. There's clear evidence supporting welfare and other forms of "income assistance". Why do you think the U.S. military has 1.5 million active personnel and 1.5 million reserve personnel? Because it pays decently, gives you decent benefits, and you can retire with 20 years of service with a $33k pension. So, why do you think U.S. Presidents have been reluctant to cut military spending? Because those are jobs too, and like other government jobs, it's still a job.

[Eastern Kvatchdom]

Indeed. Although, as we've seen with the Wal-Mart model, for example - the replacement 'classes' tend to need far less people than what they replace. So your manned factory of 100 workers becomes an automated factory that hires 2 techies and three resource allocators.

And 95 people have to find new employment.--not safe for work

what the Left doesnt understand is that when you free up people who were previously doing menially jobs --- you add tremendous momentum and productive power to the economy.

moreover, everytime a wal-mart is built, spin off businesses are created, more money is freed up for the local economy through lower cost goods, higher employment, and increased tax revenues. Out with the old, in with the new.

indeed, people are the most important and productive input to the economy.

I am reminded of the old adage regarding chinese productive capacities and senseless leftwing policies.

a US businessman observes hundreds of chinese workers digging ditches with shovels for a large construction project. So the American informs that chinese politician overseeing the project that he could dramatically decrease the time and expense needed to build the project if he purchased some American-made moving equipment. But the politician stated that this would cause the loss of hundred of jobs.

So the American responded, that if jobs were the goal of the project --- why not give all the workers spoons and hire hundreds more??!!

The Left has this mentality. It doesnt matter that certain jobs are a drag on the economy or that these workers would be better served retraining, working in new emerging industries, or opening their own small businesses --- what matters to the Left is simply to preserve old outdated menial jobs.

Ironically, under obamanomics --- manufacturing is in decline at the very time that obama was tooting his own horn at the convention and GM was spending billions in china building new plants, selling more cars than in America, and hiring tens of thousands of chinese workers ---- all with US taxpayer dollars --- thanks to barack obama, george bush and the US government.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/05/business/economy/us-factory-output-shrinks.html

Question: What does Obama or China have to do with "The Left"?

[PapaJacky]

He was basically saying that as Obama is a Democrat, he, and implicitly, the left, are shipping manufacturing jobs away to China.

He'd be mistaken on that point as well. China, as he "pointed out" love GM cars (specifically Buicks, they're essentially the upper-class car in Chinese society), and consequently, Buick sells more cars in China than in the U.S. (I should note, if America wants the American Automobile industry to be successful, buy an American car, government subsidies can only go so far).

As a note, manufacturing jobs in the U.S. has been steadily decreasing since the late 90's. However, during the recession, total manufacturing jobs in the U.S. fell from 13.7 million in January of 2008 to 12.5 million in January of 2009. Manufacturing jobs continuously fell, you can say, free falled until January of 2010, when manufacturing jobs started to come back. By that point, only 11.4 million were employed in manufacturing. Since then, in August of 2012, 500,000 have been employed in the manufacturing sector, and the total employed is sitting at around 11.9 million in the preliminary figures for July and August of 2012.

Accordingly, the unemployment rate for manufacturing workers has also dropped (this can be found in the BLS series, "Unemployment Rate - Manufacturing Industry, Private Wage and Salary Workers"). In the peak of the losses, January 2010, the percentage of manufacturing workers who were unemployed reached 13%. With the amount of workers employed in that industry since, though, the unemployment rate has fallen to an August 2012 value of 7.3%.

That's all only slightly related though. The BLS keeps track of automobile manufacturing statistics too, as I found out while typing this post. I'll give you the figures. Between August of 2012 and January of 2009, the amount of people employed in the transportation manufacturing sector rose from 1.408 million to 1.468 million. If you did a 3 year analysis on it, it actually rose even more (an increase of 142,000 jobs in the sector between August 2009 and August 2012, in comparison to an increase of 59,000 jobs in the sector between January 2009 and January 2012).

To sum it up, U.S. manufacturing has been in decline for at least a decade. Despite this, since the bottom of the recession (~January 2010), 500,000 jobs have been added into Manufacturing, and despite this, American automobiles have added 59,000 jobs since the start of the recession. Is manufacturing better now than 4 years ago? Nope. But was manufacturing better then, 4 years ago, than 1979? Still nope.

Sources are as follows: http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutpu ... ol=XGtable and http://data.bls.gov/servlet/SurveyOutpu ... ol=XGtable

[Not Safe For Work]

It isn't absurdity if you understand basic macroeconomics. Food stamps, unlike other welfare programs, directly increases demand, by incentivizing the purchase of foods. -- papajacky

yeah thats liberal dogma for ya.

You can't ignore facts just because you describe them as 'liberal dogma'.

It's not debatable that foodstamps were originally lobbied for by the grocery industry. It's not debatable that foodstamps keep fluidity in the economy, and keep people employed. Typically for the far right, you look at foodstamps as ONLY being about the recipient, or the person you think the money was 'stolen' from - you ignore the fact that our entire employment and supply infrastructure relies on a dynamic supply and demand marketplace - that foodstamps are not just good for the recipient, but for entire communities.

[Silent Majority]

Nonetheless, welfare payments, food stamps, govt spending as a percentage of GDP have all expanded under obamanomics ---

and with it the poverty levels have risen to near record highs

Unless you seriously want to argue that the great recession was caused by welfare(it wasn't), it's the other way around. Welfare spending has expanded to meet expanding poverty levels.

[The Reasonable]

The important thing, perhaps, is that you concede that there will be massive unemployment. You seem to be content to assume that it's temporary, and to ignore the cost to the people who become unemployed.

The people who become unemployed could train for new jobs- since there will be an increased demand for services (you did say that most people will be in a state of leisure, right)?

Indeed. Although, as we've seen with the Wal-Mart model, for example - the replacement 'classes' tend to need far less people than what they replace. So your manned factory of 100 workers becomes an automated factory that hires 2 techies and three resource allocators.

That's very far off in the distance, but I can see that coming. That being said, what about the people who have to work at the stores? What about management? What about those upper-level executives? And if everything is automated...there still needs to be an industrial sector to even produce those machines. The machines still have to have raw materials to make them, so people need to oversee that. And most importantly, what about the service sector to fulfill increased demand for leisure?

Optimistic at best. What services, exactly, do you thing we're going to expanding-ly need?

Doctors, engineers (design and maintain machines), programmers, services suited for leisure such as travel agents, hotel employees, bar employees, restaurant employees, generally people in entertainment...still need a police force, an army, etc and will need employees to fill the increased demand coming from a larger population. Any knowledge-based job will still remain...and any involving the manipulation of money- basically tertiary and quaternary sectors of the economy- with a significantly less primary and secondary. But there's not a lot of either primary or secondary in the developed world anyway right now.

The bread and circuses did not tear the empire apart. They were, at worst, a symptom of the fact that people no longer cared about the Empire.

We're actually in that situation in America - increasingly, people don't care about America. Sure, there's a lot of nationalism and jingoism - but what there isn't is a lot of people prioritizing the good of Americans.

...and by giving even more bread and circuses you prioritize the good of Americans?

No wonder you vote conservative...you blind the unemployed with cheap entertainment and freebies while your technic class as you would call it, who manages all the resource production gained all power...it's fitting that you even mentioned Rome, because you think just like one of their emperors...and we know how Rome turned out.

Yes, they were massively successful. It's a bit of a strawman of course, the 'technic' class in my discussion would be maintaining the automation, not managing all the resources and gaining all the power.

Ok, so your management class then...they control all the resources and so can take power...this reeks of plutocracy.

[The Reasonable]

Zaras wrote:

On the other hand, I can't help but feel that this assumption that people who are on welfare are somehow "lesser" than people who work is a loathsome remnant of Puritanism, and should be purged. We're not going to be able to find the best solution if we go into a problem with the assumption that welfare recipients are lazy bums and shit.

To quote Mark Rosenfelder again, "Neurotic hangups about sin lead to more sin, not less." He was talking about abortion, but it's probably not a stretch to think America's... history of being founded by people who were kicked out of England for being too dickish might've saddled it with unhelpful assumptions about people who need help because they don't fit in the Protestant work ethic somehow.

...the Protestant work ethic was fundamental to starting the modern economy, but in any economy people get left behind and so the welfare is necessary to have them catch up. Welfare isn't just about the benefits though- it should be even more about gaining skills for a modern economy. And in most societies, limits are placed on welfare to disincentivize mooching. After all, William Beveridge, the founder of the British welfare state, said welfare was "first and foremost a plan of insurance — of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence levels."

You also have mentioned earlier that nobody advocates permanent dependence...perhaps you should talk to Not Safe for Work about that.

Not Safe for Work wrote:

It [dependence] isn't an inherently bad thing, either. And that's the problem - this pretense that there's actually something 'wrong' here. The idea that someone who needs help over a protracted period of time is somehow doing some bad.

There's a difference between being permanently dependent and needing help for a period of time.

Zaras, I have a deep-seated fear of dependence and needing help primarily because of my personal experiences- whenever my mother used to ask someone to help support our struggling family she would always get taken advantage of. Whenever she partnered with someone in opening a business she would get taken advantage of. Whenever she got married to help support me the husband (my father was never really in my life) always ended up being there to mooch off of her (hence frequent divorces and living with a single mother). Whenever either of us would give help to others with the understanding that they would help us in return they would run off. Of course, this doesn't mean I've become a psychotic, selfish asshole, as some people have mistakenly believed previously when I talked about welfare in the same terms, but it made me very aware of the "human nature" that I've witnessed around me and so I can't subscribe to the idea that humans are inherently good.

[Zaras]

After all, William Beveridge, the founder of the British welfare state, said welfare was "first and foremost a plan of insurance — of giving in return for contributions benefits up to subsistence levels."

And I'm not disagreeing. My thinking is a bit similar, but I think Adam Cadre said it more awesomely than me:

This is Third World thinking. It's all about what people can get individually — cars, booze — rather than collectively: health care, mass transit. (Montreal had a clean and efficient metro system. New Orleans, not so much.) The United States may not have a ceiling on how rich you can get, but neither did Zaire — ask Mobutu Sese Seko. A truly developed country is more concerned about the floor. A First World nation provides its citizens with what the Swedes call trygghet: security, the sense that you inhabit a space where you can't come to harm. That it's not sink or swim. In a Third World nation like the US, it's very much sink or swim. In the case of New Orleans, that turned out to be literal.
[...]
Narrowing the gap between rich and poor isn't just about compassion. It's also about trygghet. If you feel the need to defend your property, then by definition your trygghet is somewhat lacking.

Welfare is basically a component of that system by which you provide a safe space and guarantee to people that they won't be harmed.

Zaras, I have a deep-seated fear of dependence and needing help primarily because of my personal experiences- whenever my mother used to ask someone to help support our struggling family she would always get taken advantage of. Whenever she partnered with someone in opening a business she would get taken advantage of. Whenever she got married to help support me the husband (my father was never really in my life) always ended up being there to mooch off of her (hence frequent divorces and living with a single mother). Whenever either of us would give help to others with the understanding that they would help us in return they would run off. Of course, this doesn't mean I've become a psychotic, selfish asshole, as some people have mistakenly believed previously when I talked about welfare in the same terms, but it made me very aware of the "human nature" that I've witnessed around me and so I can't subscribe to the idea that humans are inherently good.

Okay, I can see why you'd be skeptical of the idea that humans are inherently good. I myself am sort of trying to wean myself out of being a hermit and being better with people, so I'm more inclined to assume the best of people... perhaps even when not necessary.

[The Black Forrest]

I fail to believe you, considering this post for which you were banned. If anything, the hypocrisy is yours.

Now, where's my prize? Still waiting for it.

I said:

'If you had a coherent post, I would respond.'

and I was banned

In contrast, the leftist said 'fuck you' and more besides, and none were banned:

Fuck you.

Are you a climatologist? No? Then get the fuck out.

Please, just STFU right now.

His head is obviously so far up his own ass he probably can’t hear you.

don’t talk out your fucking ass.

He doesn’t deserve a civilized debate.

He doesn’t deserve sound, logical arguments.

You have not earned the right to be taken seriously.

He/she absolutely hasn’t the slightest notion as to what constitutes a premise, or an argument, or a properly constructed refutation.

So much of what you type is rambling nonsense.

Given your track record of failing to prove anything, a little vitriol is well-deserved.

There is no other rational reply “ROFLOL”

Why don’t you get over the fact that no one cares what you redacted have to say, half of what you say is bullshit anyway

Also, your responses are ever more irrelevant.

You are still spewing bullshit.

Sir, the magnitude of your bullshit is so great, there are not words in the English Language adequate to describe it!

Your mind, unfortunately, has been welded shut.

There’s no reasoning with thisredacted. We might as well be speaking to a demented, potty-mouthed parrot or a disrespectful little brat.

You are very very confused, my friend.

Get over yourself.

Get out and never come back.

What a pathetic response, really.

I missed you and your ability to completely ignore posts and then say stupid shit about “challenges.”

Indeed, it’s the repeated proof that you’re talking nonsense.

Your argument is literally not worth the bandwidth required to transmit it.

Go to college and read some fricking Economy, Philosophy and History books.

How I ever regarded you as a rational human being is beyond me.

I can’t even imagine how someone without a learning disability could say something so unbelievably idiotic.

Am I the only one thinking that this guy is off his meds?

You sure are doing a bangup job making thing difficult for your compatriots by living down to every expectation about redacted. Please never change.

You sir, are almost worthy of being called a troll

Fuck you.

Your argument is BS.

I feel like I’m back in youtube, really, All thick heads and no intellectual honesty.

Adam Smith would be saying. “The fuck is with the OP?”

I was banned, they weren't. by any objective, rational and independent thinking measure -- this is a gross example of double standards that are predominate from the left

and indeed, you dont seem to see it.

Hence, my point is confirmed on why this site is 1) predominately leftwing and 2) likely to stay that way when those on the left cannot see through their preconceived bias'.

Yet again one liners without context and mod responses have no value in claims.

For that matter, you need to provide links.

[The Black Forrest]

You want the truth? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!

Show me an instance of this censorship you speak of.

viewtopic.php?p=10897879#p10897879

Sorry that is not censorship.

[The Black Forrest]

You could try and, you know, debate, instead of acting like the victim for making huge amounts of "Liberal" threads involving massive generalisations and then failing to debate and merely levelling ad hominems at people.

But hey ho, such is life.

There are so many left-wingers on NSG because we're a hive-mind. Obviously.

How can I debate when I am getting banned for offenses far less severe than those regularly directed at me?

Simple. Stop violating the rules.

[Samuraikoku]

How can I debate when I am getting banned for offenses far less severe than those regularly directed at me?

Simple. Stop violating the rules.

Also, fighting against the mods isn't really a good idea.

[The Black Forrest]

Indeed. Although, as we've seen with the Wal-Mart model, for example - the replacement 'classes' tend to need far less people than what they replace. So your manned factory of 100 workers becomes an automated factory that hires 2 techies and three resource allocators.

And 95 people have to find new employment.--not safe for work

what the Left doesnt understand is that when you free up people who were previously doing menially jobs --- you add tremendous momentum and productive power to the economy.

You know you would be taken more seriously if you stopped with the simple minded "left" stuff. It just get's you written off as some fox news follower.

Freeing up people doing menial tasks does little to the productive power of the economy. You make the gigantic assumption these people want to be let alone have the skills to be entrepreneurs (Platitude copy righted by the RNC). Add in other factors of desperation is not a key to success.

moreover, everytime a wal-mart is built, spin off businesses are created, more money is freed up for the local economy through lower cost goods, higher employment, and increased tax revenues. Out with the old, in with the new.

Source.

indeed, people are the most important and productive input to the economy.

Yea I hear that bullshit from the company bosses all the time. I think the latest platitude is "human capitol"

I am reminded of the old adage regarding chinese productive capacities and senseless leftwing policies.

Whodawhatnow?

The Left has this mentality. It doesnt matter that certain jobs are a drag on the economy or that these workers would be better served retraining, working in new emerging industries, or opening their own small businesses --- what matters to the Left is simply to preserve old outdated menial jobs.

Again not everybody is cut out for starting their own businesses. You do know how many fail right?

And that is a lie the left wants to preserve outdated jobs. We don't have lamp lighters anymore.....

[Nordengrund]

[quote="The Reasonable";p="10908764"][quote]


Let's face it. We non lefties are seen as outcasts on this site. The lefties dominate this site, so it is an incredibly biased site.

I do agree with Ausible that Liberals are jerks, but I still respect their opinions. They tear me apart for what I believe in, but I do not go around tearing them apart no matter how many times they do it to me.

[The Black Forrest]

It isn't absurdity if you understand basic macroeconomics. Food stamps, unlike other welfare programs, directly increases demand, by incentivizing the purchase of foods. -- papajacky

yeah thats liberal dogma for ya -- but what you dont understand is that you have taken that money from someone else and denied them the opportunity to spend it -- maybe they would have spent it on food to.

or more importantly on building a food processing plant or increasing productivity on a farm and hiring new workers.

in sum, those on the Left seem to think you can plunder a money making private company and this has no effect on their consumption or productive capacity.

you only look at one side of the equation and also fall to see the high transaction costs associated with the govt middle man.

This in turn forces an increase in supply, and because most food in America is American grown, an increase in labor and thus, jobs. There's an obvious limit to how far this works, as Americans can't keep buying food that they don't need to artificially stimulate the economy, but Americans can keep buying food that they do need to stimulate the economy. In this way, people get employed, and people get fed, hence why food stamp are a win-win.--papajacky

it aint a 'win-win' dude -- your scheme simply moves wealth around with government taking a big cut for themselves at the very expense of the poor your trying to help --- thats why poverty has increased under obama despite huge outlays in stimulus and welfare spending.

indeed, manufacturing declined last month.

On your last paragraph, if you did not know, we're all consumers. There will be no point in life without consumption.--papajacky

what you dont understand is that you cant have consumption until you have PRODUCTION. And you cant have production unless you have jobs and companies have an economic environment that they feel an investment in production goods will reap benefits.

And if tax rates are high -- then companies are less inclined to invest in America.


hence, the greatest social tool known to mankind is a job --- not a welfare check.

and not a government job that is economically unsustainable and requires plunder of another job on the free market. It is a free market job that actually supports itself without coercive plunder.

and a free market job actually increases government revenue as opposed to consume it.

You claim dogma and yet you spout dogma.

[The Black Forrest]

Stop crying about it and build better arguments.

[Norstal]

I do agree with Ausible that Liberals are jerks, but I still respect their opinions. They tear me apart for what I believe in, but I do not go around tearing them apart no matter how many times they do it to me.

You're supposed to do that. This a debate forum.

I want you to ravage my logic and beliefs.