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

Sunday, December 02, 2012

OTP December 2012 - Pushing G.O.P. to Negotiate, Obama Ends Giving In

Mr. Obama, scarred by failed negotiations in his first term and emboldened by a clear if close election to a second, has emerged as a different kind of negotiator in the past week or two, sticking to the liberal line and frustrating Republicans on the other side of the bargaining table.

Bitter Mouse Posted: December 02, 2012 at 11:15 PM | 6172 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: 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 27 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >  Last ›
   2601. Jay Z Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:54 AM (#4324490)
jay

i helped support most of my in-laws as they were young couples. i didn't gripe. figured i married my wife i got the in-laws along with it

ok, i groused a bit when i thought some them were on the dole a bit toooooo long. but never to where my wife and i were clashing in a big way.


Oh no, I'm sure you did. I was just saying that without safety nets people fall back on family more. The lazy have always been with us, way before welfare.

Helps to have a spouse that is different from us in the long run. Hybrid vigor and all that. I have some of those issues myself, though my wife is the type A.
   2602. Lassus Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4324493)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?
   2603. steagles Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:27 AM (#4324502)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?
tumescence?
   2604. greenback calls it soccer Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:36 AM (#4324505)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

The Duke lacrosse card?

Where do people get this stuff?
   2605. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 02:19 AM (#4324516)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?


Some judge said something idiotic and horrific. Why do I need to "respond"? I didn't say it.
   2606. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: December 14, 2012 at 02:40 AM (#4324523)
Some judge said something idiotic and horrific. Why do I need to "respond"? I didn't say it.

You know the game. A non-progressive person says something stupid and everybody who is not a progressive is apparently required to disavow the statement.

Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.
   2607. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 14, 2012 at 05:04 AM (#4324534)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?

Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?
   2608. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 05:10 AM (#4324535)
I'm also all for government getting out of the business of helping the wealthy steal from the poor.



Remind me how this works, again?


They take property taxes from the trailer parks of yahoos and use it to build Jeff Loria a stadium. (Or is talking about baseball forbidden in this thread?)
   2609. Joe Kehoskie Posted: December 14, 2012 at 05:37 AM (#4324536)
They take property taxes from the trailer parks of yahoos and use it to build Jeff Loria a stadium. (Or is talking about baseball forbidden in this thread?)

Actually, despite the popular narrative, Jeff Loria's stadium was built not with money collected from local Miami taxpayers but mostly with tourist taxes imposed on and collected from (mostly) non-poor "tourists" (a category that includes business travelers and assorted other non-tourist visitors).

I'm generally against public subsidies of ballparks, the Miami stadium deal was horribly structured, and Miami's politicians might be the sleaziest in America, but Loria didn't get money that would have been earmarked for schools or poor people. Under Florida law, tourist taxes have to be spent on projects that are at least ostensibly related to tourism, such as a ballpark or convention center.

Anyway, it's always funny to see how quickly liberals become cost-conscious when a rich person is involved. According to the liberals here:

- 100 weeks of unemployment checks = "stimulus"
- Unlimited "safety net" spending = "stimulus"
- $700 million construction project in a blighted area with high unemployment = not stimulus

It's all so confusing.
   2610. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 07:26 AM (#4324542)
It's funny how quickly you assume someone who doesn't parrot your opinions is a liberal, Joe. Construction is an excellent stimulous, but it's still wealth transfer when you take money from the "Poor-relative-to-Jeff-Loria-if-perhaps-of-average-means-rather-than-destitute" people to benefit Loria (of course, there's the problem that typically wealth in is less than wealth out in government projects, so nominally if Loria put in $125 million and the city put in $497 million, and Loria derives ~$500 million in benefits and the city derives ~$500 million in profits, it's difficult to talk about exactly how wealth transfer occurs, since they've both profited. But ... let's assume the audience can use common sense, here).
   2611. Lassus Posted: December 14, 2012 at 08:37 AM (#4324551)
Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?

Don't be so purposefully dense. My question wasn't about the sentence, it was about the now oft-repeated view on rape from the conservative legislation and judiciary.
   2612. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 09:05 AM (#4324554)
Sure it does -- reindusrialization and protectionism and bringing jobs that match the skills and intelligence of Americans back to America.

That's the only realistic hope.


QFFT, although there is no need for sensible tarriffs, preventing a country with no labour or environmental standards from flooding your market with cheap goods, to be called protectionism. Protectionism is enacting trade policy that punishes a foreign competitor on equal economic footing. China and the west are not even remotely close to being on equal economic footing.
   2613. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 09:11 AM (#4324556)
2588. Tripon Posted: December 13, 2012 at 07:46 PM (#4324328)


This is kind of funny, because I would wager that 9 of 10 people on this board have more money than me.

So you're admitting that 9 out of 10 people on BTF is smarter than you?


This was hilarious.

Extreme income inequality is a bad thing though, and it is not possible without laws and policies that favour the rich (i.e. the rich (corporations) overtly influencing legislation and policy). Under a just set of laws and policies, the law of diminishing returns is pretty solid evidence to me that you can only get so rich before the extra effort required to make that additional dollar isn't worth it. If any of the Libertarians want to pretend that such influence doesn't exist, or that its OK, I can't stop you.

The happiest, healthiest countries are the ones with the smallest range of income.
   2614. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 09:27 AM (#4324559)
Don't be so purposefully dense. My question wasn't about the sentence, it was about the now oft-repeated view on rape from the conservative legislation and judiciary.


It's stupid, absurd, and ridiculous. If you guys would wise up and move closer to the center, people like that would be worthless politically and would be completely marginalized. As the left has become more insistent and nutty, the right has moved in lockstep.

   2615. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 09:39 AM (#4324565)
Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.

I.e., Andy's classic "Yes, Barry Goldwater opposed parts of the Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons, but a bunch of crackers opposed it for racist reasons, you don't really want to be associated with a bunch of cracker racists, do you? Well, do you????"
   2616. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:00 AM (#4324572)
from the bill james mailbag:

The Tea Party issue is actually very different than you have represented it. The Tea Party movement was actually a movement of fiscal conservatives. .. .basically a coalition of activists who think that giving the government 40% of your money and asking it to make purchasing decisions on your behalf is stupid and wasteful.

But, in the hurly-burly of real-world politics, social conservatives. . ..people that I really don't agree with AT ALL, although many of them are my friends and relatives. . ..social conservatives glommed onto the Tea Party movement and became a part of it. Democrats, who disliked and distrusted the Tea Party movement as they dislike and distrust Republicans in general, chose to represent the Tea Partiers as social conservatives who were anti-abortion, insenstive to women's issues, insenstive on issues of race and immigration, and generally self-righteous. I would guess. . .not trying to mis-characterize you. . .but I would guess, based on your inaccurate characterization of the Tea Partiers, that you were one of those Democrats.


referencing an earlier back and forth. just to confirm that i was not concocting my perspective out of thin air
   2617. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:12 AM (#4324576)
The fetish over income inequality smacks of pure jealousy and class envy.


So I think this is actually an important topic. First of all I am going to restate it in less loaed and divisive terms.

"Should a nation/society care about the income distribution within that society, assuming there is a safety net which allows the lowest income rung a reasonable standard of living?"

There are a variety of reasons for caring (I am not saying I believe all of them btw, just throwing them out there):

* Weath and power are largely synonomous. Having power concentrate can be dangerous to a society over time, especially if the power concentration continues over generations. This suggests that cross generational income/wealth mobility (both upwards and downwards) is also important, perhaps moreso than simple static income inequality.

* Economic theory suggests that extreme concentration of wealth leads to speculative bubbles which overall damages the economy.

* History suggests the having a strong and thriving middle class combined with possible income mobility leads to a thriving society.

* If one believes that "random" factors (who your parents are, the genetic lottery, old fashioned luck) play a significant factor in success then a portion of that success is not truly deserved, so there is no moral issue with redistributing a portion of that wealth back to society.

* If one believes that the society at large plays a large part in wealth accumulation (we have seen this expressed upthread in the airport discussion and the Loria ballpark discussion to a degree) then society is "owed" a portion of that wealth.

* From a micro economic & societal maximizing standpoint, if one accepts the diminishing marginal utility of wealth then a society with the wealth distributed more equally will utilize that wealth more effectively than one with more concentrated wealth. In fact diminishing marginal returns suggest than any outsized concentration of resources within a society is to avoided if you want your society to function at its "best".

* One could be a Marxist, Catholic (classic, not recent American version), or any one of a number of belief systems that clearly state as part of their dogma that wealth is undesireable for a variety of moral and philisophical reasons.

* And yes there could be ency and jealousy (which by the way when taken to an extreme can destabilize a society).


   2618. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:15 AM (#4324578)
All those things could be true. Problem is the lefties act and talk as if the safety net is deserved, as opposed to an unfortunate reality of life.
   2619. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:28 AM (#4324589)
This is one of the roots of my problems with much of the "IQ discussion", it tends not to lead to any concrete policies (policy changes

Sure it does -- reindusrialization and protectionism and bringing jobs that match the skills and intelligence of Americans back to America.


Thanks for responding. I am not sure I see the full connection, or rather the vast majority of the argument around intelligence is not relevent to your prescription.

You are suggesting (I think, tell me if I am wrong):

1) That countries (the US specifically, because that is the country we are discussing) have citizens with a range of capabilities, and it is in our best interest to arrange our policies so that there are good jobs for the whole range of worker capabilities.

2) The range of capabilities is somewhat fixed. In other words either individuals are what they are and no amount of re-training will help them, or at the very least there will always be a group of individuals unable or unwilling to advance into "modern" (high functioning, whatever term you want to use) jobs, which reinforces #1 above and states you can not train your way out of the box.

3) The primary driver behind the range of capabilities is intelligence which is somewhat driven by forces such as genetics.

4) The best way to provide for the range of careers is reindusrialization and protectionism.

I hope I am at least close. I am breaking the parts out, because I have very different feelings about the sections and I don't want to accept or dismiss the whole thing as a unit.

I agree with #1 and #2. I think they are fairly non-controversial. I think #3 is irrelevent from a policy perspective if you do accept #1 & #2, unless you are going to have intelligence testing and sorting/screening as a policy - which you have not suggested. This is why the intelligence discussion is (I think) kind of a red herring, sound and fury, but from a policy perspective signifying nothing. I disagree with #4, but I admit I am not 100% sure and think we could have a good discussion about #4, so long as we don't get bogged down in IQ wars.

   2620. Lassus Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:36 AM (#4324597)
If you guys would wise up and move closer to the center, people like that would be worthless politically and would be completely marginalized.

This logic is faulty.
   2621. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:39 AM (#4324599)
bitter

regarding 1 and 2 in 2619 i think the primary responsibility is on the individual to adapt. i think it's a pretty ridiculous burden on a society to have to contrive roles that provide tangible compensation no matter the workers abilities. this concept of 'make work' is an exercise in futility

so you can claim these are non-controversial but i think just the opposite. unless you are speaking within liberal circles

because i don't know any of my peers who think like this

not at all
   2622. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4324603)
* If one believes that the society at large plays a large part in wealth accumulation (we have seen this expressed upthread in the airport discussion and the Loria ballpark discussion to a degree) then society is "owed" a portion of that wealth.


Well, I would say "wealth production" rather than "wealth accumulation", which is driven partly by some of your previous points (about how a strong middle class drives a strong economy, while concentrating wealth in a few people causes it to stagnate/stall, but it leads to a much different motivation of why it's a good idea. Fundamentally, our organisation into a society makes all of us (collectively, and individually) orders of magnitude wealthier than we would be without it (and this is accelerating in recent times - in a practical sense, I'm functionally wealthier than Julius Ceasar, say, because when I get meningitis I just go get drugs to cure it, rather than keel over dead; when I want to travel to China I just pay a week's wage, rather than it being impossible. When I want food from the other side of the planet, I pick it up at the corner for essentially no money, etc. In relative terms, I'm much poorer, but in absolute terms, I'm mostly wealthier). So realistically, we all owe essentially all of our wealth to society; we're each paying in a nickel to get back a thousand dollars; telling Jeff Loria he has to pay in eight dollars to get his hundred thousand back is proportionately unfair, but still so beneficial I can't take the claim he's being treated unfairly seriously.
   2623. Mefisto Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:40 AM (#4324604)
Lassus, aside from the excellent points made by Ray and Dan in the preceding two comments, can you point to a single time that either Ray or I have even hinted at being soft on crime?


Libertarians generally favor gun "rights" and therefore are per se soft on crime.
   2624. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:43 AM (#4324608)
Bitter, I can't speak for SBB but I'd say your four pillars are rigth on (from my perspective). #3 should be expanded though, to include people that not only are not smart enough for the "knowledge economy", but my simply prefer to work with their hands. There are lots of smart people who prefer to put in a good day's labour over sitting at a desk.

EDIT: After reading what Harvey said, I think he might be misinterpreting #1 and #2. I took it, and I assume you meant it that not everyone is suitable for every field of work, not that we should create or maintain very specific menial jobs because people don't want to learn.
   2625. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:44 AM (#4324609)
All those things could be true. Problem is the lefties act and talk as if the safety net is deserved, as opposed to an unfortunate reality of life.


I try to talk about it as a societal moral imperative. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

A decent provision for the poor is the true test of civilization.
~Samuel Johnson, Boswell: Life of Johnson


"...the moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; those who are in the shadows of life; the sick, the needy and the handicapped. " ~ Last Speech of Hubert H. Humphrey


"A nation's greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members." ~ Mahatma Ghandi


And many more. All of these quotes speak to the same idea, how a society functions is the important thing and how the society can be evaluated, not so much who deserves what.
   2626. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:48 AM (#4324611)
bitter

where you will lose me is when you equate the 'weakest members' (which i consider the infirm, the very young) with 'the poor'.

one can be fully functioning mentally and physically and be poor. and i am not going to waste much time fretting over that

if you are 3 years old and living in squalor, that bothers me

if you are unhinged and wandering the street, that concerns me

if you are 37 years old and have f8cked up your life, that's not my issue
   2627. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4324616)
I try to talk about it as a societal moral imperative. Deserve has nothing to do with it.

Two sides same coin. The recipients do not deserve it; the payers don't owe it.
   2628. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 10:50 AM (#4324617)
regarding 1 and 2 in 2619 i think the primary responsibility is on the individual to adapt. i think it's a pretty ridiculous burden on a society to have to contrive roles that provide tangible compensation no matter the workers abilities. this concept of 'make work' is an exercise in futility


HW, thanks for the feedback. Just to be clear it sounds like the part of #1 you think is controversial is: "it is in our best interest to arrange our policies so that there are good jobs for the whole range of worker capabilities".

And in #2 is: "The range of capabilities is somewhat fixed."

Am I correct? These are fairly complex statements and I want to make sure I am correctly communicating and understanding your response.

Because I don't think I suggested "make work" or "contrived" jobs. What I tried to say was it is in societies best interest for there to be a good (where good is meaningful job that pays well enough to support a family) jobs for all those willing and able to take them. I don't think that part is controversial at all, though of course accomplishing it without make work jobs, huge deadweight costs, reducing incentives to work with super great safety net and so on are tricky perhaps not possible even).
   2629. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:03 AM (#4324631)
2619 hits it pretty well. I'd add to 2 that people shouldn't be forced to adopt a "modern" work lifestyle, which I interpret as a willingness to uproot and move, leaving behind friends, families, and communities -- and work crazy hours. The guy born in Akron, with family and friends and social clubs in Akron should have a path to keep his nose clean, stay somewhat close to Akron, make a good wage/salary, and have time and weekends available for friends, family, and social clubs.

That used to be a virtually unquestioned social consensus, and it's been shattered and ruined -- to the obvious detriment of the country. The "economy" is there to serve people, not vice versa.
   2630. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:05 AM (#4324634)
bitter

i don't think they are complex statements, just open to varying interpretations.

i think it's an admirable goal to have jobs for all those willing and able to take them which we reached briefly in the 90's when unemployment is very low.

i just make a distinction (and perhaps this more semantics than anything) between a job and a 'good job'. because i don't think just bieng willing to work means someone has earned a good paying job. being willing is a very basic premise. that means you should be able to get 'a' job. you show up and work diligently

you want a 'good' job takes some additional commitment from the individual.

you want an even better job in terms of compensation that takes even more commitment

you should be able to invest in yourself and see the results

and that is happening. unemployment among folks with significant education is low. and that makes sense to me

now folks with limited education can make good money but then they have to sacrifice by moving to north dakota (energy territory). and that has always been the case.

   2631. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:06 AM (#4324635)
where you will lose me is when you equate the 'weakest members' (which i consider the infirm, the very young) with 'the poor'.

one can be fully functioning mentally and physically and be poor. and i am not going to waste much time fretting over that


HW - I see what you are saying, but it is more impersonal from my persective. It doesn't matter (to me, from a moral perspective) why someone needs help. Young, disabled, addicted, terminally lazy, really stupid, whatever - I think society should provide a minal standard of living - a safety net - for all of them, complete with incentives and such so that they have a chance of working their way into being a productive member of society.

In some ways I acknowledge it is not fair to have some lazy SOB, who could work but chooses not to, sucking from the public dole. They may not deserve aid. But I am not at all confident in societies ability to pick out those who deserve from those that don't. And honestly I feel more sorry for the lazy SOB, because they are pathetic losers who have to live their life as pathetic losers. Hopefully they will get their act together, but even if not I refuse to lower my society to their level.

I want my society to be better than that. I want my society to treat people better than they deserve rather than worse than they deserve. I want my society to be an example to strive for and for it to be somthing to be proud of, and if that means some pathetic losers are getting more than they deserve that is the price I am wuilling to pay.

It is analogous to protecting the innocent at the price of letting some of the guilty going free. I would rather the guilty go free than the innocent be jailed, just as I would rather let the underserving have some benefits as a price to make sure everyone has a solid safety net - but I totally acknowledge there is no natural law or anythign that says it has to be that way, it is just how I personally feel.

The recipients do not deserve it; the payers don't owe it.


Hopefully above answered this, but if not let me know.
   2632. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4324637)
i just make a distinction (and perhaps this more semantics than anything) between a job and a 'good job'. because i don't think just bieng willing to work means someone has earned a good paying job. being willing is a very basic premise. that means you should be able to get 'a' job. you show up and work diligently


That is fair and I think you are right, we are a bit closer than I thought - which may invalidate (render moot) much of 2628.
   2633. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4324639)
2629

no, it has not always been the case. folks moved out to the prairie to stake their claim. folks moved to california to look for gold. folks in the south moved north to get factory jobs in the mid 20th century. folks flocked silcon valley in the 90's

the notion that you had a 'right' to live and die in the same place and get a good paying job along the way does not exist nor has it existed. it's a happy confluence of events working in the individual's favor. nothing that is a 'right'
   2634. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:08 AM (#4324640)
Now, a progressive person says something stupid? Well, you need to show that all progressives believe it in order to make a fuss. And even then, it doesn't matter, because the non-progressive pointing it out is no doubt a racist anyway.


I.e., Andy's classic "Yes, Barry Goldwater opposed parts of the Civil Rights Act for libertarian reasons, but a bunch of crackers opposed it for racist reasons, you don't really want to be associated with a bunch of cracker racists, do you? Well, do you????"

That would at least be coherent if I'd ever even hinted to you or anyone else here that they were either racist or sympathetic to racism. Perhaps you can provide us with a few quotes that I actually wrote, rather than quotes you wish I had said.

But as to the primary makeup of CRA opposition: I'm sorry that the simple facts of history seem to disturb you, but the truth is that Barry Goldwater most certainly was an anomaly among CRA opponents in his history of non-racism, and only someone completely ignorant of American history would ever claim otherwise. Take a look at the congressional roll call when that bill was passed, check out the names, and try to argue otherwise with a straight face.

Here's a starting hint: James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond were not libertarians.
   2635. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:10 AM (#4324644)
After reading what Harvey said, I think he might be misinterpreting #1 and #2. I took it, and I assume you meant it that not everyone is suitable for every field of work, not that we should create or maintain very specific menial jobs because people don't want to learn.


Correct, that is what I meant (was trying to say).
   2636. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:11 AM (#4324645)
no, it has not always been the case. folks moved out to the prairie to stake their claim. folks moved to california to look for gold. folks in the south moved north to get factory jobs in the mid 20th century. folks flocked silcon valley in the 90's

If they wanted to. Today it's forced, because jobs and industries abandon communities. A bunch of Michiganders have "staked their claims" in places like Texas, but out of economic necessity.

I wouldn't refer to the path I outlined as a "right."
   2637. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4324648)
But as to the primary makeup of CRA opposition: I'm sorry that the simple facts of history seem to disturb you, but the truth is that Barry Goldwater most certainly was an anomaly among CRA opponents in his history of non-racism, and only someone completely ignorant of American history would ever claim otherwise. Take a look at the congressional roll call when that bill was passed, check out the names, and try to argue otherwise with a straight face.

Here's a starting hint: James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond were not libertarians.


The fact that some cracker racists didn't support the CRA is irrelevant to the libertarian critique of the CRA. Yet, you always bring up the cracker racists when the libertarian critique is presented. Why?
   2638. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:14 AM (#4324650)
post 2636

some because they wanted to. others moved out of religious persecution. some moved to flee debt. folks in the south moved because they were being oppressed socially, economically and politically.

that is all forms of 'force'

i think it's irrational behavior to expect a government to get you a good paying job in a part of the country that has been abandoned by market forces

it stinks. it's tough. but that is called 'life'
   2639. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:16 AM (#4324652)
something else that people can do is work to reinvent their cities. that has happened time and again this country. it takes time and commitment but folks make it happen. and then jobs return.

it's the ebb and flow of a society

the 'safety net' folks like to discuss creates a false market that delays progress and stymies soceital evolution

you need some level of destruction for growth.
   2640. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:17 AM (#4324654)
it stinks. it's tough. but that is called 'life'

And "life" has led to a nation of rootless strugglers, receding communities, decaying civil society, and national decline. That can and should be reversed.
   2641. tshipman Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:18 AM (#4324656)
Look, you guys talking about how there's a need for silly protectionism and stuffs. That's just nonsense. There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population). When the unemployment market is consistently slack, it kills workers negotiating ability and distorts corporate profits. When there is limited unemployment, workers have more negotiating power, businesses employ different strategies to increase productivity, and the whole of society benefits.

***

re: Harveys quoting Bill James on the Tea Party:
Was the debt ceiling crap the "fiscal conservatives"? Because that wasn't the act of fiscal conservatives. That was the act of stupid nihilists. People like to claim that they're fiscally conservative, but they don't seem to engage with the actual budget. There are three things that matter in the budget: healthcare for poor people, healthcare for old people, and defense. Everything else doesn't really matter. Also, Bill talking about how the federal gubmint takes 40% of your income should disqualify his point.


Anyway, it's always funny to see how quickly liberals become cost-conscious when a rich person is involved.


Liberals are normally just cost-conscious in general. In Democrat administrations, everything goes to PAYGO. In Republican administrations, everything is argued from principles. I don't know why Liberals are so cost-conscious. This is one of those weird things, like R's having a presumption of competence in national defense. It's a legacy from history, I suppose. Yglesias had a very Slate-y blog post about it yesterday.
   2642. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:20 AM (#4324657)
2640

bah, that's a very negative and flawed view of the country

why is the old guy the one who is the most positive and so many here so cynical?

it astounds me that i am more bullish than folks less than half my age
   2643. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:21 AM (#4324658)
There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population).

This is akin to Bill James's description of Chuck Tanner, and current national economic policy is akin to batting Omar Moreno leadoff in 1985.
   2644. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:22 AM (#4324660)
Speaking of attitudes toward work and career, I watched Jiro Dreams of Sushi last night. A remarkable, fascinating portrait of possibly the most dedicated, diligent worker the world has ever known.
   2645. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:23 AM (#4324664)
it astounds me that i am more bullish than folks less than half my age

I'm unfortunately more than half your age, so I'm old enough to realize that the Fed giving away money for at least seven years (2008 until at least 2015) in the hopes of getting unemployment down to 6.5% isn't symptomatic of just another business cycle we can Chuck Tanner our way out of.
   2646. Chicago Joe Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:26 AM (#4324667)
i think it's irrational behavior to expect a government to get you a good paying job in a part of the country that has been abandoned by market forces


I'd submit that there aren't enough "good paying" jobs in any part of this country to maintain the class structure we're accustomed to. Only so many jobs in North Dakota or Texas or Iowa, and only a portion of those are better than a bog-standard service job in the local mall.
   2647. Greg K Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:28 AM (#4324669)
If they wanted to. Today it's forced, because jobs and industries abandon communities. A bunch of Michiganders have "staked their claims" in places like Texas, but out of economic necessity.

Hasn't mobility always been a key factor in people's economic lives? What is the centuries-long shift from rural to urban nations if not the product of economic realities forcing themselves upon people?

EDIT: Or for that matter the waves of immigration that made North America.
   2648. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4324676)
why is the old guy the one who is the most positive and so many here so cynical?


The job market was so much better forty years ago than it is now. People who first got jobs in the fifties, sixties, or seventies have no idea that getting a job - any job - could possibly be hard. They have some idea that getting a good job is a bit of work, but they've never applied to fifty jobs they're well qualified for and not heard back from any of them.
   2649. Rants Mulliniks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:33 AM (#4324677)
Look, you guys talking about how there's a need for silly protectionism and stuffs. That's just nonsense. There's a need for full employment (meaning unemployment close to 5%, with a LFPR consistent with the age of the population). When the unemployment market is consistently slack, it kills workers negotiating ability and distorts corporate profits. When there is limited unemployment, workers have more negotiating power, businesses employ different strategies to increase productivity, and the whole of society benefits.


So, t, how do we bring employment (and not just any old job - jobs that replace the income lost when all the manufacturing jobs left that are never coming back without some form of tarriffs ) levels back down. Service economies do not generate wealth, so that's not the answer.
   2650. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4324678)
it's the ebb and flow of a society

the 'safety net' folks like to discuss creates a false market that delays progress and stymies soceital evolution

you need some level of destruction for growth.


HW - No surprise but I agree with much of what you are saying. There is a definite cost to having a safety net. I think the economic benefits (counter-cyclical spending as one) and the moral imperative are worth delaying the inevitable change, but yueah destructive change is critical.

I could also argue that having a safety net enables folks to take risks (I am more likely to try to walk the tight rope with a net below me) which is one of the fuels of creative destruction.

And hey I think I am an optimist. I am 47, so I supect I am more than half your age though.
   2651. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:34 AM (#4324680)
Hasn't mobility always been a key factor in people's economic lives?

Sure, there have always been strivers who wanted to be mobile. The question, though, is whether society effectively mandating the striver mentality is wise. The answer is clearly no, IMHO. People shouldn't have to uproot and rip up their lives just so General Electric can become richer.
   2652. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:38 AM (#4324685)
Service economies do not generate wealth, so that's not the answer.


You hear this often, but "service" versus "manufacturing" is a bit sematic. A cafeteria worker at aa Ford plant is in manufacturing. A restraunt worker in the building next to the Ford plant is in a service job. Even if the pay and benefits and everything else are the same.

Manufacturing is overly fetishized (a bit like agriculture was and is), because of BITGOD ...

Basically I think it is more complex than bring back factory jobs.
   2653. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4324686)
brian

first, that's horsesh8t

second, here is why that is horsesh8t

i am and have been invested in numerous companies. i have good awareness of the job market now versus from 50 years ago. i read the same articles as you on line as well as get feedback/reporting from the individual companies in the portfolio

this is another in a long line of transition periods of this conmpany. this downturn is no different than the mid-80's which stunk and the mid-70's which sturnk and etc. it is a transition which means folks are trying to find a spot in a market in flux

in 1999 it was a sellers market for employees who bounced from job to job and each time improved their status.

then it snapped in the other direction.

that has happened in this country multiple times.

if you want to claim i am out of touch you need to bring something better than your assumptions about what you perceive as my lack of awareness.

   2654. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:39 AM (#4324687)
The job market was so much better forty years ago than it is now. People who first got jobs in the fifties, sixties, or seventies have no idea that getting a job - any job - could possibly be hard. They have some idea that getting a good job is a bit of work, but they've never applied to fifty jobs they're well qualified for and not heard back from any of them.

What was the purpose of ripping up the '46-'73 consensus that built a strong middle-class and strong communities all over the country? That was just a stupid ####### thing to do, full stop.
   2655. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4324688)
Anyway, it's always funny to see how quickly liberals become cost-conscious when a rich person is involved. According to the liberals here:

- 100 weeks of unemployment checks = "stimulus"
- Unlimited "safety net" spending = "stimulus"
- $700 million construction project in a blighted area with high unemployment = not stimulus

It's all so confusing.



All three examples are stimulus. Not all stimulus is equal though. #1 & 2 are much more effective stimulus because the multiplier is much higher. Basically the givernment gets more economic bang for its buck. Similarly military spending is stimulus, it is just inefficient stimulus. I prefer my governmental spending to be efficient as oppossed to inefficient.

Secondly the first two serve additional (liberal) goals. The safety net is a good in and of itself (see many posts I made upthread). Making wealthy guy wealthier doesn't serve any liberal goals in particular so it is not much of a surprise that liberals don't support it.

As to your confusion ...
   2656. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4324689)
in 1999 it was a sellers market for employees who bounced from job to job and each time improved their status.

The late 90s economy was a phony one, propped up by cheap consumer credit and artifically-high asset prices. It was destined for failure, and it failed.
   2657. Chicago Joe Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4324690)
What was the purpose of ripping up the '46-'73 consensus that built a strong middle-class and strong communities all over the country? That was just a stupid ####### thing to do, full stop.


1. We could no longer keep defending our then gold-based currency.
2. The rest of the world wasn't entirely interested in maintaining American economic hegemony.
3. The rest of the world could do many of these jobs less expensively.
   2658. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:44 AM (#4324691)
2654

market forces happened.

there was no secret cabal at work
   2659. Bitter Mouse Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:45 AM (#4324693)
What was the purpose of ripping up the '46-'73 consensus that built a strong middle-class and strong communities all over the country?


So the wealthy could get richer and concentrate their power. As Buffet said, there is aclass war in America and my side is winning. End far left rant.
   2660. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:46 AM (#4324694)
2656

you are confusing 1995 with 2005
   2661. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:48 AM (#4324699)
So the wealthy could get richer and concentrate their power. As Buffet said, there is aclass war in America and my side is winning. End far left rant.

Yes, exactly. So why did people like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, and many of the liberals on this board, join with them? And why are their voices still silent on the matter, as they rant and rave about race and privilege.

Earth to modern liberals: You enabled the privileged. You needed their money and favor to win political power.
   2662. Chicago Joe Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:49 AM (#4324702)
you are confusing 1995 with 2005


Not so much-the asset prices I think SBB is referring to were valuations of internet-based companies. Pets.com, anyone?
   2663. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:51 AM (#4324704)
Liberals are normally just cost-conscious in general.


With their own money, yes. Not with other peoples', sadly.
   2664. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:52 AM (#4324707)
Not so much-the asset prices I think SBB is referring to were valuations of internet-based companies. Pets.com, anyone?

Yes. As incomes stagnated, phony wealth increases -- stocks, housing prices, cheap credit -- made people not feel or care about the income stagnation as much and postponed the inevitable.

Then the inevitable hit, and here we are.
   2665. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:53 AM (#4324708)
But as to the primary makeup of CRA opposition: I'm sorry that the simple facts of history seem to disturb you, but the truth is that Barry Goldwater most certainly was an anomaly among CRA opponents in his history of non-racism, and only someone completely ignorant of American history would ever claim otherwise. Take a look at the congressional roll call when that bill was passed, check out the names, and try to argue otherwise with a straight face.

Here's a starting hint: James O. Eastland and Strom Thurmond were not libertarians.


The fact that some cracker racists didn't support the CRA is irrelevant to the libertarian critique of the CRA. Yet, you always bring up the cracker racists when the libertarian critique is presented. Why?


Because without the Eastlands and the Thurmonds and every racist practice and justification they represented, there wouldn't have been a need for the CRA in the first place, and those ponderous libertarian arguments you love to trot out would be nothing more than an an exercise in abstract philosophy. You can't remove a political debate from the context in which it occurred and expect to be taken seriously, but that's essentially what the libertarian argument against the CRA amounts to: An argument that brushes aside the real life consequences of what failure to enact that bill into law would have meant to tens of millions of people.

You can certainly oppose the CRA on non-racial grounds, as Goldwater did and as you do even now. But you can't avoid at the same time having to answer for the real world consequences of that position. You can't simply say "sorry about that" and walk away. And you shouldn't be too surprised when people who don't interact with you on a regular basis (as we do) might question your non-racial motivation in opposing such a basic pillar of American law and life.
   2666. The Good Face Posted: December 14, 2012 at 11:59 AM (#4324715)
FWIW - I am trying to find out where your belief's regarding the incapable lead you. Hopefully I laid out my vision and it makes sense why to a certain degree who is incapable of advancement and who isn't is to a degree irrelevent from a (my) policy perspective (though it clearly matters on an individual and societal level).

This is one of the roots of my problems with much of the "IQ discussion", it tends not to lead to any concrete policies (policy changes) except occasionally in the educational or retraining area.

Note: I avoid the IQ based discussions for other areas as well as I have stated in many previous threads.


I'd have thought it was already clear, but I'm happy to elucidate.

1. Intelligence among people varies and is largely due to genetic/epigenetic factors. For the most part, we are not responsible for how smart or dumb we are.

2. Our intelligence, or lack of intelligence, plays a huge role in how successful we wind up. At this point in Western Civilization, life IS an IQ test. Being smart is no guarantee of success and being dumb is no guarantee of a lack of success, but when looking at large numbers, that's the way to bet. This does NOT mean that I believe there is a sliding scale of perfect correlation between economic success and smarts; in fact, there's some evidence that once IQ gets above a certain point, income starts to decline, but I digress.

3. The impoverished, especially the long term impoverished, are less intelligent than the wealthy on average. Their low intelligence leads to poor decision making, which leads to adverse consequences, which limits options and forecloses avenues of good decisions, which leads to worse decisions, etc. Thus, the people with the lowest intelligence will tend to disproportionately wind up as the most impoverished in our soceity. This is generally not their fault; they didn't choose to be less intelligent.

4. Punishing these people is pointlessly cruel. I'm not necessarily against cruelty when it serves a useful purpose, but I see no such purpose here. Food is cheap and predictable; we know how much food a person needs, and those food needs, unlike medical needs, do not materially change as technology evolves. Ditto for clothing, shelter, etc. Letting people starve/freeze would probably create more problems than it solves, wouldn't make stupid people any smarter, and I don't see how it would serve as a useful object lesson for anyone else. So the sensible thing to do is provide for their basic needs. Thus, the dole.

5. Investing resources aimed to get people out of long term poverty is generally a waste of time. Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so. I'm fine with offering assistance to help get people back on their feet, but we need to cut bait on people who can't get their #### together after a few years. Those folks can't be helped; we can't fix stupid. Keep em on the dole, but don't throw good money after bad trying to get them off it. Unless we're willing to make the hard societal decisions necessary to bring back well-paying unskilled jobs, there's just no point. I'm not making value judgements; I have no doubt that plenty of low intelligence folks are willing and able to work. There's just not much of a place for them in our current economy.

6. We need to make sure we're not incentivizing people who could make a living for themselves to live on the dole. The easiest way to do that is to make sure living on the dole sucks compared to working. I'm not sure we're there right now; I know a few people who have chosen to spend 2 full years on unemployment plus other benefits rather than look for a job. Once the unemployment ran out, they promptly went back to work. There is considerable value in not having to get up every day and go to work; just comparing dollars is a terrible way to make that calculation.

7. How should we deal with the social pathologies that result from paying people to do nothing? Serious question.
   2667. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:03 PM (#4324719)
Unless we're willing to make the hard societal decisions necessary to bring back well-paying unskilled jobs, there's just no point. I'm not making value judgements; I have no doubt that plenty of low intelligence folks are willing and able to work. There's just not much of a place for them in our current economy.

Yep, that's 21st century America. That's where we are and the choice we face.
   2668. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4324722)
5. Investing resources aimed to get people out of long term poverty is generally a waste of time. Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so.


Yup. Sad but true.
   2669. Chicago Joe Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:07 PM (#4324723)
I'm not sure we're there right now; I know a few people who have chosen to spend 2 full years on unemployment plus other benefits rather than look for a job.


2 years on 40% of their previous income, with a cap?
   2670. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:09 PM (#4324725)
Harvey - you're confusing skilled work with unskilled work. Once people have the relevant skills and experience, getting a job is not that hard. Tthe kind of jobs my father, uncles, aunts, mother-in-law got out of highschool are comparitively unthinkable these days. By the time I turned 30, I was in an equal (if not better) position, but as a 17,18 year old it was hopeless - the only jobs I could do had such a glut of applicants, and there's no way to "stand out" when applying to be a cook at McDonald's or something. Most of the applications were binned before anyone even read the name.

I've been perhaps the most make-work person here, but you're clearly way over interpreting what that means. The fundamental point is something like "Give people who're willing to work the ability to make $10/hour street sweeping or whatever" and "Make the kind of jobs you don't need experience to get readily available, so people can get some experience to launch them into better jobs where possible", so they aren't trapped in the "Can't get a job without experience, can't get experience without a job" corner. Plus, the streets are plenty dirty. It's work worth doing.
   2671. tshipman Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:16 PM (#4324733)
So, t, how do we bring employment (and not just any old job - jobs that replace the income lost when all the manufacturing jobs left that are never coming back without some form of tarriffs ) levels back down. Service economies do not generate wealth, so that's not the answer.


Glad you asked! You do it through expanding the money supply, like Bernanke is doing, paired with aggressive fiscal stimulus to raise the level of demand in the economy. As far as a structural reform, you allow the market to do that. Perhaps at the margins, you allow for things like lower barriers to unionization, but I think that the movement away from unions represents something more than right wing politics.

When people talk about manufacturing jobs as this heyday, look at all the costs that went with it. My grandfather worked for Southern California Edison for 40 years. He got a gold watch at retirement. He worked hard and built his middle-class lifestyle. He went from trapping varmints for meat in the great depression to having enough to retire early at 62. But those manufacturing-type jobs come at a price. He's had both knees replaced, with multiple surgeries before getting to that point.

What replaces manufacturing? I don't know and I don't care. The market generally figures out what works. Governments are really bad at setting price levels. If it weren't for that, I'd be a communist.
   2672. The Good Face Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:18 PM (#4324734)
I'm not sure we're there right now; I know a few people who have chosen to spend 2 full years on unemployment plus other benefits rather than look for a job.


2 years on 40% of their previous income, with a cap?


Plus food stamps and SSI, and whatever other benefits they got. So... yes. Again, people place a huge premium on not having to work.
   2673. Poulanc Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:25 PM (#4324737)
Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so.



What do you mean by 'capable'? Do you mean those with an IQ of X or whatever?
   2674. Famous Original Joe C Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM (#4324740)

What do you mean by 'capable'? Do you mean those with an IQ of X or whatever?


If they had an IQ of at least X, they'd already have enough money. Duh.
   2675. The Good Face Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:32 PM (#4324741)
Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so.



What do you mean by 'capable'? Do you mean those with an IQ of X or whatever?


What an odd question.

ca·pa·ble
/?k?p?b?l/Adjective
1.Having the ability, fitness, or quality necessary to do or achieve a specified thing.
2.Able to achieve efficiently whatever one has to do; competent.

   2676. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:35 PM (#4324743)
What do you mean by 'capable'? Do you mean those with an IQ of X or whatever?


If they were able to do it, they would do it.

See how it works?

EDIT: Or what GF said.
   2677. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:36 PM (#4324745)
If the standard liberal response to #2599 is horror, what's the standard Joe and/or Ray response?
"How did she contribute to the incident?"

@2616--I'm a little disappointed that one of my early intellectual heroes is so obtuse when it comes to politics. It seems like Bill James is objecting to the accurate characterization of Tea Partiers based on his wanting them to be seen only according to a very narrow, somewhat more publicized range of the very early views of a minority of the saner members of that party.

re: Harveys quoting Bill James on the Tea Party:
Was the debt ceiling crap the "fiscal conservatives"? Because that wasn't the act of fiscal conservatives. That was the act of stupid nihilists. People like to claim that they're fiscally conservative, but they don't seem to engage with the actual budget. There are three things that matter in the budget: healthcare for poor people, healthcare for old people, and defense. Everything else doesn't really matter. Also, Bill talking about how the federal gubmint takes 40% of your income should disqualify his point.


Yeah. Plus, the people I knew early on in the movement who self-identifed as Tea Partiers were unreconstructed yahoos who talked about wheelbarrows full of Reichsmarks and dropping the entire Congress through traps without any sense of irony or humor. And as soon as you got the reasonable sounding fiscal conservatives in the early TP talking about social issues, the rant against abortion, queers, and so on immediately followed--for the most part.

What's the actual rate paid by those with an income of $1m and up, on all forms of that income? Can't find my links at the moment, but iirc it's around 25%.

Limbaugh today is pretending Clarence Thomas made it on his own, without recourse to AA. 'See what you can do without AA and the Democrat party behind you?'

Except, Thomas shouldn't have been in anyone's top 100 except for his skin color, was Bush's AA pick, and Thomas in fact replaced the Court's leaving black justice. What a hoot.

Extreme income inequality is a bad thing though, and it is not possible without laws and policies that favour the rich (i.e. the rich (corporations) overtly influencing legislation and policy). Under a just set of laws and policies, the law of diminishing returns is pretty solid evidence to me that you can only get so rich before the extra effort required to make that additional dollar isn't worth it. If any of the Libertarians want to pretend that such influence doesn't exist, or that its OK, I can't stop you.

The happiest, healthiest countries are the ones with the smallest range of income.

Yup. I'll add that history tells us that extreme income inequality always leads to increasing political equality, so for that reason alone it's something to be avoided.

It is analogous to protecting the innocent at the price of letting some of the guilty going free. I would rather the guilty go free than the innocent be jailed, just as I would rather let the underserving have some benefits as a price to make sure everyone has a solid safety net - but I totally acknowledge there is no natural law or anythign that says it has to be that way, it is just how I personally feel.


Mouse and hw, we do in fact make it rather difficult for people to go on and stay on social insurance programs out of sheer laziness. We make them go on job interviews, we summon them to offices to ask them why they aren't working, we follow up, and after a while we end their benefits. It's hard to be truly lazy in America.

I'd like to hear someone weigh in on what they think is acceptable in terms of making sure that no one ever slips through (and I liked your comparison to letting some guilty go free in order not to jail the innocent as the inevitable cost of justice). Is it worth it to kick a dozen recipients out of programs to make sure a single lazy person doesn't get to dawdle on our dime? What is the acceptable social cost of moving deserving recipients out of programs in order to get rid of the lazy recipients?

the notion that you had a 'right' to live and die in the same place and get a good paying job along the way does not exist nor has it existed. it's a happy confluence of events working in the individual's favor. nothing that is a 'right'
This seems accurate, to me.

something else that people can do is work to reinvent their cities. that has happened time and again this country. it takes time and commitment but folks make it happen. and then jobs return.
This is one of the occasions where government can help, by, say, selling properties foreclosed for back taxes for pennies, giving tax breaks on work done in recovering areas, and so on.
   2678. Poulanc Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4324746)
What an odd question.



I'm well aware of what the definition of the word capable is. Do you disagree that many people who are poor are at a significant disadvantage and are unable to "getting out of poverty"?
   2679. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:37 PM (#4324747)
Shooting reported at Connecticut elementary school.


Hey look another school shooting.....
   2680. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:41 PM (#4324752)
I'm well aware of what the definition of the word capable is. Do you disagree that many people who are poor are at a significant disadvantage and are unable to "getting out of poverty"?


Their significant disadvantage is that they're lacking some combination of intelligence/dedication/ability/interest. That's the "capable" part, and it is a far greater obstacle than the condition of being poor, a condition that scores of people have shown can be overcome.
   2681. The Good Face Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:45 PM (#4324756)
What an odd question.



I'm well aware of what the definition of the word capable is. Do you disagree that many people who are poor are at a significant disadvantage and are unable to "getting out of poverty"?


What the... did you even READ my post? The entire point was that most people who are impoverished long term are that way through NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN. They can't get themselves out of poverty because they are not capable of doing so. Knowing this, it behooves us to act accordingly and do away with the pious fiction that if we just spent enough money on social programs, those people would suddenly become doctors and hedge fund managers.
   2682. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:48 PM (#4324760)
What replaces manufacturing? I don't know and I don't care. The market generally figures out what works. Governments are really bad at setting price levels. If it weren't for that, I'd be a communist.


The problem is that most us suspect nothing replaces manufacturing. The most economically efficient way to run the market now is to mostly have people not work. We have too much ability to automate work, and to make individual workers more efficient, to need all that many workers. Or at least, it looks like it's likely to end up that way.
   2683. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:49 PM (#4324761)
the payers don't owe it


Yes we do.

Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so.


Flatly and obviously not true.


What I find funny is that this whole IQ discussion was started by The Good Face, who isn't particularly bright at all.
   2684. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4324768)
What I find funny is that this whole IQ discussion was started by The Good Face, who isn't particularly bright at all.


And yet, he's running circles around the people arguing with him, who have a child's view of the issue of poverty and what causes it and therefore no real way to support their arguments. Which is why we've seen the personal attacks, which are not only poor substitutes for coherent thought but expose the lack thereof.

There's no evidence that the people arguing with GF have actually thought their position through. There's evidence that they're aghast at what he's saying, though. They're very aghast.
   2685. hokieneer Posted: December 14, 2012 at 12:58 PM (#4324769)
Most people who are capable of getting out of poverty will do so.



Flatly and obviously not true.



I did and I hardly make enough money to call myself a genius.

Managed to take out enough student loans, worked 1-2 jobs the entire time I was in college, learned a few things while I was there, and now have some marketable skills.

There is still flexibility in this country.
   2686. hokieneer Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:03 PM (#4324771)
The problem is that most us suspect nothing replaces manufacturing.


25 years ago no one could have seen the future need for graphic/web designer, software developers, server hardware manufacturers, or hell even the concept of interface design.

   2687. Lassus Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:10 PM (#4324777)
I did and I hardly make enough money to call myself a genius.

Well, you're not part of the "most", so you've proven what he said. Ipso facto. There really isn't any debate against belief and faith. I'm not even sure where I am in this whole "brains = money" thing, but as far as the "the poor be damned to be poor no matter what", it cannot be disproven as a belief because anyone who was able to get out of poverty should have been able to, as you did, just like he said. And then anyone who can't, can't. Just like he said.

It's solely belief. Not debatable.
   2688. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4324782)
There is still flexibility in this country.
It's great that you were able to get out of poverty, but I'm sure you know that one swallow does not a summer make. In fact, among the Western industrialized nations the US is around the bottom in economic mobility. Also, the most predictive characteristic for personal wealth is the wealth of one's parents.

WTF do you guys think I have, anyway?


Tin foil hats in every color of the rainbow.


Voting to take other people's money isn't "ethical."
It astounds me that you keep thinking we won't notice you omitting the part where you TOO get to vote on whether and how much money gets taken. You know how that works, right?

There was an interesting post a while back that didn't get a reply, afaik:

And amnesty isn't the path to victory for Republicans, it's being actually good at the economy, rather than claiming they'll be good and then being ####. If they put the economic interests of the middle class (people earning $40k-$80k a year, for those of you with car elevators) ahead of the billionaire class, and kept the Jesus-freaks, they'd be a steamroller. But I don't see how to get there from where they are, either.


The trouble with this, though, is that policies that help the middle class actively hurt the wealthy. The Koch Brothers aren't going to donate one hundred million dollars to a national Republican Party whose tax policies have changed to harm their interests. They'll donate and work instead on the state level. Places like Michigan, where Republican dominated politics works to actively destroy unions and union rights. You don't get more middle class than union families, but it's a fundamental principle of right wing politics that unions must be destroyed, wages cut, and pensions eliminated.

A big part of the GOP's problem, politically, is that they're locked in place. They can't become genuinely fiscally responsible because their position on taxes and their demand for an aggressive foreign policy means they can never actually reduce the debt by more than a pittace.

They can improve how they sell the stuff, but they have no capacity for changing the stuff itself.
   2689. The Id of SugarBear Blanks Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:19 PM (#4324783)
What the... did you even READ my post? The entire point was that most people who are impoverished long term are that way through NO FAULT OF THEIR OW

Bizarre, isn't it? They're so wedded to the fatuous notion that wealth and income are accidental and/or the result of unearned privilege that they don't even understand what's being said in opposition.

So all that can be done is to try one more time:

Income and wealth correlate very strongly with intelligence. The relative returns to intelligence are increasing dramatically over time. And that's an unfair and stupid way to run a society.
   2690. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:23 PM (#4324785)
I did and I hardly make enough money to call myself a genius.


Good for you, but that doesn't mean that most people can. My father's family was and remains in poverty for the most part, and has been for generations. They aren't stupid people at all. But only a few of my father's generation managed to make into a materially better situation. This is not because their IQs are low, or whatever; I'd be willing to bet that they all have higher IQs than, for instance, The Good Face (not that that's terribly difficult to achieve). It's because getting out of poverty in a small town in rural Nebraska is difficult, even for smart people.
   2691. BrianBrianson Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:26 PM (#4324787)
The trouble with this, though, is that policies that help the middle class actively hurt the wealthy.


That's why I said "But I don't see how to get there from where they are". It's the wealthy that're weighing them down, not the Jesus freaks. The Jesus freaks bring a slew of votes to the table. They could get enough money from the Religious and the Middle Class to fund themselves, I don't think it's be a problem. But the path I don't see, probably because it's difficult or impossible.
   2692. Infinite Joost (Voxter) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:29 PM (#4324792)
Income and wealth correlate very strongly with intelligence.


Okay, fine. I'm much smarter and almost certainly much wealthier than you are, so that's cool with me. What congressional district to you live in? I have a congressman to buy.


The problem that you have is that you have the causation backwards. IQ doesn't test an absolute: it tests an ability to do well on a test. Which is the kind of thing that is taught much better in private schools (or even just good public ones) than in poor, public ones. People are not poor because they're dumb. They appear dumb because they're poor.
   2693. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:35 PM (#4324798)
voxter

all kinds of small town folks have left teh small town in the rear view mirror. what ties your family so firmly to that area? elderly relatives needing care?
   2694. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:36 PM (#4324799)

Right now, if you’re a woman in the military, which has startlingly high rates of sexaul assault, and you get raped, you have the added insult to injury of having to pay for an abortion out of your own pocket. That’s because the military’s health insurance plan is the only one in the federal government that does not cover abortion in the case of rape or incest. It’ll only cover the procedure if the woman’s life is in danger

Democrats in the Senate have tried to change this, but House Republicans have so far resisted, thus producing two different bills — one with the change and one without. Yesterday, the House named their representatives to a bicameral committee that will hammer out the differences between the two bills, including this provision. While killing the amendment could reignite the explosive abortion and rape debate of the summer, Republicans generally oppose the expansion of reproductive rights, even for raped female soldiers.

Sen. Jeanne Shaheen, the New Hampshire Democrat who authored the amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act, told Salon, “This is an issue of equity.” Every other woman who gets federal health benefits, from civilian government employees, to Medicaid recipients, to federal prison inmates, gets abortion coverage in the case of rape. “It is only fair that the thousands of brave women in uniform fighting to protect our freedoms are treated the same. I have been encouraged by the bipartisan support this provision has received in the Senate thus far, and I urge the House and Senate conferees to continue that support,” Shaheen added.

The Senate passed Shaheen’s amendment 98-0, thanks in part to vocal support from Republican Sen. John McCain, even though nine conservatives on the Armed Services Committee initially opposed it. But House Republicans have been far less supportive. They did not include a similar provision in the House bill, and aides in the past have cast doubt on its prospects. “Historically, social provisions that are not reflected in both bills heading into conference don’t survive,” an unnamed GOP staffer told the Army Times in June. “Amendments like this have come up several times.”
   2695. Poulanc Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:39 PM (#4324803)
Income and wealth correlate very strongly with intelligence.



You know what else correlates with income and wealth? Being a white male.
   2696. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4324804)
Republicans generally oppose the expansion of reproductive rights, even for raped female soldiers.


Just another example of the phony war on women.
   2697. Misirlou's been working for the drug squad Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:41 PM (#4324806)
IQ doesn't test an absolute: it tests an ability to do well on a test. Which is the kind of thing that is taught much better in private schools (or even just good public ones) than in poor, public ones. People are not poor because they're dumb. They appear dumb because they're poor.


I love this quote. Well done.
   2698. Ray (RDP) Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:49 PM (#4324811)
You know what else correlates with income and wealth? Being a white male.


As I said, white straight males are the class most discriminated against in America in the year 2012. The left has no sympathy for them. They're not part of any pet class. And so they're on the short end of all the social policies.
   2699. Harveys Wallbangers Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:57 PM (#4324817)
post 2698

i personally relish in being demonized and reviled
   2700. The Chronicles of Reddick Posted: December 14, 2012 at 01:59 PM (#4324819)
What I find funny is that this whole IQ discussion was started by The Good Face, who isn't particularly bright at all.


On a personal note, I am perfectly happy to avoid the IQ topic because most days I am happy if I can tie my shoes.
Page 27 of 62 pages ‹ First  < 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
danielj
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOT: Politics, August 2014: DNC criticizes Christie’s economic record with baseball video
(6130 - 12:13pm, Aug 29)
Last: snapper (history's 42nd greatest monster)

NewsblogSchoenfield: A quick note about awesome Wade Davis
(1 - 12:12pm, Aug 29)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogOMNICHATTER 8-28-2014
(123 - 12:12pm, Aug 29)
Last: Los Angeles El Hombre of Anaheim

NewsblogJack White, Eddie Vedder, and Paul Simon take in a Seattle Mariners game
(174 - 12:11pm, Aug 29)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(747 - 12:09pm, Aug 29)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogMets call up Dilson Herrera, have "talked about" d'Arnaud to LF
(28 - 12:06pm, Aug 29)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogPosnanski: Alex Gordon and the M-V-P chants
(43 - 12:06pm, Aug 29)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogAngels beat Athletics, Oakland protests game after obstruction call
(1 - 12:03pm, Aug 29)
Last: Danny

NewsblogAfter awkward attempt at game-saving catch, Yankees' Ichiro Suzuki gets testy with reporters
(18 - 12:02pm, Aug 29)
Last: A Fatty Cow That Need Two Seats

NewsblogDavid Justice Says Put Barry Bonds in Baseball Hall of Fame Despite Steroid Use Late In Career
(150 - 12:00pm, Aug 29)
Last: Ron J2

NewsblogJesus Montero gets heckled by Mariners cross checker during rehab stint
(17 - 11:53am, Aug 29)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogJonny Venters Tears UCL, Facing Third Tommy John Surgery
(10 - 11:48am, Aug 29)
Last: CFBF Is A Golden Spider Duck

NewsblogMarkusen: Seinfeld, Sabermetrics and Ken Phelps
(8 - 11:22am, Aug 29)
Last: John Northey

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - August 2014
(367 - 11:22am, Aug 29)
Last: Manny Coon

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 8-29-2014
(10 - 11:09am, Aug 29)
Last: Batman

Page rendered in 1.1046 seconds
52 querie(s) executed