Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, August 01, 2012

OTP- August 2012: The Leader Post: New stadium won’t have same appeal, says Bill ‘Spaceman’ Lee

“Building a new stadium down the street does not work unless (Ron) Lancaster spilled some DNA in the lot where they’re going to build the new stadium,” he added. “You have to refurbish (Mosaic Stadium). You’ve got to can all new ideas you might have and use the sacred ground. Fenway did that and that is why Fenway is loved. The new Yankee Stadium isn’t the same as it used to be.”

The former Boston Red Sox and Montreal Expos pitcher will not be running for the vacant mayor’s position in Regina later this year. With his opinion on the new stadium, he wasn’t sure he would garner many votes anyway. But that is nothing new to the former member of the Rhinoceros Party. Lee ran on the Rhino ticket in 1988 for president of the United States. Not surprisingly, he didn’t make the ballot in a single state. He said one of the high-ranking members within the party gave him a six-pack of Molson Canadian and asked him to run for president.

“I adhered to their funny philosophy,” Lee said. “My campaign slogan was ‘No guns, no butter. They’ll both kill you.’ And I only campaigned in federal prisons where I knew they couldn’t vote, and I only accepted a quarter in campaign contributions.”

With it being an election year in the U.S., Lee said he is all in for the re-election of Barack Obama.

“The only time (Mitt) Romney opens his mouth is when he needs to change feet,” Lee said of the Republican nominee. “If Obama does lose this, which I can’t see happening, then it’s because of a lady in Florida who works for Jeb Bush and Diebold, the voting-machine company. If Obama even comes close to losing this election, it’ll be fraud.”

Guess what, its the new OT politics thread!

Tripon Posted: August 01, 2012 at 12:04 AM | 5975 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: boston, politics

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 10 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›
   901. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:27 PM (#4203252)
No. I am refuting the biased analysis of census data. I am sure the Census data is pretty darn good - though it does tend to undercount immigrants and other populations. Something they have tried to correct for and the GOP has stubbornly fought against - but that is a different argument.

How do you know it's "biased analysis"? All CIS did was present a bunch of percentages straight out of the Census Bureau data. (And how would "undercounting" affect this particular set of conclusions? Are you alleging the Census Bureau undercounted immigrant Ph.D.s and doctors while accurately counting or overcounting low-skilled immigrants?)

You claim to be an economist, but your arguments aren't rooted in any real-world economic principles. Just in the past 24 hours, you've complained about unemployment and wage stagnation, and then advocated for inviting even more low-skilled people into the country. It's a political wish list rather than anything based in economic principles.

"We can have more low-skilled workers and a much higher minimum wage and lower unemployment and a bigger, better safety net! Because ... well, just because!"
   902. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4203291)
I guess all the WaPo and NYT links there are useless, too.

According to you they are but only when they don't agree with you.

Joe is the guy who blasted TShipman for linking to a NYT article in the Astros thread and then a short time later linked to a NYT article as evidence of his rightness.
   903. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:53 PM (#4203294)
McCoy is the one claiming that the mere presence of low-skilled workers creates jobs, and there's zero evidence of that being true.

Unlike you I provided evidence. It's in the Astros thread.
   904. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 12:57 PM (#4203298)
How do you know it's "biased analysis"? All CIS did was present a bunch of percentages straight out of the Census Bureau data

Did they? You know this because you went to the Census Bureau site and verified it?
   905. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4203311)
Did they? You know this because you went to the Census Bureau site and verified it?


It's what he *wants* to be true, so it must be true. Such is the lot of epistemological closure.
   906. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:07 PM (#4203313)
Joe is the guy who blasted TShipman for linking to a NYT article in the Astros thread and then a short time later linked to a NYT article as evidence of his rightness.
Unlike you I provided evidence. It's in the Astros thread.

Did I run over your dog or something? I've had no interaction with you for months and then you popped up last night to resurrect a five-month-old thread. Bizarre, even by internet standards.

It's comical what turns into controversies around here. Until yesterday, I didn't believe it was disputed that the U.S. has high unemployment among low-skilled workers or that low-skilled workers have suffered from wage stagnation. But thanks to BBTF, I know both are wrong.
   907. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:18 PM (#4203322)
Drudge sets narrative for the echo chamber on the right. Nothing more, nothing less. To think a link to the Moonies via Drudge is going to be something that leads to legitimate analysis is to belie your own neck-deep swimming in the pool of Kool-Aid.

If you define "legitimate analysis" as "discussed in the NYT," then of course it won't. The liberal rags you prefer are the
Pravda of our times.

If it doesn't have a flashing red siren icon, it's not journalism.
   908. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:25 PM (#4203327)
Until yesterday, I didn't believe it was disputed that the U.S. has high unemployment among low-skilled workers or that low-skilled workers have suffered from wage stagnation.


If this is what you think people are arguing against, we've identified the problem. You apparently can't read.
   909. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:27 PM (#4203329)
The study, which covers all immigrants, legal and illegal, and their U.S.-born children younger than 18, found that immigrants tend to make economic progress by most measures the longer they live in the U.S. but lag well behind native-born Americans on factors such as poverty, health insurance coverage and homeownership.

The study, based on 2010 and 2011 census data, found that 43 percent of immigrants who have been in the U.S. at least 20 years were using welfare benefits, a rate that is nearly twice as high as native-born Americans and nearly 50 percent higher than recent immigrants.
This is the key sleight-of-hand in the article. Undocumented immigrants have an extremely difficult time getting good jobs because they don't have papers. If you want to argue that more legal immigration will have ill effects, you have to look at only the legal immigrant population.

The bald racism of CIS appears in that last paragraph - after stacking the deck by including undocumented immigrants, a huge percentage of whom are Mexican, the study then blithely compares the economic status of Mexican and English immigrants.
   910. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4203332)
If this is what you think people are arguing against, we've identified the problem. You apparently can't read.

No, I read quite well. I'm reading suggestions from people like 'Bitter Mouse' that the U.S. should add more low-skilled immigrants at a time of high unemployment and wage stagnation, and I believe such ideas are nuts.
   911. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:31 PM (#4203337)
You claim to be an economist, but your arguments aren't rooted in any real-world economic principles.


No I don't. I am an IT guy, a consultant on Data Warehousing and Analytics. I have an economics degree though, a Masters. It has been a long time though, so I am much more an interested and reasonably knowledgeable amateur and not a real Economist by any means.

Your problem is you know just enough "Supply/Demand" but have no idea how to apply it. Increasing the supply of workers does shift the curve over. this does result in lower wages and such in the short term. However (for like the forth time and you have never addressed this point at all) the immigrants also shift the demand curve over because they need stuff like houses, clothes, health care and so on. The net effect of these two shifts is overall a society which is better off, but there is some pressure on the low end wage earners especially in that short term. This is why we need the safety net.

What economic principles does the above violate? I would love to hear what your economics expertise says about that. Please feel free to include your relevent economics training and degree.

"We can have more low-skilled workers and a much higher minimum wage and lower unemployment and a bigger, better safety net! Because ... well, just because!"


I have said I want more open immigration of all types. I want a higher minimum wage. I would also like a better safety net. I have explained what the relationship between this is and why I want it. I never said I wanted lower emplyment, but yeah I do want that. Currently I think that would require monetary easing and some additional fiscal stimulus. In fact those too things would much more than offset any pressure on the low wage earners from increased immigration.

I didn't believe it was disputed that the U.S. has high unemployment among low-skilled workers or that low-skilled workers have suffered from wage stagnation.


Where did anyone state there was not wage stagnation or high unemployment? Really what post was that? I am arguing against your anti-immigration nonsense, agreeing there is some impact on low wage earners and offering up a solution to that impact. As a bonus, above I also gave my prescription for dealing with the wage stagnation and high unemployment that no one is denying.

What are your solutions? I have offered a bunch. What do you think we should do to handle immigration, wage stagnation and high unemployment?
   912. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4203347)
No, I read quite well. I'm reading suggestions from people like 'Bitter Mouse' that the U.S. should add more low-skilled immigrants at a time of high unemployment and wage stagnation, and I believe such ideas are nuts.


We're all aware of what you believe. But you lack any ability or willingness to back your beliefs up with real facts or argumentation. (And no, a Drudge link to a Moonie bit referencing an end-oriented "think tank" founded by a known bad actor doesn't count as a positive in your favor here.)
   913. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4203348)
I'm reading suggestions from people like 'Bitter Mouse'


I got scare quotes! And there are people like me! This is awesome.
   914. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:37 PM (#4203350)
This is the key sleight-of-hand in the article. Undocumented immigrants have an extremely difficult time getting good jobs because they don't have papers. If you want to argue that more legal immigration will have ill effects, you have to look at only the legal immigrant population.

Huh? 43 percent of all immigrants are on some form of welfare. You think all that's separating a high school-dropout immigrant from a "good job" is a piece of paper from the U.S. government?

The bald racism of CIS appears in that last paragraph - after stacking the deck by including undocumented immigrants, a huge percentage of whom are Mexican, the study then blithely compares the economic status of Mexican and English immigrants.

Utter nonsense. Illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare, so not counting them would make that "57 percent" stat even worse.
   915. RobertMachemer Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:38 PM (#4203356)
Proposed:

The people who get angry about poor people theoretically gaming the welfare system (and the voting system?) are not nearly as angry at the thought of rich people theoretically gaming the tax system (and other systems that help them maintain and increase their wealth).

Agree or disagree?

EDIT: And contrariwise, the people who get angry at rich people's gaming the system are not nearly so angry when poorer people game the system.
   916. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4203360)
I got scare quotes! And there are people like me! This is awesome.

Those aren't scare quotes.
   917. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4203362)
Illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare,
I will be shocked if "some form of welfare" doesn't include forms of government assistance that you can get without having legal immigrant status. There's absolutely no reason for CIS to design the study this way unless the undocumented immigrants tip things in the direction they want.
   918. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:42 PM (#4203366)
#915. Agree. This seems to be because there is a strong element of "wealthy people deserve their fate, as do poor people" moralism built in. If this is true, if people are "getting what they deserve" then the poor people are trying to cheat their destiny while the rich people are merely going along with their fate.

Applying special qualities - inherent goodness - among those who succeed financially is one of the more pernicious elements of the right wings beliefs.
   919. Matt Clement of Alexandria Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:44 PM (#4203367)
You think all that's separating a high school-dropout immigrant from a "good job" is a piece of paper from the U.S. government?
No, of course not. But if CIS wanted to demonstrate that, they should have looked only at legal immigrants. The fact that they didn't is a huge red flag for the study - they used the wrong data set, which suggests they selected a data set that could be massaged to get the results they wanted.

I don't go to the CIS website any more than I go to Stormfront, so I'm not going to read the study. If someone who feels differently about hate groups wants to check, I'm happy to be proven wrong.
   920. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:45 PM (#4203368)
Those aren't scare quotes.


Why put my handle in quotes then? And hey, there are still people like me. though I admit I feel a twinge of sadness for them. It is not all sunshine and ponies for the Bitter Mouse, though again I must admit I am not really bitter and have thought about changing my handle. If only I could remember why I choose it.
   921. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4203377)
You got love Joe's insistence on holding up his speck of sand as if it was a block of gold no matter how many times people tell him it is just a speck of sand.
   922. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4203380)
Applying special qualities - inherent goodness - among those who fail financially is one of the more pernicious elements of the left wings beliefs.


Fixed that for you!
   923. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:55 PM (#4203385)
Your problem is you know just enough "Supply/Demand" but have no idea how to apply it. Increasing the supply of workers does shift the curve over. this does result in lower wages and such in the short term. However (for like the forth time and you have never addressed this point at all) the immigrants also shift the demand curve over because they need stuff like houses, clothes, health care and so on. The net effect of these two shifts is overall a society which is better off, but there is some pressure on the low end wage earners especially in that short term. This is why we need the safety net.

This is absurd. I never said low-skilled immigration yields zero additional demand. Obviously, every human being has basic needs which translate into economic demand, whether it's food or toilet paper. My objection is to the absurd claim that there's a net economic positive for a 21st-century economy to add mid-20th-century workers. The idea that a new job is created every time some low-skilled person enters the country is ridiculous.

I have said I want more open immigration of all types. I want a higher minimum wage. I would also like a better safety net. I have explained what the relationship between this is and why I want it. I never said I wanted lower emplyment, but yeah I do want that. Currently I think that would require monetary easing and some additional fiscal stimulus. In fact those too things would much more than offset any pressure on the low wage earners from increased immigration.

So despite very low demand for low-skilled workers resulting in persistent high unemployment, you want to add even more low-skilled workers to the labor pool *and* require employers to pay a higher hourly wage (contrary to supply and demand) *and* require employers and taxpayers to shoulder the burden of workers needing a bigger and better "safety net." Again, that's not economics; that's just a liberal wish list.

What are your solutions? I have offered a bunch.

You've offered "a bunch" of solutions? All I've seen is a call for more immigration and more welfare. Your cure is worse than the current malady.

What do you think we should do to handle immigration, wage stagnation and high unemployment?

The border with Mexico should be secured. Low-skilled immigration should be reduced to zero until there's a clear low-skilled labor shortage, which is probably years from happening. Chain migration should be ended and replaced with a Canada-style skills-based immigration system. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face steep penalties. A WPA-style program should be started to employ low-skilled workers, whose job prospects are dim in the near term.
   924. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4203390)
#922. I actually agree to a point. I think people of all types are worthy of respect and judging based on their financial success is silly. Of course since I am pretty sure the rich can take care of themselves and the poor do need some help I think favoring the rich is much more harmful to society than trying to help the poor. The whole thing (the right wing beliefs I am talking about now) reeks of Calvanism.
   925. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:00 PM (#4203393)
Fixed that for you!

No thoughts on #915? (Thanks for the note on under/over-qualified, btw.)
   926. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:03 PM (#4203397)
I will be shocked if "some form of welfare" doesn't include forms of government assistance that you can get without having legal immigrant status. There's absolutely no reason for CIS to design the study this way unless the undocumented immigrants tip things in the direction they want.

As I understand it, CIS wants legal immigration reduced, too, so the above seems moot. As I mentioned above, CIS actually did legal Mexican immigrants a favor with the "all immigrants" standard. Using only legal immigrants, the numbers look even worse: 75 percent of legal Mexican immigrants receive means-tested assistance, while Dominicans top the list at 82 percent. (Guatemalans are tied with Mexicans at 75 percent.)

No, of course not. But if CIS wanted to demonstrate that, they should have looked only at legal immigrants. The fact that they didn't is a huge red flag for the study - they used the wrong data set, which suggests they selected a data set that could be massaged to get the results they wanted.

This makes no sense. Yes, the study was of all immigrants, but since illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare, how could illegal immigrants have skewed the numbers? You seem to believe that a high percentage of illegal immigrants are on welfare but legal immigrants are not, but the opposite seems to be true.
   927. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:05 PM (#4203402)
Why put my handle in quotes then?

Because it's awkward to treat Bitter Mouse as a proper noun, and it's even more awkward when a handle begins with a lower-case letter (e.g., tshipman). I've always used quotes like that in these discussions; I wasn't singling you out.
   928. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:08 PM (#4203406)
The people who get angry about poor people theoretically gaming the welfare system (and the voting system?) are not nearly as angry at the thought of rich people theoretically gaming the tax system (and other systems that help them maintain and increase their wealth).

Agree or disagree?


I disagree in the sense that I don't know why everyone who thinks something thinsk that way. Also "gaming" the system is an imprecise term. If it describes illegal activity then I'm more offended by the rich person who illegally avoids paying taxes, but I find both types of illegal activity problematic. If it's not describing illegal activity then I'd need to know more details about the specific situation.
   929. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:09 PM (#4203409)
My objection is to the absurd claim that there's a net economic positive for a 21st-century economy to add mid-20th-century workers. The idea that a new job is created every time some low-skilled person enters the country is ridiculous.


Well a whole bunch of professional economists who studied the matter came to the conclusion it is a net benefit to allow in immigrants. And once more with the silly claims - I never said nor did I imply anything about "a new job is created every time some low-skilled person enters the country." You really are Captain Straw Man on this.

All I've seen is a call for more immigration and more welfare.


Better safety net, not just welfare. And also fiscal stimulus and monetary easing.

The border with Mexico should be secured. Low-skilled immigration should be reduced to zero until there's a clear low-skilled labor shortage, which is probably years from happening.


Securing some of the longest borders in the world. Good luck with that. How much are you willing to spend on it? Because it is going to cost a huge amount.

Chain migration should be ended and replaced with a Canada-style skills-based immigration system. Employers who hire illegal immigrants should face steep penalties. A WPA-style program should be started to employ low-skilled workers, whose job prospects are dim in the near term.


Not sure I know enough about chain migration to have an informed opinion. I am all for employers getting penalized. I am also up for WPA programs (though I think there are better methods, I am not against the WPA.

   930. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4203410)
Proposed:

The people who get angry about poor people theoretically gaming the welfare system (and the voting system?) are not nearly as angry at the thought of rich people theoretically gaming the tax system (and other systems that help them maintain and increase their wealth).

Agree or disagree?


I can easily agree this describes me, with the clarification that I don't support people who cheat on their taxes, but if an accountant finds them legal ways to game the system as you say, that's fine with me.

Again, for me it boils down to whether you are giving more than you are getting. And rich people who use the advice of an accountant when paying their taxes but who nevertheless operate within the law are giving far more than they are getting. Not so for welfare and disability scammers, who are simply living off the backs of others.

EDIT: And contrariwise, the people who get angry at rich people's gaming the system are not nearly so angry when poorer people game the system.


Yes, this is quite obviously true, whether our liberals here will care to admit it or not.
   931. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:15 PM (#4203419)

This makes no sense. Yes, the study was of all immigrants, but since illegal immigrants don't qualify for welfare, how could illegal immigrants have skewed the numbers? You seem to believe that a high percentage of illegal immigrants are on welfare but legal immigrants are not, but the opposite seems to be true.

Illegal immigrants may have children who are U.S. citizens. The children may qualify for various welfare programs, yet I have seen this described by conservatives as illegal immigrants receiving benefits. That may be part of the disconnect.
   932. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:20 PM (#4203426)
Well a whole bunch of professional economists who studied the matter came to the conclusion it is a net benefit to allow in immigrants.

Immigrants or low-skilled immigrants?

Better safety net, not just welfare. And also fiscal stimulus and monetary easing.

We've had trillions of dollars in fiscal stimulus and monetary easing, neither of which have pushed unemployment below 8 percent. But now you want to invite even more low-skilled workers into the country? The most basic element of supply and demand tells us it's absurd to increase supply in the face of stable or declining demand.

Securing some of the longest borders in the world. Good luck with that. How much are you willing to spend on it? Because it is going to cost a huge amount.

Oh, now you're worried about cost? The U.S./Mexico border could be secured and staffed for far less than your "better safety net" "solution."

As I pointed out a year ago, the stimulus alone could have paid for 1,600 new MLB stadiums. Think about that for a minute.
   933. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:23 PM (#4203428)
Applying special qualities - inherent goodness - among those who fail financially is one of the more pernicious elements of the left wings beliefs.

Fixed that for you!


You didn't. Jesus did.
   934. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4203431)
The net effect of these two shifts is overall a society which is better off, but there is some pressure on the low end wage earners especially in that short term. This is why we need the safety net.


I think it's that "in that short term" that ends up being the sticky wicket here... it's prescient because Mitt's latest line of attack - and he's just enlisted Newt to bring the crazy about Democrats having a secret, radical plan to make everyone government dependent.

The particulars of why this is nonsense -- essentially, the Obama administration is turning over some significant degree of controls over state welfare programs back to the states (something Romney was on record as governor of MA as requesting himself back in the day) -- don't really matter here as much as the underlying idea:

That Democrats want people on welfare and that we see some inherent good in someone getting a welfare check rather than a paycheck.

It's why this discussion terminally goes nowhere... We can't really have any honest discussions on policy until one side stops believing that the other actually believes the strawman argument they've created for political purposes is honest-to-goodness a true intention of said side.

I'm a lifelong Democrat, a lifelong liberal, and I know plenty of liberals -- and I have yet to meet or read a single Democrat or liberal that comes anywhere close to believing that our end goal is to make any individual, any group, or any subset lifelong ensconced in the 'safety net'.

Note that this does NOT mean that liberal policy cannot have this effect - I readily accept that some programs simply haven't worked as we hoped... but until conservatives put the strawman to bed and at least accept that no serious liberal WISHES such outcomes, there is no possible way any compromise or discussion can be had on the topic.
   935. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:24 PM (#4203432)
Illegal immigrants may have children who are U.S. citizens. The children may qualify for various welfare programs, yet I have seen this described by conservatives as illegal immigrants receiving benefits. That may be part of the disconnect.

But for this to have skewed the data in the link, the U.S. Census Bureau would have needed to count U.S. citizen children as immigrants. That seems unlikely.
   936. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:25 PM (#4203434)
I will be shocked if "some form of welfare" doesn't include forms of government assistance that you can get without having legal immigrant status. There's absolutely no reason for CIS to design the study this way unless the undocumented immigrants tip things in the direction they want.


Hell, I wouldn't be shocked to find out they decide that sending their kids to public school constitutes receiving welfare.
   937. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:29 PM (#4203438)
And rich people who use the advice of an accountant when paying their taxes but who nevertheless operate within the law are giving far more than they are getting. Not so for welfare and disability scammers, who are simply living off the backs of others.

Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me what the people who are making (significantly) less money than you have to do for you to feel less persecuted by their very existence? Because something tells me that not being on public assistance and paying their taxes isn't going to do it.



(As an atheist, let me applaud YR - whom I give a ton of crap - for #933.)
   938. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:31 PM (#4203443)
Note that this does NOT mean that liberal policy cannot have this effect - I readily accept that some programs simply haven't worked as we hoped... but until conservatives put the strawman to bed and at least accept that no serious liberal WISHES such outcomes, there is no possible way any compromise or discussion can be had on the topic.

The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on the so-called War on Poverty over the past 50 years, and yet we have more poor people — both in numbers and percentages — than we did in the late '60s when the Great Society was fully underway. So why should conservatives and libertarians be the ones to compromise? Why should we agree to double down on a failed strategy?
   939. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:32 PM (#4203444)
No thoughts on #915? (Thanks for the note on under/over-qualified, btw.)


Well, "gaming the system" is a bit of an ambiguous standard. Is hiring an accountant to do your taxes gaming the system? What about a whole firm of really smart accountants, along with some tax attorneys? What about creating an elaborate network of corporate entities to protect your money from taxation, all done legally of course? I differentiate such activities from acts of fraud, which typically constitute the sort of "gaming the system" that's done by poor people.

As a general statement of principle, I oppose anybody, rich or poor, enriching themselves from the government teat.
   940. Jay Z Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:33 PM (#4203450)
It's why this discussion terminally goes nowhere... We can't really have any honest discussions on policy until one side stops believing that the other actually believes the strawman argument they've created for political purposes is honest-to-goodness a true intention of said side.


Also doesn't help that the right wing is officially anti immigration or anti illegal immigration, but covertly wants all the illegals, guest workers, H1-Bs they can get if the jobs are there. Why? So they can hold salaries down on the very classes Joe claims are hurt by immigration.

Moreover, the temps that do come underspend because they are only here to sock up a nest egg that they can take back to their home country. That money is spent there, not here.
   941. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4203452)
Well, "gaming the system" is a bit of an ambiguous standard. Is hiring an accountant to do your taxes gaming the system? What about a whole firm of really smart accountants, along with some tax attorneys? What about creating an elaborate network of corporate entities to protect your money from taxation, all done legally of course? I differentiate such activities from acts of fraud, which typically constitute the sort of "gaming the system" that's done by poor people.


So, the difference is, the rich can afford to get professionals to lie for them, so they aren't as bad as the poor who have to lie themselves.
   942. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:34 PM (#4203453)
Lassus,

I really think it is back to Calvanism. God chooses the victors, they are chosen and blessed. God chooses the losers, they deserve their fate. Sure amoung the libertarian set substitute out God and put in skill or innate superiority or hard work, but the idea is the same. People deserve what happens to them, so the less fortunate deserve it and also deserve our scorn.

EDIT: To be clear this is an overall impression I have, it likely does not apply to everyone on the Right.
   943. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:36 PM (#4203456)
EDIT: And contrariwise, the people who get angry at rich people's gaming the system are not nearly so angry when poorer people game the system.

Yes, this is quite obviously true, whether our liberals here will care to admit it or not.


The vast majority of lefty profs I had would not only "admit" it- they would proudly state it.
It's the righties who are far more likely to deny that the poor gaming the system bothers them more than the rich doing it- they will insist that both bother them- but as that saying goes- you know what they really think by their actions.

   944. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:37 PM (#4203458)
So, the difference is, the rich can afford to get professionals to lie for them, so they aren't as bad as the poor who have to lie themselves.


yes that's one difference

the really rich can hire PR consultants too...
   945. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:38 PM (#4203459)
The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on the so-called War on Poverty over the past 50 years, and yet we have more poor people — both in numbers and percentages — than we did in the late '60s when the Great Society was fully underway. So why should conservatives and libertarians be the ones to compromise? Why should we double down on a failed strategy?


Because LBJ died about 9 months before I was born, so I don't see why I should be beholden to bold promises he made for political purposes.... and the fact of the matter is that many of those New Deal and Great Society programs have worked, even if others have not.

Depending on whether you're considering entitlements 'safety nets' or not -- there has been a marked decrease in seniors living in poverty that tracks almost perfectly with 2 big events: Enactment of Social Security and enactment of Medicare.

Depending on whether you consider things like Pell grants a part of the safety net or not, there has also been a marked increase in the number of college-educated people in the country (itself no guarantee against poverty, but the numbers speak for themselves as to the advantage).

There have been successful affordable housing programs and unsuccessful affordable housing programs. There have been successful jobs training programs and unsuccessful jobs training programs. There have even been successful food, heat, etc assistance programs.

The whole crux of your argument seems to be that none of it has worked so why bother -- and the basis for that opinion is just built on sand and bullshit.
   946. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:39 PM (#4203460)
The vast majority of lefty profs I had would not only "admit" it- they would proudly state it.


Heck I stated it above. I think the rich can take care of themselves and don't need folks pretending they are blessed. The poor can use every break they can get, at least until welfare is enough for them to buy their own Senators.
   947. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:41 PM (#4203464)
The U.S. has spent trillions of dollars on the so-called War on Poverty over the past 50 years, and yet we have more poor people — both in numbers and percentages — than we did in the late '60s when the Great Society was fully underway. So why should conservatives and libertarians be the ones to compromise? Why should we double down on a failed strategy?

What would our poverty numbers look like if we hadn't spent "trillions"?

This is just more of the same here. The medicine hasn't cured the disease so let's stop taking the medicine because surely that'll make us better.
   948. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:42 PM (#4203465)
Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me


Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me what your answer to #915 is, Lassus? Because you had no trouble demanding that someone else answer it.
   949. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:44 PM (#4203469)
People deserve what happens to them, so the less fortunate deserve it and also deserve our scorn.

Now who's Mr. Straw Man? Nobody has said anything about poor people "deserving scorn." My position on immigration is entirely based on wanting the U.S. to remain a global economic superpower. I understand the humanitarian argument for allowing poor people and/or low-skilled people into the U.S., but it's economic suicide. The U.S. simply doesn't need more people whose skills max out at housekeeper or gardener. It was fun a few years ago when teachers and bus drivers had maids and gardeners stopping by the McMansion to do the "jobs Americans won't do," but that bubble has burst. The U.S. economy needs an influx at the top levels of the labor pool, not at the bottom levels.
   950. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:46 PM (#4203473)
The U.S. economy needs an influx at the top levels of the labor pool, not at the bottom levels.

And we are getting it. Today is today. 10 years ago was 10 years ago. You need to update your policy ideas to reflect this reality.
   951. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:47 PM (#4203478)

I really think it is back to Calvanism. God chooses the victors, they are chosen and blessed. God chooses the losers, they deserve their fate.


It goes beyond that. In Victorian Britain, wealthy people were obsessed with the concept of "idle paupers" and "shirkers" who would rather lay about and collect public welfare. So they created workhouses, partly out of the belief that hard work and a healthy dose of religion would reform those layabouts, but also out of the desire to make welfare as undesirable as possible. Of course, there were plenty of nasty jobs in Victorian England, so the workhouses had to be even nastier. "Inmates" treated like prisoners, men and women separated from their children (checking into a workhouse was considered proof you were an incompetent parent) and from each other, working at mind-numbing tasks that gave them no useful skills for 80 hours a week, and which didn't bring in any significant amount of money (nor did the workers ever see a penny of that money themselves, naturally). Physical and sexual abuse, disease and misery were rife in those institutions.

And wouldn't you know it, those lazy bums still figured out a way to "game the system"! It turns out that the workhouses, by offering medical attention to sick inmates, offered a form of universal health care that was attractive to many of those in the working classes who couldn't afford medical care for themselves or their children. So they would check into a workhouse just for the medical care. The bastards!

Something tells me that folks like Ray and Joe would consider the Victorian system a just and fair approach to dealing with the poor, if a tad too over-generous. People who entered the workhouses rarely obtained financial independence, don't you know. They should have been a bit harsher in order to discourage people from living off the public teat.
   952. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:48 PM (#4203480)
Depending on whether you're considering entitlements 'safety nets' or not -- there has been a marked decrease in seniors living in poverty that tracks almost perfectly with 2 big events: Enactment of Social Security and enactment of Medicare.

Social Security isn't a Great Society program. Nobody's talking about getting rid of Social Security.

There have been successful affordable housing programs and unsuccessful affordable housing programs. There have been successful jobs training programs and unsuccessful jobs training programs. There have even been successful food, heat, etc assistance programs.

Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?
   953. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:51 PM (#4203483)
Can you name a few failed social programs?
   954. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4203486)
And we are getting it. Today is today. 10 years ago was 10 years ago. You need to update your policy ideas to reflect this reality.

We're not getting it because of policy changes. To the extent we're getting it, it's because low-skilled Mexicans and Guatemalans and Salvadorans are staying home because of the poor U.S. job market. But that hasn't solved the problem of the 13,000,000 unemployed we currently have, most of whom are low-skilled.
   955. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:52 PM (#4203488)
I'm a lifelong Democrat, a lifelong liberal, and I know plenty of liberals -- and I have yet to meet or read a single Democrat or liberal that comes anywhere close to believing that our end goal is to make any individual, any group, or any subset lifelong ensconced in the 'safety net'.


I don't think you and your crowd are cynical, mustachio-twirling villians who are cackling with glee at the prospect of creating generational dependency on government handouts(Ok, maybe James Carville). Rather, I believe you guys have rationalized your belief system such that you really think you're either advancing good public policy, helping the helpless, or some combination of both. But ultimately, cui bono? The fact that liberals (or anybody really) have rationalized the course of action that best helps themselves as something good and noble is utterly unsurprising.

Note that this does NOT mean that liberal policy cannot have this effect - I readily accept that some programs simply haven't worked as we hoped... but until conservatives put the strawman to bed and at least accept that no serious liberal WISHES such outcomes, there is no possible way any compromise or discussion can be had on the topic.


But this stuff is predictable, it's fairly simple causality at work. Moynihan was talking about it over 40 years ago. Whatever liberals believe, the facts are their policies are great for creating utterly dependent, captive groups of voters. Whether the act is undertaken with good intentions and kind thoughts, or with ruthless cynicism and malice aforethought, it's the same act and it will have the same consequences.
   956. zonk Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4203492)
Social Security isn't a Great Society program. Nobody's talking about getting rid of Social Security.


I said 'New Deal' and 'Great Society' -- are you sure you were right about Sam's reading comprehension skills test? And plenty of conservatives have talked about getting rid of Social Security - starting with Ronald Reagan (before he became President and realized it was a politically untenable position).

Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?


The LIHEAP program got a significant cut in Obama's previous budget... I suppose that technically, liberals weren't "in favor" of that - but the combination of falling natural gas prices and luckily, a warm winter in many parts of the country meant it happened without much fanfare or incident.

   957. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:54 PM (#4203493)
Securing some of the longest borders in the world. Good luck with that. How much are you willing to spend on it? Because it is going to cost a huge amount.


If we wanted to save money, we could always hire some low-skill illegals to police it for us.
   958. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:55 PM (#4203496)
We're not getting it because of policy changes. To the extent we're getting it, it's because low-skilled Mexicans and Guatemalans and Salvadorans are staying home because of the poor U.S. job market. But that hasn't solved the problem of the 13,000,000 unemployed we currently have, most of whom are low-skilled.

So an influx of more high skilled immigrants and a native population getting more and more highly skilled isn't going to grow the economy? We are in an economic downturn. You can't just flip the switch and expect anything to solve it in a day or year or possibly even a decade.

Why do we need policy change anyway? You keep saying "supply and demand" so I would think you'd be all for the markets taking care of themselves.
   959. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4203497)
So, the difference is, the rich can afford to get professionals to lie for them, so they aren't as bad as the poor who have to lie themselves.


Well, the real difference is that the rich aren't breaking the law in my examples, while the poor are.
   960. Rants Mulliniks Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:56 PM (#4203498)
You Libs must be jumping up and down about France, Hollande just proposed a 75% mariginal tax rate for earnings over 1 million Euros. I'm sure all those richies will just give an exasperated "You got me!" and pony up.

EDIT - I guess this isn't exactly news.
   961. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:58 PM (#4203503)
You Libs must be jumping up and down about France, Hollande just proposed a 75% mariginal tax rate for earnings over 1 million Euros. I'm sure all those richies will just give an exasperated "You got me!" and pony up.

I'm sure tougher immigration laws will make all those poories just give up in exasperation as well.
   962. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 02:59 PM (#4203505)
Can you name a few failed social programs?

Sure — rent control laws and other "affordable housing" programs, Medicare, welfare, food stamps. The first should be abolished outright; the second is so full of fraud that billions have ended up in Cuba; and the last two have had all sorts of pernicious effects on the family, America's work ethic, etc.

***
The LIHEAP program got a significant cut in Obama's previous budget... I suppose that technically, liberals weren't "in favor" of that - but the combination of falling natural gas prices and luckily, a warm winter in many parts of the country meant it happened without much fanfare or incident.

LIHEAP is 0.00065 of the federal budget.
   963. Rants Mulliniks Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4203508)
I'm not saying people shoudln't pay income tax, and I don't even have a philosophical opposition to graduated income tax brackets, but 75%? Who in their right mind would stay in the country?
   964. McCoy Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:01 PM (#4203509)
Well, the real difference is that the rich aren't breaking the law in my examples, while the poor are.

Because fortunately for them they got a say in what the laws are.
   965. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:02 PM (#4203511)
Can we play a thought exercise where you tell me what your answer to #915 is, Lassus? Because you had no trouble demanding that someone else answer it.

Of course. I missed the edit, and kind of ended up skimming over your answer of the edit, as it was an edit.

Poorer people who legally game the system have more of my sympathy than richer folks who legally game the system, as the richer folks have greater means to live with not gameing the system.

If people are committing actual crimes of fraud, I have little sympathy regardless of income. I don't know if you remember, but I'm one of the harder liberals on crime.

OK, your turn.

   966. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:03 PM (#4203512)
And wouldn't you know it, those lazy bums still figured out a way to "game the system"! It turns out that the workhouses, by offering medical attention to sick inmates, offered a form of universal health care that was attractive to many of those in the working classes who couldn't afford medical care for themselves or their children. So they would check into a workhouse just for the medical care. The bastards!


Lucky Ducky!
   967. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:07 PM (#4203516)
Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?


abstinence education
   968. Johnny Sycophant-Laden Fora Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:09 PM (#4203519)
but 75%? Who in their right mind would stay in the country?


well if the alternatives are:

1: Developed Countries with higher rates and/or less loopholes
2: Communist Countries
3: Undeveloped third world hell-holes
   969. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:12 PM (#4203526)
But for this to have skewed the data in the link, the U.S. Census Bureau would have needed to count U.S. citizen children as immigrants. That seems unlikely.

No, it's exactly what is going on. Do you read the links that you post?


•In 2010, 36 percent of immigrant-headed households used at least one major welfare program (primarily food assistance and Medicaid) compared to 23 percent of native households.

(emphasis added)


In other words, a household where the parents are illegal immigrants with children who are born in the U.S. may legally receive assistance for those children, and that is likely being captured in the Census numbers being cited in the link. And as Matt said, that may skew the numbers so they do not say what you think they do, although to be honest I'd have to go back and re-read more posts than I care to in order to recall what the original debate was.
   970. Ray (RDP) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:17 PM (#4203534)
That Democrats want people on welfare and that we see some inherent good in someone getting a welfare check rather than a paycheck.

It's why this discussion terminally goes nowhere... We can't really have any honest discussions on policy until one side stops believing that the other actually believes the strawman argument they've created for political purposes is honest-to-goodness a true intention of said side.


The effect of liberal policies is the effect of liberal policies. What liberals really "want," if it's different from what the effect is, is utterly beside the point by now. It's not like the effects of these policies are a secret, so either liberals really want ever-growing masses of people to be dependent on the government and therefore conveniently likely to vote democrat, or liberals are blissfully unaware that their policies have created large masses of people dependent on handouts, to the detriment of a great many people. I don't know which is truly inside the liberal mind, thankfully not inhabiting that dark place myself, but if it's the former I don't want them making policy and if it's the latter I don't want them making policy.
   971. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:19 PM (#4203538)
No, it's exactly what is going on. Do you read the links that you post?

Do you read what you write? You said:

Illegal immigrants may have children who are U.S. citizens. The children may qualify for various welfare programs, yet I have seen this described by conservatives as illegal immigrants receiving benefits. That may be part of the disconnect.

There was no mention in the article of "illegal immigrants receiving benefits."

and that is likely being captured in the Census numbers being cited in the link. And as Matt said, that may skew the numbers so they do not say what you think they do, although to be honest I'd have to go back and re-read more posts than I care to in order to recall what the original debate was.

No, it's not likely being captured. Why would the Census count U.S.-born children as immigrants?
   972. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4203546)
This is just more of the same here. The medicine hasn't cured the disease so let's stop taking the medicine because surely that'll make us better.


Faith healing.
   973. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:24 PM (#4203547)
Could you name a few failed social programs that liberals are currently in favor of drastically cutting or eliminating?


"The War on Drugs."
   974. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:28 PM (#4203551)
Well, the real difference is that the rich aren't breaking the law in my examples, while the poor are.


Odd, that. How is it that the law written by the rich serves the rich in this manner? Cui bono?
   975. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:29 PM (#4203554)
"The War on Drugs."

Funny how that one worked out. Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s but now bash the "racist" conservatives for the laws' existence.

I guess having a short memory is one of the key requirements for being a good liberal.
   976. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:32 PM (#4203561)
LIHEAP is 0.00065 of the federal budget.


You must keep those goal posts on wheels to move them so often.
   977. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:33 PM (#4203562)
Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s but now bash the "racist" conservatives for the laws' existence.


Cite, Chucky.

I guess having a short memory is one of the key requirements for being a good liberal.


Considering the fact that the policy in question was kicked off by Richard M. Nixon I'm not sure you are prepared to have this snark battle, Leroy.
   978. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4203564)
Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s


The what now?
   979. Kiko Sakata Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:35 PM (#4203565)
Why would the Census count U.S.-born children as immigrants?


If U.S.-born children live with foreign-born parents, the U.S. Census would count them as living in "immigrant-headed households" as quoted (and bolded) in #969.
   980. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:39 PM (#4203572)
Liberals pushed for the harsh drug laws in the '80s

Oh please. There was nothing more bipartisan than people panicking in the wake of Len Bias. Your memory is as selective as anyone's.

September 16th, NYT, 1986: (go Mets!)
REAGAN PROPOSES STIFFER DRUG LAWS

President Reagan today formally proposed a $900 million program to combat drug abuse and ordered the heads of Federal agencies to establish a program of testing for evidence of drug use among a broad range of employees. The tests were required in a strongly worded executive order signed by Mr. Reagan, who also submitted to Congress legislative recommendations, including several measures recently passed by the House of Representatives. Following the House's lead, Mr. Reagan urged Congress to pass legislation that would make capital punishment applicable to drug crimes where offenders ''intentionally'' cause death, and for a law to allow the use of illegally obtained evidence in drug trials. Use of Armed Forces Rejected The House has already acted on bills incorporating these two provisions, and Senate Republican leaders working on new drug legislation were reported to be considering extending the death penalty to drug-related Federal crimes.But in a significant split with the House, the President rejected a provision in its legislation that would require the use of the armed forces to curb the flow of narcotics. White House officials had said previously that the President was concerned about the military being required to make drug arrests.


Tip O'Neill was trying to get his push out in front of the what the White House was doing, but I'm too young to remember if he succeeded or not.

You COULD have gone with "just as much", but you had to simply go for a haymaker that turned you around like a corkscrew.

Also, look, I admit it was BOTH. Now what are you going to do?
   981. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:43 PM (#4203576)
If U.S.-born children live with foreign-born parents, the U.S. Census would count them as living in "immigrant-headed households" as quoted (and bolded) in #969.

Right, but not as immigrants, which was the topic of discussion. When the Census Bureau says that 43 percent of immigrants are receiving benefits, that number doesn't include U.S.-born children.
   982. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:48 PM (#4203580)
Tip O'Neill was trying to get his push out in front of the what the White House was doing, but I'm too young to remember if he succeeded or not.

Allow me to refresh your recollection:

Immediately upon returning from the July 4 recess, Tip O’Neill called an emergency meeting of the crime-related committee chairmen. Write me some ####### legislation, he thundered. All anybody up in Boston is talking about is Len Bias. The papers are screaming for blood. We need to get out front on this now. This week. Today. The Republicans beat us to it in 1984 and I don’t want that to happen again. I want dramatic new initiatives for dealing with crack and other drugs. If we can do this fast enough, he said to the Democratic leadership arrayed around him, we can take the issue away from the White House. — Smoke and Mirrors: The War on Drugs and the Politics of Failure


In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by “getting tough on drugs” after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime. The most important Democratic political leader, House Speaker “Tip” O’Neill, was from Boston, MA. The Boston Celtics had signed Bias. During the July 4 congressional recess, O’Neill’s constituents were so consumed with anger and dismay about Bias’ death, O’Neill realized how powerful an anti-drug campaign would be.

O’Neill knew that for Democrats to take credit for an anti-drug program in November elections, the bill had to get out of both Houses of Congress by early October. That required action on the House floor by early September, which meant that committees had to finish their work before the August recess. Since the idea was born in early July, the law-writing committees had less than a month to develop the ideas, to write the bills to carry out those ideas, and to get comments from the relevant government agencies and the public at large.

One idea was considered for the first time by the House Judiciary Committee four days before the recess began. It had tremendous political appeal as “tough on drugs.” This was the creation of mandatory minimum sentences in drug cases. It was a type of penalty that had been removed from federal law in 1970 after extensive and careful consideration. But in 1986, no hearings were held on this idea. No experts on the relevant issues, no judges, no one from the Bureau of Prisons, or from any other office in the government, provided advice on the idea before it was rushed through the committee and into law. Only a few comments were received on an informal basis. After bouncing back and forth between the Democratic controlled House and the Republican controlled Senate as each party jockeyed for poitical advantage, The Anti Drug Abuse Act of 1986 finally passed both houses a few weeks before the November elections. — Eric E. Sterling, counsel to the U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary


source: http://www.drugwarrant.com/articles/len-bias-two-decades-of-destruction/
   983. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:49 PM (#4203581)
Also, look, I admit it was BOTH. Now what are you going to do?


The 1980s, the decade when the left decided social justice wasn't worth losing votes to the right's "tough on crime" haymakers. Joe knows this. Joe is just incapable of intellectual honesty.
   984. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 03:59 PM (#4203592)
Joe, I already said it was both.

Is that was you meant - and failed - to say in #975?
   985. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:00 PM (#4203594)
In 1986, the Democrats in Congress saw a political opportunity to outflank Republicans by “getting tough on drugs” after basketball star Len Bias died of a cocaine overdose. In the 1984 election the Republicans had successfully accused Democrats of being soft on crime.


Note that second sentence there. The Senate Dems got "tough on crime" in the aftermath of Bias specifically because the GOP had spent the previous decade and a half whinging about how the Dems were "soft on crime."

Now Joe wants to blame the police state on the Dems for not holding the line.

Classic trolling, really.
   986. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:07 PM (#4203603)
Joe, I already said it was both.

Is that was you meant - and failed - to say in #975?

If you ask a hundred people who's responsible for the "racist" crack laws, you really believe the Dems will get half credit?

Note that second sentence there. The Senate Dems got "tough on crime" in the aftermath of Bias specifically because the GOP had spent the previous decade and a half whinging about how the Dems were "soft on crime."

The Dems were soft on crime. As Treder would say, "Own it."

Classic trolling, really.

Here we go again. Pot, kettle, etc.
   987. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:09 PM (#4203605)
Did you see the amusing bit where during push back on an Obama add a Romney flack praised RomneyCare?

Romney spokesperson Andrea Saul offered up a different rebuttal. She would have had health insurance, if she had lived in Massachusetts:

“To that point, if people had been in Massachusetts, under Governor Romney’s health care plan, they would have had health care,” Andrea Saul, Romney’s campaign press secretary, said during an appearance on Fox News. “There are a lot of people losing their jobs and losing their health care in President [Barack] Obama’s economy.”



   988. Rickey! On a blog from 1998. With the candlestick. Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:11 PM (#4203608)
The Dems were soft on crime. As Treder would say, "Own it."


And now you want to defend the drug laws. You're a pretzel, Chewy.
   989. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:17 PM (#4203619)
Right, but not as immigrants, which was the topic of discussion. When the Census Bureau says that 43 percent of immigrants are receiving benefits, that number doesn't include U.S.-born children.

Again Joe, did you read the report, rather than just the article about the report? From the footnote to the chart with the 43% number - "Welfare use and home ownership are based on the nativity of the household head." (emphasis added)

EDIT: Here is a link to the relevant section of the report since you are having so much trouble with this.
   990. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:20 PM (#4203629)

It goes beyond that. In Victorian Britain, wealthy people were obsessed with the concept of "idle paupers" and "shirkers" who would rather lay about and collect public welfare. So they created workhouses, partly out of the belief that hard work and a healthy dose of religion would reform those layabouts, but also out of the desire to make welfare as undesirable as possible. Of course, there were plenty of nasty jobs in Victorian England, so the workhouses had to be even nastier. "Inmates" treated like prisoners, men and women separated from their children (checking into a workhouse was considered proof you were an incompetent parent) and from each other, working at mind-numbing tasks that gave them no useful skills for 80 hours a week, and which didn't bring in any significant amount of money (nor did the workers ever see a penny of that money themselves, naturally). Physical and sexual abuse, disease and misery were rife in those institutions.


Actually this might slide into "Bitter Mouse's" point about the existence of losers in a net-win for a society. The Poor Law Act of 1834 (technically passed under William, not Victoria) was influenced not just by contemporary attitudes towards the poor, but by the rapidly changing economy which had made previous methods for dealing with the poor which had worked with varying effectiveness for centuries, obsolete. With industrialization, and improved infrastructure in rural economies, migrant labour exploded in the 19th century. Since the old system of poor relief was based on local parishes providing for their own local natives this was a disaster. In 1600 it worked well enough (well, it didn't work great, but at least it had a prayer). If there was some unemployed lout hanging about your village you booted him out and sent him packing to his home parish, where people knew him. And if he was an ok guy who was just down on his luck, they'd help him out. When the vast majority of the work force is mobile (and getting hired and fired at the drop of a hat) a new system is needed.

Thus you get the Utilitarian inspired Poor Law.

Economies are dynamic entities, and sometimes change, which in the long run is beneficial on the whole, but really screws over segments of the population. If you're lucky, you have well-meaning people in power who try to come up with solutions to fit the new model. And if you're really lucky (which mid-19th century British labourers weren't so much) the well-meaning people find a model that works relatively well at taking the sting out of the loss.
   991. Lassus Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:23 PM (#4203632)
The Dems were soft on crime. As Treder would say, "Own it."

That was Ray's.

And what a confusing response. So after almost two decades of admitted inaction we finally leapt on Strom's conservative tough-on-crime bandwagon in 1986 and therefore the liberals are solely responsible - as per #915 - for the drug war.
   992. Bitter Mouse Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:29 PM (#4203641)
Economies are dynamic entities, and sometimes change, which in the long run is beneficial on the whole, really screws over segments of the population.


Allow me to introduce to you Joseph Schumpeter. Well maybe you already know about him.
   993. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:34 PM (#4203647)
Allow me to introduce to you Joseph Schumpeter. Well maybe you already know about him.

Sadly I just minored in Economics at school (it was a joint Economics/History Major until I realized I'm terrible at economics), rather than owning a masters in it, so this is new to me. Much obliged for the reading material.
   994. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:36 PM (#4203648)
Again Joe, did you read the report, rather than just the article about the report? From the footnote to the chart with the 43% number - "Welfare use and home ownership are based on the nativity of the household head."

I understand what an immigrant-headed household is. I was replying to your claim that U.S.-born children of immigrants were being counted as "illegal immigrants receiving benefits" (see #931). The Census Bureau assuredly doesn't count U.S.-born kids as immigrants, and this particular story and study made no distinction between legal and illegal immigrants.

With regards to the "immigrant-headed household" issue, it's crazy for the U.S. to welcome immigrants who can't support their own kids. The correct percentage of immigrant-headed households on public assistance is zero.
   995. Dan Szymborski Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4203656)
Sadly I just minored in Economics at school (it was a joint Economics/History Major until I realized I'm terrible at economics), rather than owning a masters in it, so this is new to me. Much obliged for the reading material.

At the very least, you should grab a copy of Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy. I'm surprised you snuck through without reading it in college!
   996. Joe Kehoskie Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4203658)
And what a confusing response. So after almost two decades of admitted inaction we finally leapt on Strom's conservative tough-on-crime bandwagon in 1986 and therefore the liberals are solely responsible - as per #915 - for the drug war.

When did I say liberals are "solely" responsible?

My point was that liberals pushed harder for the harsh anti-crack laws in the '80s after Bias died, but now, 25 years later, no one seems to know or admit that liberals were involved at all. For 15 or 20 years, all we've heard about are the "racist" drug laws.
   997. Steve Treder Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4203664)
Joe, are you sure you didn't go by the alias RossCW back in the day?
   998. The Good Face Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:48 PM (#4203665)
Odd, that. How is it that the law written by the rich serves the rich in this manner? Cui bono?


Is there an argument you're trying to make? Perhaps that poor people shouldn't have to follow laws? Otherwise, what's your point? All laws are written by the rich, just as all governments above the tribal level are plutocracies (or will rapidly become one).

The more powerful the government, the more power you're giving to rich people to use it and abuse it to their advantage.
   999. Greg K Posted: August 08, 2012 at 04:56 PM (#4203678)
The more powerful the government, the more power you're giving to rich people to use it and abuse it to their advantage.

I don't know if that's necessarily true, though I admit I'm never 100% sure what is meant by "big" and "little" or "more" or "less" government.

I can think of instances where legislation or expanded bureaucracy served to protect the less well-off members of society from their social and economic betters. Just as I can think of many instances where government was specifically designed to help out the rich fellows who organized it.

I guess I'm just not comfortable with blanket statements like that. The world, and human societies don't work on such neat and reliable principles for that to be true. Perhaps I'm being biased because I enjoy discussing particular historical moments or events more than abstract theories or principles.

EDIT:
And to Dan: I think the list of books on economics I managed to avoid reading while doing my undergrad could fill the Library of Congress.

I'm starting to understand why I was so terrible at it...
   1000. PreservedFish Posted: August 08, 2012 at 05:01 PM (#4203679)
Schumpeter claimed that he had set himself three goals in life: to be the greatest economist in the world, to be the best horseman in all of Austria and the greatest lover in all of Vienna. He said he had reached two of his goals, but he never said which two...
Page 10 of 60 pages ‹ First  < 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Brian
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogBlue Jays Acquire Mayberry Jr.
(4 - 7:45am, Sep 01)
Last: Edmundo got dem ol' Kozma blues again mama

NewsblogBob Melvin calls Athletics 'pathetic' after Angels sweep four-game set
(3 - 6:24am, Sep 01)
Last: RMc's desperate, often sordid world

NewsblogOT: The Soccer Thread August, 2014
(944 - 6:08am, Sep 01)
Last: Swedish Chef

NewsblogSherman: How Reds react to second-half swoon will be major factor in offseason
(6 - 6:06am, Sep 01)
Last: Davo Dozier

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6297 - 5:07am, Sep 01)
Last: BrianBrianson

NewsblogTigers' Miguel Cabrera appears to re-injure ankle, leaves game
(10 - 3:48am, Sep 01)
Last: Cooper Nielson

NewsblogBackman named PCL’s top manager
(12 - 2:57am, Sep 01)
Last: ReggieThomasLives

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(779 - 2:09am, Sep 01)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(58 - 2:00am, Sep 01)
Last: Weratych

NewsblogAthletics Acquire Adam Dunn
(22 - 1:37am, Sep 01)
Last: 6 - 4 - 3

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 9-1-2014
(1 - 1:13am, Sep 01)
Last: Best Regards, President of Comfort, Esq.

NewsblogOT August 2014:  Wrassle Mania I
(90 - 12:53am, Sep 01)
Last: andrewberg

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-31-2014
(100 - 12:29am, Sep 01)
Last: Jose Can Still Seabiscuit

NewsblogHigh School Baseball Game In Japan Takes 50 Innings, Four Days
(6 - 11:46pm, Aug 31)
Last: Gamingboy

NewsblogPhoto of the day: Bill Murray, indy league ticket-taker
(42 - 11:33pm, Aug 31)
Last: Robert in Manhattan Beach

Page rendered in 1.1617 seconds
52 querie(s) executed