Originally Posted by spence (Post 761100)

Are there better options to keep the beggars off ones lawn?

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761138)

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system? I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 761136)

clearly you have a firm grasp on the explanation for the reasons for the unemployment numbers.....yikes

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 761144)

spoken like a true Marxist :uhuh:

you should sneak into your neighbor's house and steal a cookie when he's sleeping...much more civilized than putting a gun to his head...

Originally Posted by likwid (Post 761149)

Don't you have illegals to blame?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761138)

Can you really rely on individual compassion when the people are part of a system?

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation. The "system" owes, is required by law, to dole the handout. There is no person to thank or feel beholden to. Instead of gratitude when the gift is given, there is anger when it isn't. And those that pay, rarely meet the recipients and rarely feel the warm flow of personal generosity. And, as the needy grow, in response to the legal confiscation of their substance, those that pay are told they need to pay more.

This is a result of the statist's distrust of the individual, and the continual assault on individual freedom with the excuse that the individual is not capable of solving the problems of humanity. The individual is too selfish. Only the collective can eliminate the problems that ail us.

We must be part of the "system."

I can offer the beggar a cookie, but if my neighbor isn't doing the same for others the problem will still be there.

When the needy become, as apparently they are about to do so, half of the population, then, indeed, everyone and his neighbor (if he is not needy) will have to offer the cookie.

The changing pressures of industry and population can't often be normalized by individual action alone.

-spence

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 761198)

Paul's compassion is what I was responding to. Compassion is a highly personal response. It is the personal response of an individual to the plight of another. It is inherent in human nature, not in the nature of a bureaucracy. Though individuals may collectively create bureacracies, even with compassionate intent, once it leaves their hands it operates as an impersonal mechanism. It knows no personal choice or preference or feeling, and it is not received with gratitude, but with expectation.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761240)

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.


I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.


The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.


This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.


Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.


Does it? I'd think this is more probably a function of the overall economic condition.

-spence

Originally Posted by EarnedStripes44 (Post 761254)

Government in the last 30 years has been the hand-maiden of corporations. Corporate welfare is very real... Adam Smith noted as much when he railed against the Herring's fishery's subsidy nettings in the 18 the century.

Originally Posted by RIJIMMY (Post 761312)

The title of this thread is Spence's communist manifesto

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761240)

The GDP of our nation is the output of a very complex system. Our great wealth is a function of this system which would collapse without structure. Not everybody can be rich, and the rich have built their fortunes (directly or indirectly) on the backs of others.

Yes, the GDP is a result of the system. The system produces the rich. Great wealth is functioned from the system. Some stumble into the automatic outputs and become rich. The backs of "others" are strained by this fortuitous accident backed into by the rich. There, bereft of system grace, go the "others" who were not fortunate enough to stumble into the right output. The outputs were already occupied by the rich, thus denying the "others."

Bureaucratic compassion is critical part of our economic health, and like everything, should of course be carefully measured.

Yes, the antidote to the heartless rich is the compassion of the system. It will divest the greedy of their unfair, ill-gotten gains and place the "others" into the alternate compassionate outputs reserved for those unluckies that didn't accidentally fall into the right slots. Carefully measured, of course.

I think this is more a function of the individual. The individual is responsible for how they feel about the benefits they may gain from the system. Certainly entitlements can after a period of time make people accustomed to certain behavior, but it's still up to the individual to determine how this is received.

The "other" must, as you say, function correctly within the parameters of the system. The "other" is responsible for correct feelings for their fortunate, guided, placement into the remunaritive output. The "other" must not incorrectly receive the output entitlement, though it is for the "other" to determine the manner of reception.

This has nothing to do with class by the way. I'd argue that the corporate elite is just as used to handouts as some welfare recipients.

The corporate elite, of course, as you say, having unjustly, accidentally, fallen into propitious systemic outputs, are as susceptible as the "other" to expecting the entitlements and so must be careful how they receive them lest they be forced to redistribute the gifts back to the system. They must be sure to stroke the correct elements.

The very fact that our government has *any* Federal power is affirmation that some problems require a collective solution.

It is a fact that the system requires Federal power for all solutions, lest renegades such as States, local units, so-called individuals create a disfunction in the complex output. This would be inneficient. System compassion would be challenged. Chaos, starvation, death would ensue.

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. Even the "needy" end up contributing quite a bit under the current system.

The "needy" are the most important cog in the system. Without the needy, the system would collapse.

Some elements of "normal" are certainly in flux. Although, when values are pared down to the essential elements there's very little separation between liberal and conservative ideas as practiced by the bulk of Americans.

"Normal" is always safely in the middle of the flux. "Normal" is always the centrist position in the ever-changing flux of the expanding system. "Normal" cannot deviate toward the dangerous edge of the system. "Normal" must not make definite statements, nor adhere to opinions or beliefs tainted with individualist perception. The amorphous, soft-edged, malleable concensus of the collective is the guide of the "normal." The ever-expanding system must accomodate all new inputs and remold them into system outputs . . .

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 761133)

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 761375)

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/TabBAR/RevBar/bargif/fig2.gif

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 761375)

Do you know how to read a graph? That big text at the top in bold, is called the Title. The left side starting at top goes from +100,000 down to 0 then far down into the negatives where jobs lost peaked close to -800,000 during Bush's last month.

There were only two months on that graph that had actual job growth. Dec -07 under Bush and Nov-09 under Obama.

If the words were reversed and said Job Growth / Job Loss (or was removed entirely) no meaning of the graph would change.

Maybe this'll help:
http://cstl.syr.edu/fipse/TabBAR/RevBar/bargif/fig2.gif

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761377)

I'm just happy we passed "stimulas" so unemployment wouldn't rise over 8%. Whew, that was close. Thank you Obama

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761376)

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761376)

The bottom line is, you are no longer entitled to The American Dream, work hard, make money, buy 2 houses, nice cars, maybe a boat if your real greedy. There are needy, lazy, stupid people who are entitled to your money.
The list of entitlements grows, the list of people to fund it shrinks. Yup, that should work.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761370)

Perhaps you seem to find it more convenient to just argue against a phantom position never really taken. Or, perhaps you think a centrist position is an impossibility so you need to tell me what I think?

Seriously, who are you talking to?

-spence

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 761383)

Argue??? I agreed with everything you said. Have we now evolved into Orwellian double speak--agreement is disagreement, disagreement is agreement, freedom is enslavement, enslavement is freedom?

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 761382)

the Collectivists are at war with the Individualists in America,...which essentially means that they are at war with the founding principles of America...and have been for about a hundred years

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761381)

That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence

Originally Posted by PaulS (Post 761135)

Deficits/Surpluses From 1940 Until 2010

I deleted everything prior to 1970. So now Bush's deficit has to do with what Clinton did but Obama's deficit has nothing to do with Bush did?

Year Nominal Dollars Inflation Adjusted
1970 2.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 15.316 Billion Deficit
1971 23 Billion Dollar Deficit 120.52 Billion Deficit
1972 23.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.638 Billion Deficit
1973 14.9 Billion Dollar Deficit 71.222 Billion Deficit
1974 6.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 26.23 Billion Deficit
1975 53.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 209.608 Billion Deficit
1976 73.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 274.901 Billion Deficit
1977 53.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 187.95 Billion Deficit
1978 59.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 192.4 Billion Deficit
1979 40.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 118.844 Billion Deficit
1980 73.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 190.404 Billion Deficit
1981 79 Billion Dollar Deficit 184.07 Billion Deficit
1982 128 Billion Dollar Deficit 281.6 Billion Deficit
1983 207.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 442.614 Billion Deficit
1984 185.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 378.216 Billion Deficit
1985 212.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 418.231 Billion Deficit
1986 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 429.128 Billion Deficit
1987 149.7 Billion Dollar Deficit 279.939 Billion Deficit
1988 155.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 277.808 Billion Deficit
1989 152.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.775 Billion Deficit
1990 221.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 358.344 Billion Deficit
1991 269.3 Billion Dollar Deficit 420.108 Billion Deficit
1992 290.4 Billion Dollar Deficit 438.504 Billion Deficit
1993 255.1 Billion Dollar Deficit 374.997 Billion Deficit
1994 203.2 Billion Dollar Deficit 290.576 Billion Deficit
1995 164 Billion Dollar Deficit 227.96 Billion Deficit
1996 107.5 Billion Dollar Deficit 145.125 Billion Deficit
1997 22 Billion Dollar Deficit 29.04 Billion Deficit
1998 69.2 Billion Dollar Surplus 89.96 Billion Surplus
1999 125.6 Billion Dollar Surplus 159.512 Billion Surplus
2000 236.4 Billion Dollar Surplus 290.772 Billion Surplus
2001 127.3 Billion Dollar Surplus 152.76 Billion Surplus
2002 157.8 Billion Dollar Deficit 186.204 Billion Deficit
2003 374 Billion Dollar Deficit 430.1 Billion Deficit
2004 413 Billion Dollar Deficit 462.56 Billion Deficit
2005 319 Billion Dollar Deficit 347.71 Billion Deficit
2006 248 Billion Dollar Deficit 260.4 Billion Deficit
2007 162 Billion Dollar Deficit 165.24 Billion Deficit
2008 455 Billion Dollar Deficit 455 Billion Deficit
2009 1400 Billion Dollar Deficit 1400 Billion Deficit
2010 1350 Billion Dollar Deficit 1350 Billion Deficit

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 761386)

So you pretty much just regurgitate whatever Glenn Beck says huh?

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 761390)

C'mon JD. Glenn Beck is not the originator of these ideas.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761392)

Perhaps, the understatement of the entire thread :hihi:


Of course, we must unite to maintain our individuality.

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761381)

That's the "American Dream"...to buy houses, cars and boats?

-spence

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761435)

Wasn't it the forced regulations placed on the banking industry to provide the" American Dream" to those who couldn't afford it what got us into this mess?

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761442)

Not really, that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Sean Hannity audience" sort of answer...

It was the bundling of mortgage based assets, shoddy oversight by regulators and derivative trading (which largely circumvented regulations) that are probably most to blame.

Certainly sub-prime borrowers were/are a part of the problem once the market stalled, but don't think for a second the banks didn't love handing out mortgages like candy. They could skim a little cream from the top and let somebody else deal with the rotten milk at the bottom.

-spence

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761444)

I prefer to call them free loading scum but "rotten milk" works too.:)

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761446)

So the sub-prime borrowers, many of whom have paid into mortgages only to loose their homes due to the recession are scum, but the finance industry, who knowingly took incredible risks with other people's money for quick gain at the expense of everyone isn't?

-spence

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761442)

Not really, that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Sean Hannity audience" sort of answer...

It was the bundling of mortgage based assets, shoddy oversight by regulators and derivative trading (which largely circumvented regulations) that are probably most to blame.

Certainly sub-prime borrowers were/are a part of the problem once the market stalled, but don't think for a second the banks didn't love handing out mortgages like candy. They could skim a little cream from the top and let somebody else deal with the rotten milk at the bottom.

-spence

Originally Posted by JohnnyD (Post 761386)

So you pretty much just regurgitate whatever Glenn Beck says huh?

Originally Posted by buckman (Post 761453)

They are and the politicians that lined their pockets knowing all along they were screwing you and I and worst of all our kids.:fury:

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 761471)

that's the "I wanna score some cheap points with the Barney Frank audience" sort of answer...:uhuh:

Originally Posted by spence (Post 761484)

Followed by an "I don't really care what he said I'm going to make the same inane" response...

-spence