News Discussing Socialism: Harnessing Self-Interest & Avoiding Mediocrity

[Smurf]

OK, I did not mean to bring up a the subject of flat tax. My point is that everyone should pay taxes, including the poor. Because, in this country you don't have to be poor if you don't want to be. Unless you are mentally disabled, or in some circumstances physically disabled, you don't have to live in poverty. If I wanted it bad enough, there is no reason I could not become a millionaire. I work hard enough to not be in poverty but I'm too lazy to make the sacrifices in order to be a millionaire. But I could become rich if I wanted to, the opportunity is there.

I think this statement has one main problem, wealth is not infinite. If you become a millionaire, someone else can't be.

 

[drankin]

I think this statement has one main problem, wealth is not infinite. If you become a millionaire, someone else can't be.

LOL, how do you figure?

 

[drankin]

You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too:
-get a better job
-work more hours
-get a second job
-get an education

The problem is that not everybody has these options. I'll go as far as saying many poor people have kids, and kids destroy your money situation because they require time and money. You can't get another job or work more hours because the kid takes up your extra time. You can't save any money because the kid needs to be fed and clothed. You can't get a loan because banks tend not to trust poor people.
You're stuck renting rather than mortgaging, so you have no equity.
You live paycheck to paycheck, so you have no savings or assets.
You can't get a loan, so you can't go to school.
Your kid takes up your free time, so you can't get another job.
It's over, you lose. Then some guy thinks you should also pay more taxes.

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

I never said increase taxes. Everyone who benefits from roads, the fire department, schools, law enforcement, etc. should pay their share of taxes based on their income. Poor or rich. People should not have kids unless they can provide for them. But, people are dumb (I sure was). There are circumstances beyond ones control but that is the exception. We shouldn't make life any less difficult for those who make bad choices. When you do, you enable that behavior.

The bleeding heart routine will only make you frequent the blood bank. Because people will drain you dry if you let them and not even realize they are doing it.

 

[ShawnD]

I agree that people should learn from their mistakes, but accidental kids are not something you can learn from in the same sense as shocking yourself when you plug something into the wall. When you get shocked by the wall, no harm is done and you can just not do it again. When you have an accidental kid, that accident drags you down for the next 18 years. It's sort of like getting AIDS then saying "well don't get AIDS next time"; the problem is that there is no next time.

I also agree that we should not encourage irresponsible behavior, but at the same time we shouldn't just let people rot because of their mistakes. An example of enabling bad behavior would be to increase welfare to people who have kids they can't pay for. Why stop having kids if the government will keep paying for them? An example of helping people without encouraging stupidity would be something like free day care but have "right to work" style of welfare; that means you only get your welfare money if you actually do work for the state. The state is saying "we'll take care of these kids for you, but you still need to get off your ass and work for a living".
I'm not saying that idea should be done or anything, but it's food for thought.

 

[drankin]

I agree that people should learn from their mistakes, but accidental kids are not something you can learn from in the same sense as shocking yourself when you plug something into the wall. When you get shocked by the wall, no harm is done and you can just not do it again. When you have an accidental kid, that accident drags you down for the next 18 years. It's sort of like getting AIDS then saying "well don't get AIDS next time"; the problem is that there is no next time.

I also agree that we should not encourage irresponsible behavior, but at the same time we shouldn't just let people rot because of their mistakes. An example of enabling bad behavior would be to increase welfare to people who have kids they can't pay for. Why stop having kids if the government will keep paying for them? An example of helping people without encouraging stupidity would be something like free day care but have "right to work" style of welfare; that means you only get your welfare money if you actually do work for the state. The state is saying "we'll take care of these kids for you, but you still need to get off your ass and work for a living".
I'm not saying that idea should be done or anything, but it's food for thought.

I think we pretty much agree, I just have a little less patience, having been destitute, married (miserably), with kids myself once upon a time and crawling out of the mess I had put myself in.

 

[X-43D]

You can only get out of poverty if you have options available. Some of them are fairly obvious, too:
-get a better job
-work more hours
-get a second job
-get an education

The problem is that not everybody has these options. I'll go as far as saying many poor people have kids, and kids destroy your money situation because they require time and money. You can't get another job or work more hours because the kid takes up your extra time. You can't save any money because the kid needs to be fed and clothed. You can't get a loan because banks tend not to trust poor people.
You're stuck renting rather than mortgaging, so you have no equity.
You live paycheck to paycheck, so you have no savings or assets.
You can't get a loan, so you can't go to school.
Your kid takes up your free time, so you can't get another job.
It's over, you lose. Then some guy thinks you should also pay more taxes.

Michael Moore once said something to the effect of "raising minimum wage is in your best interest because it means fewer people will break into your house and steal things". He may have used the term minimum wage, but overall what he's talking about is poverty. Reduce poverty and we won't need to worry so much about crime. Increasing the taxes on poor people will only increase destitution, which would theoretically increase crime.

Those without a high school diploma and other educational qualifications find it harder to find an adequately paying job, only low-paying jobs. There is always competition for high-paying jobs while the low-paying jobs are for those who are less educated and less skilled.

http://www.quintcareers.com/surviving_low-wage_jobs.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_poor

 

[Pythagorean]

I'm torn on this one. Firstly, I'm pro-choice, and if you aren't in the state to support children, you shouldn't have them. Deferring gratification argument is partially valid here, too. I think practically any US citizen is capable of making a living for themselves if they sex responsibly and are raised aware of their options in a capitalist economy (even transport to where workforce is in demand can be done cheap or free). I live comfortably on about 12 grand a year, sharing expenses with a girlfriend as an undergrad (loans and grants).

That being said, I don't have a problem with poor people eating with my taxes either. Eventually, I'll get a degree and make more money and contribute more taxes, and I'd hope that I still feel the same way.

That being said, I don't know who's to blame for irresponsible people (besides themselves)

Some Possibilities:
(in order of perceived significance)

-bad parenting
-genetics
-social service programs
-the justice system (who defines criminal)
-things I haven't thought of

 

[ShawnD]

I'm torn on this one. Firstly, I'm pro-choice, and if you aren't in the state to support children, you shouldn't have them.

Ideally yes, but an episode of Frontline revealed how this isn't always possible. You can view the entire episode online
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

Basically there are a bunch of laws that make abortion impossible for those who can't afford it. I think it was Mississippi in particular that has only 1 abortion clinic, and the law requires you to meet in person for a consultation and wait 1 full day. Not everybody has the transportation to do this, or the ability to miss 2 days of work.

 

[Pythagorean]

Ideally yes, but an episode of Frontline revealed how this isn't always possible. You can view the entire episode online
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/clinic/view/

Basically there are a bunch of laws that make abortion impossible for those who can't afford it. I think it was Mississippi in particular that has only 1 abortion clinic, and the law requires you to meet in person for a consultation and wait 1 full day. Not everybody has the transportation to do this, or the ability to miss 2 days of work.

Hrm... that's pretty lame policy-making and my gut says it's based in religion, but that's just conjecture.

I don't think I could afford an abortion, but I'm not planning on ever needing to. You can bump uglies responsibly in the first place.

I realize though, that not everyone is educated like this. Some people hide the word sex from their kids well into their teenage years, when they've already figured it out on their own, from their peers.

 

[ShawnD]

Hrm... that's pretty lame policy-making and my gut says it's based in religion, but that's just conjecture.

Indeed it is bad policies, and it is driven by religion.

 

[drankin]

Indeed it is bad policies, and it is driven by religion.

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

 

[ShawnD]

Different subject but, what does religion have to do with killing unborn babies? Is it only wrong to kill babies if you are religious?

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

 

[drankin]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.

 

[Smurf]

The definitions of human are different between atheists and religious people. Religious people think anything past conception is killing, which is why the day-after pill is a sin. Atheists look more towards the birth as being the cut off point between "human life" and "just a bunch of cells". To an atheist, the day-after pill or an abortion is more like killing the bacteria on your counter top than it is killing a human being.

Okay. I'm not going to ream you out for that post because I'm pretty sure you realize you're making gross over-generalizations, and you were just too lazy to use detail, that's cool I do it too. But just so that everyone else reading this knows: Religion has nothing to do with it. Politics has forced the abortion debate into these particular camps.

 

[Smurf]

Are you sure you are speaking for atheism in general? Atheism just means one does not believe in a supernatural divinity. Why would an atheist believe one particular way or another on whether a human being needs to exit it's host (mommy) to be classified as a such? It's seems to be more of a medical determination than a religious/atheistic one.

It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

 

[drankin]

It's not medical, it's political. During the French revolution they changed from a system of rights where you asked "what religion is he" to a system where you just had to ask "are they citizens". Now politics is evolving again and this debate is one particularly shallow aspect of it. We're asking "are they human".

I agree with you. Where I was going is that the issue has been so polarized based on religion that people haven't take a fresh look at it without bias. Who cares what your religious or lack of religious beliefs are. Are we talking about a human life or not? That is what is important.

I apologize for thread derailment. If anyone wants to start a thread specific to this topic, I'm in.

 

[ShawnD]

edit: comment deleted because a new thread was created

 

[russ_watters]

But those who didn't finish high school, need to be reeducated in order to complete their high school diploma. The reeducation is private and it costs about 10,000 dollars, depending on the subjects which need to be completed. Without a high school diploma (or a matriculation certificate) it is difficult to find a well-paying job and to get out of poverty.

How many times must the government give people hand-outs before personal responsibility takes over? Or do you even believe in the concept of personal responsibility?

In no society that has or will ever exist are people simply handed the needs of life. Everyone can't be a king or a politician.

How do you reconcile these conflicting ideas? How much should the government pay? How much personal responsibility should people be allowed to shirk?

 

[russ_watters]

I think that perhaps source of your amazement may be erroneous assumptions about the "core ideals" of the Democratic party.

What Clinton did was not abolish welfare, or violate any socialist value held dear by democrats.

Did you happen to read any of the opening post...? What Clinton did was widely decried by leading Democrats as being against the party ideals and was an issue taken directly from the Republican's playbook.

Democrats were critical of Clinton's decision to sign the bill, saying it was much the same as the two previous welfare reform bills he had vetoed. In fact, it emerged as one of the most controversial issues for Clinton within his own party.[Haskins 2006]

Critics made dire predictions about the consequences of welfare reform. For instance, they claimed that the five-year time limit was needlessly short, and that those who exceeded the limit through no fault of their own might turn to begging or crime. They also felt that too little money was devoted to vocational training. Others criticized the block grant system, claiming that states would not be able to administer the program properly, or would be too motivated by cost. Finally, it was claimed that although the bill might work in a booming economy like that of the 1990s, it would cause significant harm in a recession.

Social evolution is as real as biological evolution. A society is at it's peak when every individual is realizing her full potential. Each individual will more fully realize his potential when his/her basic self maintenance needs are met. Just like in the military. Each individual is provided food, shelter, clothing, health care, education, and employment.

What is wrong with a civilian government providing these most basic needs to all it's citizens?

The results of the government stopping providing many of these services is clearest in what didn't happen as a result of the reform. Forcing people to take personal responsibility for their lives did not result in higher crime, higher poverty, etc. People actually will take care of themselves if forced-to! (what a bizarre concept! )

How can a government claim sovereignty if it cannot provide these most basic needs?

Where in what political theory does that question come from? It certainly was not part of the principles on which the US and most western governments that followed were founded. Most of these social "entitlements" that people now take for granted in the US were put into place in the 1930s by Roosevelt. The changes he made to the government - and mostly not for the better - were the biggest in the country's history. And much of it was unconstitutional - some laws were overturned and later "fixed" to be constitutional, but much of it was allowed by a Supreme Court that became passive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Deal


Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility...

 

[Smurf]

Also, I don't see any part of the definition of the word "sovereign" that applies here. "Sovereign" just means having ultimate authority. The only thing I can think of that applies here is that in a democracy, the people are sovereign. But then, that wouldn't fit with your thesis, since it would require personal responsibility...

Sovereignty when analyzing a state boils down to what's called a 'monopoly on violence'.