Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Oh come on. You said that your Christianity make you want to push for welfare programs. So it is about Bible verses.

Well, assistance to the less fortunate transcends Christianity, though I'd claim that the "social gospel" of Christ compels those of us who believe to remember the less fortunate and give what we can to heal the sick, feed the hungry, clothe the naked and house the homeless.

It doesn't *have* to imply advocacy that this "charity" be done coercively through government -- but it's not something that can be ruled out completely, either.

Originally Posted by millennialX

wow...

This forum is in its own 4T....

Yeah, and when the hell did it become a nanny state?

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Then I still don't get it (and probably shouldn't ask) because you've shown me nothing offensive here.

Since this subject obviously isn't going away ...

Here's the post which started it all:

Originally Posted by The Rani

Direct quote from the clip, said by Ron Paul:


Kaiser's distortion:

There's nothing "snarky" or "offensive" about comparing direct quotes.
Perhaps the word "distortion" could have been changed to "interpretation" to be less inflammatory .... but that's about it.
In fact, what the heck, I'll go back and change it now.

Oh no! Don't you succumb to the Internet thought police too! Good grief. Talk about a nanny state.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Oh no! Don't you succumb to the Internet thought police too! Good grief. Talk about a nanny state.

Ha!
You're the one who keeps deleting your posts.

Whaaaat? Are you stalking me? If a post of mine has been responded to, it's not deleted. So if you don't want me to delete a post, you better respond to it quick...

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Whaaaat? Are you stalking me? If a post of mine has been responded to, it's not deleted. So if you don't want me to delete a post, you better respond to it quick...

You are free to do whatever you like, just remember that people who live in glass houses ...

Sorry, friend. There's no stone-throwing here. Your post was the subject of a conversation and in an effort to both circumvent the perceived direction of the conversation and appease those claiming to be offended, you changed the post. I realize that it was only symbolic because the subject was still there in your response. But it still set a precedent that "thought police" tactics were sufficient to change people's behavior. That is fundamentally different from posting something, changing one's own mind and deleting it before anyone responds to it. Rani, you know I love you. But you're out of line here. Cheers.

FYI, there was only one of those deleted posts that I caught in time to read.

Then it's of no consequence. If you missed something and wanted it back, you could always PM and I'd gladly forward it to you.

Best...

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Anyone who thinks the government can end poverty is a naive person with no understanding of economics or is an envious liar who doesn't real care about the poor.

That's complete bullshit. Our society is wealthy enough that all poverty is simply the result of greed by the ruling class.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

Fine, Kiff.



Common sense says it does in this case. It's not like it wasn't predictable.

it used to be "common sense" that the Earth was the center of the Universe. Appealing to common sense is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

OMG, this thread is like a warzone. *munches popcorn* FWIW, Ron Paul is an anarchist (except on abortion). Funny how much "anarchist" looks like "Antichrist."

Paul is an oxymoron called an "anarcho-capitalist", which really means "might makes right".

Originally Posted by Odin

That's complete bullshit. Our society is wealthy enough that all poverty is simply the result of greed by the ruling class.

When your yearly income is a billion dollars or even several million a year, what difference does it make if you're forced to pay $100,000 or $400,000 more in taxes? It makes no difference to you--there's no way you can spend a billion in one year anyway. You say they create jobs for everyone else? Oh really? I don't see much "job creation" from the mega-rich in this country. Trickle-down economics is a myth that's held on since the Reagan years but has absolutely no evidence to back it up. The mega-rich are not creating new jobs; they are hoarding their money, investing it in the stock market, or shipping jobs overseas. Nor do they give much to charity. If they do, it's to elite private schools, art museums, symphony orchestras (attended by the wealthy elites), or political campaigns--things that don't really help or make much difference in the lives of the middle class or poor. Meanwhile they want to privatize or even dismantle services that help the vast majority of Americans--social security, Medicaid, Medicare, libraries, public schools, food stamps, the post office for Chrissake! I've heard rumors they even want to privatize the police and fire departments! (If you have a fire or your house is being robbed, you'd have to PAY to have it put out). I read recently that those people giving the most to charities that help the poor are the middle class and lower middle class--yes, those just above being poor themselves. They may be donating as an insurance policy against destitution themselves--or maybe they just can relate more to the poor since they're only a step or two above poverty and in these uncertain times, are likely to fall into it should they lose their jobs or income.

The poverty problem in this country is way out of control and getting worse every day. The problem is way too big for churches and private charities to solve. Those organizations can help a few on the community level, but most they cannot--they simply do not have the funds. It's like trying to bail water out of sinking ship with a thimble. So it's up to government to step in now, since the mega-rich have shown they don't care and won't help, and the private charities can't do much. Like or not, it's the government's responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. It was this way earlier in this saeculum, and who was complaining? The 1950s are much touted as being a time we should return to, but have today's politicians forgotten the 1950s (as culturally stagnant as that time was) were also a time where there were actually such things as government regulations to keep companies from exploiting their workers and raping the earth (Nixon was considered a conservative in his time, but he started or helped start the EPA--and he would probably be considered green today!), government run safeguards and social safety nets to keep people from slipping into poverty (or making the lives of the poor more tolerable), and a general acceptance of labor unions? Without these things, those halcyon days of the High would never have happened.

The way things are going now, unless we help lift up the less fortunate and the middle class, and enable them to build some kind of decent life for themselves, there is going to be nothing left of America to save. Already it's a shell of its former self, and you can see this almost everywhere you go--in blighted storefronts, abandoned houses--sometimes whole housing developments, empty shopping centers, 'dead malls' (though they're sort of cool too), shoddier products every year manufactured in foreign nations by cheap labor, collapsing bridges, cracked and broken roads, increasing crime, more high school graduates than ever unable to attend college or get jobs, a huge recent increase in "tent cities" and modern-day shantytowns and Hoovervilles, and in general the final collapse of the infrastructure we have come to know and love (or hate). At this point, an government intervention is the only way to solve these problems. Big Business certainly isn't going to do it. The way I see it, the super-wealthy in this country have been rewarded far more than they deserve, and since they did so well, they kind of owe a little something back to the country that has showered them with so many blessings. But it's not enough--no, they think they deserve even MORE--and coming from the pockets from those least able to afford it.

And no where in the Bible does Jesus say it's not the government's job to help its people. I'm not sure where the far right got the idea that helping others is "socialism" or "evil." I think Jesus taught quite the opposite. However, the Bible often talks about the evilness of greed and selfishness.

Back during the High and earlier, there was a movement called Christian socialism that was quite popular. The currently popular Prosperity Gospel teaches that God rewards the righteous with material riches. That is complete bullshit. If that's the case, why are there so many religious poor people and so many atheist rich people? I also object to the idea that the rich have "earned" their money. Do people who inherited their millions and have done nothing (Paris Hilton) or people who became rich by acting like jerks in reality shows (the entire cast of The Jersey Shore), or power brokers who do nothing other than order others around like cattle really "deserve" more than the hardworking but poor and middle class people who actually WORK for a living?

Originally Posted by Odin

That's complete bullshit. Our society is wealthy enough that all poverty is simply the result of greed by the ruling class.

It's also ignorance and fear.

Ignorance of what a fiat currency system of a monetary sovereign nation has to offer - a means to avoid the classical trade-off between full employment and price stabilization.

The fear comes from their belief that without the above trade-off, they will be asked to foot the bill either by beng more heavily taxed or by inflating their savings away.

Once educated on MMT, many if not most will come around to seeing the positive benefits particularly the result of substantially increased demand without price de-stabilization and harmful inflation.

It's those in the banking sector that will fight tooth-and-nail because what they do will be clearly shown as not just irrelevant but actually harmful to the larger economy.

Originally Posted by LateBoomer

When your yearly income is a billion a year, what difference does it make if you're forced to pay $400,000 more in taxes? It makes no difference to you--there's no way you can spend a billion in one year anyway. I don't see much "job creation" from the mega-rich in this country. Trickle-down economics is a myth that's held since the Reagan years but has absolutely nothing to back it up. The mega-rich are not creating new jobs; they are hoarding their money or shipping jobs overseas. Nor do they give much to charity. If they do, it's to elite schools, art museums, or political campaigns--things that don't really help the middle class or poor. I read recently that those giving the most to charities that help the poor are the middle class and lower middle class--those just above being poor themselves. They may be donating as an insurance policy against destitution themselves--or maybe they just can relate more since they're only a step or two above poverty and in these uncertain times, are likely to fall into it should they lose their jobs or income.

The poverty problem in this country is out of control and getting worse. It is way too big for churches and private charities to solve. Those organizations can help a few on the community level, but most they cannot--they simply do not have the funds. It's up to government to step in now, since the mega-rich don't care and won't help, and the private charities can't do much. Like or not, it's the government's responsibility to help those who can't help themselves. The way things are going now, unless we help lift up the less fortunate and the middle class, and enable them to build some kind of decent life for themselves, there is going to be nothing left of America to save. Already it's a shell of its former self, and you can see this almost everywhere you go--in blighted storefronts, abandoned houses--sometimes whole housing developments, empty shopping centers, collapsing bridges, cracked and broken roads, increasing crime, and in general the final collapse of the infrastructure we have come to know and love (or hate). At this point, an government intervention is the only way to solve these problems. Big Business certainly isn't going to do it.

And no where in the Bible does Jesus say it's not the government's job to help its people. I'm not sure where the far right got the idea that helping others is "socialism" or "evil." I think Jesus taught quite the opposite. However, the Bible often talks about the evilness of greed and selfishness.

Back during the High and earlier, there was a movement called Christian socialism that was quite popular. The currently popular Prosperity Gospel teaches that God rewards the righteous with material riches. That is complete bullshit. If that's the case, why are there so many religious poor people and so many atheist rich people? I also object to the idea that the rich have "earned" their money. Do people who inherited their millions and have done nothing (Paris Hilton) or people who became rich by acting like jerks in reality shows (the entire cast of The Jersey Shore), or power brokers who do nothing other than order others around like cattle really "deserve" more than the hardworking but poor and middle class people who actually WORK for a living?

two thumbs up on this post!

Oh, wow.

I just got caught up here.

For the record, in my opinion, the Rani has a habit of playing "gotcha" in a fairly nasty way from time to time, and this time she was doing it to me, and I thought she used the facts very selectively to do it. You can all be the judge of that. She apparently doesn't see it that way. The last time something like this happened, she got very offended when I posted, "You obviously don't like me," but I think anyone who had read her posts would have reached that conclusion. What I wrote her privately was private, and it had absolutely nothing to do with either violence or the Mafia.

As for welfare, Moynihan, etc:

1. I could be mistaken, but I don't think anyone can get welfare any more without working as well--any able-bodied person. Wallace makes it sound as if a teen-age mom can still just walk into an office and get five years of support. I am pretty sure that's not true. The five-year limit applied to people already on it.

2. Moynihan did not say that LBJ's programs would lead to single-parent families. He simply pointed out that there had been (in 1964 or 1965 when he wrote his report) a big growth in single-parent families among black people and he thought that was alarming. Now, the single parent rate among whites is a high, or higher, than the rate among blacks was then. Moynihan, to his credit, wanted a universal family allowance, such as they have in civilized countries, where anyone with a kid gets a monthly payment regardless of marital status. We have never had that. Under Nixon he wanted a federally guaranteed income for all, and that was proposed, but defeated.

Originally Posted by Wallace 88

I'll let Justin and JDG deal with your magic pony MMT perpetual motion machine.

I try very hard not to waste my time arguing for or against religion. For the Believer, it generally turns out to be either a harmless delusion, or else self-correcting once his faith-based behavior runs up against reality. In this particular case, the self-appointed Prophet of the New Truth does us a great service in reminding us just how desperately gullible his archetype is when it comes up against a challenge to its worldview -- how strongly it will grasp at any straw, regardless how absurd, that offers the soothing promise of, 'you were right all along; no need to worry; everything will go on just as it always has for you...'

This is why Prophets turn the cracks of a 3T into the destruction of a 4T, once the adults leave the stage and they're all that remains for a time. Fortunately, their time is relatively short.

----
-edit-

Of course, the Faithful always interpret a lack of attention (as they interpret every other possible condition) as yet more proof that they are on the True Path. That's part and parcel of the basic delusion.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I don't get this. The Rani has got to be one of the sweetest persons here. Is intelligence that offensive?

Oh come on. Rani's a great broad, but she's not sweet. She's a crotchety old hag of an Xer, just like we're supposed to be. That's what we like about her.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

But it still set a precedent that "thought police" tactics were sufficient to change people's behavior.

Nah, more like throwing someone a bone.

Which is why I said it was merely symbolic.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Your post was the subject of a conversation and in an effort to both circumvent the perceived direction of the conversation and appease those claiming to be offended, you changed the post. I realize that it was only symbolic because the subject was still there in your response.

The content of the quote was significant. The word which I used to describe it was not.

Both the quote and the word to describe it was significant. It was a bit of editorializing. And that is what the bland, white-bread, hypersensitive "thought police" want to get rid of (except when it serves their interests ).

Best...

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

I don't get this. The Rani has got to be one of the sweetest persons here. Is intelligence that offensive?

Oh come on. Rani's a great broad, but she's not sweet. She's a crotchety old hag of an Xer, just like we're supposed to be. That's what we like about her.

Sorry. But all I see is sweet. She may not like it. But it's a fact...

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sorry. But all I see is sweet. She may not like it. But it's a fact...

And all I see is a bunch of so-called professionals acting like kids. Jesus christ, people gotta grow up. I was about to post that pic of the deer eating popcorn.

Anyway, on a personal note..Ron Paul is somehat appealling as a candidate. My history of voting has always been vote against the party in power. I don't know if 2012 will be any different.So far I'm still leaning towards Obama. But politicians especially getting into their second terms always stink.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

...For the record, in my opinion, the Rani has a habit of playing "gotcha" in a fairly nasty way from time to time, and this time she was doing it to me, and I thought she used the facts very selectively to do it. You can all be the judge of that...

The only one(s) who think it's "nasty" are the ones embarrassed by it. Nobody else could care less...

Originally Posted by Hutch74

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Sorry. But all I see is sweet. She may not like it. But it's a fact...

And all I see is a bunch of so-called professionals acting like kids. Jesus christ, people gotta grow up. I was about to post that pic of the deer eating popcorn.

Didn't anybody tell you? No one "grows up."

Cheers.

Originally Posted by summer in the fall

Didn't anybody tell you? No one "grows up."

Cheers.

Apparently this is proved by a military history professor and a psychiatrist. 7 fucking pages as a result of these two. Besides, I thought one or both had each other on ignore. They should have kept it that way.

Not all is lost though. Learned not to get too involved with people here. Otherwise would see some of that muck come up for all to see.

Originally Posted by playwrite

They have provided no credible or rational rebuttal.

So say you and Many Monkey Turds. That's why even progressives here think you're a joke.

Originally Posted by playwrite

With your ignorance, I would expect the same from you...

-I'm not the one pushing for Weimar Part II.
Thanks for wasting my time.

Just a thought, but couldn't perpetually extending unemployment benefits be a form of welfare? There is a thought that a number of people who would otherwise get jobs ..don't..because UI benefits pay more.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

No, I said that caring for the poor is not a uniquely Christian value. In fact, I pushed for assistance to the poor long before I ever became a Christian.

No, your post discussed the "Social Gospel" as an excuse for welfare programs.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

Compassion is limitless.

It's not my compassion that's being wasting on destructive welfare programs. Its my tax dollars.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

And now he's a politician.

He still knows more about giving people medical care (and compassion) than you do.

Originally Posted by Child of Socrates

As has already been pointed out, traditional welfare programs died in the mid-90's.

Food stamps, section 8 housing, and plain old welfare are still around. All that welfare did was limit some aspects of it to 5 years.

Originally Posted by ziggyX65

It doesn't *have* to imply advocacy that this "charity" be done coercively through government -- but it's not something that can be ruled out completely, either.

Kiff has a problem explaining this.