Will Obama pay a political price for his lies?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I did try to answer most of your points. Maybe you can answer one of mine. Just one. My friends will likely never be able to purchase a home, and likely never be able to retire. What would YOU say to him when he's 75 years old, and working at McDonalds or as a greeter at WalMart, because his daughter will still need expensive care? "Too bad?" "That's the way life goes?" "That's the way the cookie crumbles"?

I think we can do better. That's just my $0.02.

I see people who are at that age working in the places that you speak of, one that comes right to mind is working at the cash register at the CVS down the street...he was an owner of a furniture store here for most of my life...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that? I fully expect to still be working at that age, maybe I need a government program....as unfortunate as your friend's circumstance is...people get kicked in the nuts by life all of the time...he could also be a millionaire by the time he's 75 with the right circumstances... you seem to be assuming the worst for him...there are plenty of examples of people that turn these things into great successes... but it's less likely he'll succeed in this economy being strangled by all of the debt that we owe due to the other misguided programs that were sold as intended to prevent people from having to deal with the unfortunate things that happen in life and our steady move to a government assisted society rather than an entrepreneurial free market capitalistic model ever since we reached "peak capitalism" back during the recovery summer

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

...I don't know the circumstances but he has to work at that age for whatever reason, he may need a government program to cure that?

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. but that is what you are asking for in a sense...removal of life's roadblocks to "guarantee" the outcome would be what it would have been if not for life's bumps...or in this case hurdles...and you'd like government to decide which are bumps and which are hurdles But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity. we have many...how are those working out in your opinion?...rhetorical

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. yes I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

you should know by now that when government takes the reigns they tend to blur those "distinguishable differences" so as to include as many in their "charity' as possible...there are plenty of current examples

I'm not about to argue with that irrefutably correct statement. I wouldn't trust this current federal government with much.

But I do disagree with your statement that I am looking to guarantee equality of outcomes. If people make stupid or irresponsible decisions, they can deal with the consequences of that. I can't say that any more clearly, and that should convey that I am not looking to make outcomes equal.

But it would be worthwhile, I think, to do what we can to remove this opportunity-limiting event.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

The difference between equal "opportunity" and equal "outcome" is a convenient rhetorical distinction used to politically strive for the latter. The glue that equates the two concepts is the word "equal". In reality there is no such thing as an equal opportunity. Opportunities cannot be equal in actual time, space, and matter. Even less so within the more complex realm of human beings and human nature.

If by "opportunity" you mean the chance to acquire a finite existing object, obviously, not only is it not possible for "everybody" to acquire that object, but no matter how assiduously "everybody" attempts to meet the requirements needed to get that object, there are those factors which you keep insisting must be overcome for everyone to have the same "opportunity"--those pesky things that no one can possibly control--hereditary differences that physically or mentally or psychologically (even spiritually, if you will), qualify in some way some more than others to get the object. There is a pre-existing condition which nullifies an "equal" opportunity to achieve the goal.

On the other hand, if you mean by opportunity one's individual capacity to achieve personal goals, even in the face of difficult obstacles, that is, treating every obstacle as an opportunity rather than a defeat, that would be a "more" equality of opportunity, one which cannot be tampered with by politics. If you politically remove the obstacle, you erase the opportunity for the individual to overcome it. You do not create "more" equal opportunity, you erase the opportunity in the hope of creating a more equal outcome.

For example, I had friends at UCONN whose parents worked hard to pay tuition, and my friends didn't work hard and graduated with worthless degrees in things like communications. Those friends are struggling a bit, and I have no problem whatsoever with the fact they are struggling. They had the opportunity, they made bad choices, so it's just and fair that they face the consequences.

You judge that the reason those supposedly less fortunate friends are deservedly struggling is because they didn't take advantage of opportunity to make good choices rather than bad ones. How many choices in the sphere of what you consider good and bad were there to make? If the good choices were narrowed to a smaller finite number, would it be possible for everybody to succeed in the limited space provided by the market? Would some, even most, not win the coveted positions which would go to the "most qualified" amongst all?

And what part did those factors which they had zero ability to control have in making choices--inherited abilities and personality characteristics? And those that chose "communications," did they all fail? Or did some succeed in doing "well" with that choice? And in filling the limited number of positions that excluded others who made "bad choices"? Some will "do better" in the financial arena than others. And that will be the case, no matter how hard everyone tries nor how wise they are. The political guise of creating equal opportunity (outside of obvious discriminatory practices such as race) cannot do so, and any attempts are actually trying to create equal outcomes. As far as "more" equal opportunities, some are more equal than others.

I can't bring myself to feel the same way about people who struggle with medical expenses. If my friends (with the sick daughter) were struggling because they made bad business decisions, or because they flushed their money away on expensive cars, that's one thing. But their struggles are from causes that they had zero control over.

In a perfect world, we'd all have the same oppotunities to be successful. I have no issue with people who make stupid choices, having to live with the consequences of their choices. However, I don't think that's equivalent to someone struggling because they, or someone in their family, was born sick. Those are distinguishable scenarios.

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Did your friend's daughter survive and is she better? Are your friends recovering from the economic disaster? Are they gradually doing better. I hope all of that is the case. If it is, then they seized the opportunity they were given to overcome a terrific obstacle, and they should be a lot stronger for it.

If not, is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes for everyone by eliminating disasters for some?

She is doing better, thanks God.

They are not recovering economically. They will likely never be able to own a home, and likely never be able to retire.

"is the answer then to "more" equalize financial outcomes "

Not to equalize outcomes. The answer is to equalize opportunity. Those 2 things are very different, and I must be doing a terrible job articulating that, because it seems you and Scott are under the impression I'm talking about equalizing outcomes.

Let's say the average family will soend $150,000 on medical expenses oveit lives. SOme families might spend none, some spend a lot more. I'm making this up...but if there was some public fund that we all poaid into, that paid for all of our medical expenses (for thjings that are random, which we have no control over) over $150,000, that would eliminate the "penalty" that some families suffer, and give them the opportunity to achieve the same success that others enjoy.

I don't think the unlucky families "deserve" the financial struggles and limited opportunities that they will face through no fault of their own, nor do I think the people born healthy "deserve" the financial windfall that comes with being lucky enough to be born healthy.

It would be moral, in my opinion, to normalize opportunity for life-altering events that are completely beyond anyone's control.

I cannot make the case that it will be perfect, flawless, inexpensive, without waste, easy, or constitutional. You and Scott have me there, I concede that. But it feels right to me.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

No. I wouldn't say that we need a government program for every conceivable reason that someone may be struggling.

Let me try to articulate my feeling this way...I don't think we need government programs to guarantee equality of outcome. But I think it might be worthwhile to have safety nets that guarantee more equality of opportunity.

.

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast,

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by scottw

I think if you put your feelings aside for a moment and look at what you've written you'll realize that you are arguing myopically for more of what you constantly rail against simply because you have an experience or a tragedy close to you that you feel needs being corrected....this is how all of these "safety nets" get set up, some politician finds a sad story, demands that this "never, ever happen to anyone again", proposes a government managed solution, claims anyone that disagrees is coldhearted and draconian and..... poof...we have a new government program sold to cure some societal ill...funded by tax dollars from a "general fund" that is never fully funded.... forever ...but we know how it always ends up....Jim...if you start a fund to help your friends today, I'll be the first to contribute without even knowing them....or...I could send the same money to some government agency and let it trickle through the machinations of the bureaucracy where they might end up with a tiny percentage of the original "contribution" which means many others must be made to "contribute"...of course, if you set up your "safety net to guarantee more equality of [U]opportunity"...you authorize the government to take and spend from others as/when it sees fit and where it sees need for equality of opportunity...if it's a local institution, you may have some measure of control but if it's the federal government, I doubt you'll like how it picks and chooses eventually and there is nothing that you can do once that ball gets rolling....this is a microcosm of what's wrong with the way that government inherently operates, a symptom of how we've been conditioned to "feel" that wrongs should be righted and not only don't you seem to see it, you are participating in it and feeding the beast,

If you knew me before my friends were in this situation, you'd know that I felt exactly the same way. Exactly the same way. I'm sure I'm more emphatic about it now, but it did not alter my thinking.

What I rail against is waste, stupidity, political kickbacks/bribery, and spending more than we can ever afford on things we don't need. I'm not an anti-government anarchist, there are some things I'd like the government to do. This is one of them.