If Mort Divine ruled the world

[arg]

OH NOES those evil, terrible 1% let's blame it all on them!! Guess what, you have NO ENTITLEMENT to their money.

Even if the government did tax the shit out of them, unless you're an absolute bottom-of-the-barrel-scraper POS you won't get SHIT.

The money will go into the government's pockets and the rest will be wasted on stupid, useless things. I repeat, if you're middle class you won't get JACK SHIT out of taxing the 1%

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I started ignoring you here:

The correct solution is to stop all welfare so they starve and die off, mandatory abortions and sterilizations

 

[Dak]

They obviously all have stipulations. I just pointed out the half that have enough stipulations to make a good case that they're not enabling people to leech off the system.

Why can't they still be enabling? I just gave you evidence that they're not - it's your turn to show evidence that they are.

So "looking for work" or "having had a job for a bit" is enough to prevent enablement. On the contrary, there's an entire mode of living that hinges on the way these programs are set up.

I'd also add that poor people aren't the only ones who hear "nothing bad is your fault" -- the bankers who ripped off America during the financial crisis, and avoided criminal charges while their businesses failed, got that message too.

11 million working Americans live in poverty, while the wealthiest 1% own over 40% (and growing), or $34 trillion, of the country's wealth. That 1% could pay off the entire national debt right now, and balance the budget for as long as you could possibly forecast. That you and other conservatives ignore this problem because you're more worried about poor people "leeching off the welfare state" is beyond absurd.

This is a steaming pile of rhetorical shit for reasons too numerous to exhaustively recount here and again, but I'm going to respond to a few things:

1. No one on this board that discusses these types of issues has been more even handed in decrying rentseeking and budget deficits than me.
2. The hypothetical you propose ignores all sorts of issues surrounding those wealth figures when it comes to liquidity, never mind the fact that we could come up with an infinite number of hypotheticals that involve spending the money of others. Hell, let's curb stomp your neighbor and take his wallet, would definitely help you pay some bills. Maybe if we curb stomp enough people we could give some money to the rich people who loaned the US the money to fund the deficit.
3. You bring up the "working poor". This group includes a significant amount of people utilizing those funds to enable them to shirk through temp/seasonal jobs and then hop back on the dole for 6-9 months. And when I say shirk I mean shirk. It's in their interest to get fired as fast as possible, and they know exactly how to do it: Don't show up half the time, stand around goin "I don't know" or playing on their phones when they are at work. Why would you bust your ass just to try and end the gravy train when you only have to put up with the "hell" of earning your money for a few months out of the year?

Obviously there are always heart-tugging cases of well-meaning people in tough spots. But as an actual member of the working poor, I can see things from the inside and there's a significant amount of cultural problems that the left sort of attitude only enables, along with the payouts. I'm surprised you don't mention the rentseeking aspect of the payouts themselves. Large corps are in favor of many of these types of programs - it allows them to pay less, engage in more JIT hiring, etc.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

So "looking for work" or "having had a job for a bit" is enough to prevent enablement. On the contrary, there's an entire mode of living that hinges on the way these programs are set up.

...

3. You bring up the "working poor". This group includes a significant amount of people utilizing those funds to enable them to shirk through temp/seasonal jobs and then hop back on the dole for 6-9 months. And when I say shirk I mean shirk. It's in their interest to get fired as fast as possible, and they know exactly how to do it: Don't show up half the time, stand around goin "I don't know" or playing on their phones when they are at work. Why would you bust your ass just to try and end the gravy train when you only have to put up with the "hell" of earning your money for a few months out of the year?

...

Obviously there are always heart-tugging cases of well-meaning people in tough spots. But as an actual member of the working poor, I can see things from the inside and there's a significant amount of cultural problems that the left sort of attitude only enables, along with the payouts.

1. One of the requirements of unemployment insurance is that you lost your last job through no fault of your own. Presumably the employer would have to be in on this scheme you allude to in order for it to work.
2. In November 2014, the number of Americans on unemployment insurance was 2.3 million - the lowest since 2000. This "scheme" involves 0.7% of the population, and has been on a downward trend, so apparently it doesn't work that well.
3. The percentage of unemployed people collecting benefits was 29% last year, versus 40% in 1973, partly due to increased eligibility restrictions - another indication that the "scheme" isn't working that well.
4. The only clear evidence I've found of abuse so far is that in 2011 $3.3 billion was defrauded from the program by people who collected benefits while employed - that's an unimpressive 3% of the $108 billion paid out that year, and it happened during an exceptionally bad recession, so it's not a very good indicator of the potential for future abuse.
5. Your post is full of generalizations, assumptions, and personal anecdotes. You've given me zero evidence so far. If that's the best case you have to offer against just one of the numerous welfare programs we're talking about, this discussion is a waste of my time.

2. The hypothetical you propose ignores all sorts of issues surrounding those wealth figures when it comes to liquidity

Given the Federal Reserve's demonstrated ability to create massive liquidity, I don't see that as an issue. Just appraise the assets, securitize them, and have the Fed purchase ownership stakes with printed cash.

never mind the fact that we could come up with an infinite number of hypotheticals that involve spending the money of others. Hell, let's curb stomp your neighbor and take his wallet, would definitely help you pay some bills. Maybe if we curb stomp enough people we could give some money to the rich people who loaned the US the money to fund the deficit.

You're missing the point of the hypothetical, which was to show that wealth inequality is ridiculous and getting worse. If you truly believe that people with billions of dollars, who can live off of investment income, bribe politicians into guaranteeing the profitability of their investments, and protect those profits in tax havens, actually deserve "their" money, this discussion is again a waste of my time.

 

[Dak]

1. One of the requirements of unemployment insurance is that you lost your last job through no fault of your own. Presumably the employer would have to be in on this scheme you allude to in order for it to work.
2. In November 2014, the number of Americans on unemployment insurance was 2.3 million - the lowest since 2000. This "scheme" involves 0.7% of the population, and has been on a downward trend, so apparently it doesn't work that well.
3. The percentage of unemployed people collecting benefits was 29% last year, versus 40% in 1973, partly due to increased eligibility restrictions - another indication that the "scheme" isn't working that well.
4. The only clear evidence I've found of abuse so far is that in 2011 $3.3 billion was defrauded from the program by people who collected benefits while employed - that's an unimpressive 3% of the $108 billion paid out that year, and it happened during an exceptionally bad recession, so it's not a very good indicator of the potential for future abuse.
5. Your post is full of generalizations, assumptions, and personal anecdotes. You've given me zero evidence so far. If that's the best case you have to offer against just one of the numerous welfare programs we're talking about, this discussion is a waste of my time.

It's called seasonal/temp work. If you don't know what that is, or didn't bother to note it, who is wasting who's time? It doesn't matter what the person does, they are going to be let go at the end of the term through no fault of their own (unless they try really hard to turn the opportunity into something else, of course). While unemployment insurance is on the downward trend because of increasingly stiff stipulations (I know this), that doesn't say anything about other forms of welfare which are means tested (eg: You're poor, so here) vs requiring recent employment. It's also going down because employers have other methods of dealing with poor employees that don't involve firing them or "letting them go", and one in particular is extremely effective. I'll admit surprise if you could guess it, based on the discourse so far.

Unemployment insurance is only a small fraction of the total grab bag of gimmedats out there, and being eligible for one often indicates eligibility for others. They can stack. I know we are eligible for food stamps at a minimum but we don't need them. I have no idea what other things we would be eligible for because I don't go hunting that cheese. That over 3 billion of unemployment was determined to have been paid out to people employed should be considered an argument against your bleeding heart, not for it: both in distrust of the bureaucracy and the gimmedatters.

Given the Federal Reserve's demonstrated ability to create massive liquidity, I don't see that as an issue. Just appraise the assets, securitize them, and have the Fed purchase ownership stakes with printed cash.

So why not just ctl-v a katrillion dollars and make everyone a millionaire? Given the Fed's ability to create massive liquidity and all. Forget transfers, securitizations, etc: just fabricate a government deposit account (gotta think of all the "disenfranchised" with no bank account), deposit a million dollars into each one, and mail out the corresponding debit card. Poverty problem solved.

You're missing the point of the hypothetical, which was to show that wealth inequality is ridiculous and getting worse. If you truly believe that people with billions of dollars, who can live off of investment income, bribe politicians into guaranteeing the profitability of their investments, and protect those profits in tax havens, actually deserve "their" money, this discussion is again a waste of my time.

You're missing the point. I have (and even just referred to it) decried rentseeking, and rentseeking is a problem for many of the wealthy. However, welfare is just another form of it, only for the generally dumber and certainly less connected. Furthermore, at least much of the rentseeking for the wealthy goes towards something other than netflix and chill. An overly costed interstate repair or weapons system is still better than hookers and blow, or even just fast food and an Aaron's furnished apartment. Is the system flawed and corrupt? Absolutely. Do some rich people get away with proverbial (and real) murder? Couldn't agree more (your liquidity generating Fed buddies are the ringleaders in fact). Are gimmedats even the beginning or part of a solution, or even some sort of bandaid? No.

 

[Cythraul]

I can't believe after all these years you folks still have these huge debates about whatever here. Dakryn's always going to be a right-wing kook (not a bad thing imo!) and the rest of you will get butthurt about it. Same shit, different year. Get a life!

 

[Einherjar86]

So why not just ctl-v a katrillion dollars and make everyone a millionaire? Given the Fed's ability to create massive liquidity and all. Forget transfers, securitizations, etc: just fabricate a government deposit account (gotta think of all the "disenfranchised" with no bank account), deposit a million dollars into each one, and mail out the corresponding debit card. Poverty problem solved.

I'm confused - it seems as though Grant's suggesting the Fed print money for value that already exists in the private sector. You're suggesting that they just whimsically print money for value that isn't there. That strikes me as a significant difference.

 

[zabu of nΩd]

I'm confused - it seems as though Grant's suggesting the Fed print money for value that already exists in the private sector. You're suggesting that they just whimsically print money for value that isn't there. That strikes me as a significant difference.

This hypothetical's become more of a distraction than it's worth, but yes that's it.

 

[Dak]

I'm confused - it seems as though Grant's suggesting the Fed print money for value that already exists in the private sector. You're suggesting that they just whimsically print money for value that isn't there. That strikes me as a significant difference.

They did that decades ago. The Fed is already well into a program of "whimsically printing money for value that isn't there". Why not just hand it to the poor then instead of propping up the real estate and stock values of those rich enough to have either or both.

Also, contra Grant regarding the "distraction", it's a situation that is at the very heart of the wealth inequality that concerns him so much.

 

[Dak]

Circling back to Sowell's position:

http://www.eastbayexpress.com/oakland/rich-black-flunking/Content?oid=1070459

To racial theorist Shelby Steele, the response to Ogbu's work was sad but predictable. Steele, a black research fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution and the author of The Content of Our Character: A New Vision of Race in America, has weathered similar criticism for his own provocative theories about the gap between blacks and whites. He believes continued societal deference to the victims of racial discrimination has permitted blacks "the license not to meet the same standards that others must meet," which has been detrimental to every aspect of African-American life. "To talk about black responsibility is "racist' and "blaming the victim,'" he says. "They just keep refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the living room -- black responsibility. When anybody in this culture today talks about black responsibility for their problems, they are condemned and ignored."

Two other distinguished black professors at liberal universities saying the same thing and getting the same push back.

 

[rms]

You really use minimal evidence to support your own personal beliefs sometime man..but I don't think Sowell is saying what your quote has there.

It's long as hell so I don't really want to read past page 1 but that is a much better example of good writing.

 

[Dak]

You really use minimal evidence to support your own personal beliefs sometime man..but I don't think Sowell is saying what your quote has there.

It's long as hell so I don't really want to read past page 1

And you wonder why I rarely drag in much evidence. People don't understand what I post if they even bother to read it.

 

[Dak]

I'm confused - it seems as though Grant's suggesting the Fed print money for value that already exists in the private sector. You're suggesting that they just whimsically print money for value that isn't there. That strikes me as a significant difference.

They did that decades ago. The Fed is already well into a program of "whimsically printing money for value that isn't there". Why not just hand it to the poor then instead of propping up the real estate and stock values of those rich enough to have either or both.

Also, contra Grant regarding the "distraction", it's a situation that is at the very heart of the wealth inequality that concerns him so much.

I swear to god headlines seem to align all the time with discussions there. This is the ECB obviously rather than the Fed, but same difference:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...ll-rabbits-out-of-the-hat-council-member-says

“Markets say the ECB is done, their box is empty,” Vasiliauskas, who heads Lithuania’s central bank, said in an interview on Tuesday in Vilnius. “But we are magic people. Each time we take something and give to the markets -- a rabbit out of the hat.”
.........................
“Probably we’ll end this year with positive inflation and it will increase next year, and I expect more increase in 2018,” he said. “The situation is improving in both areas, in GDP and in inflation. The ECB’s monetary-policy decisions did a lot.”

The Lithuanian governor singled out a second round of targeted long-term loans to banks as the most powerful addition to the ECB’s palette. The so-called TLTRO-II potentially offers to pay lenders to take central bank cash, the idea being that they pass it on to companies and households as loans. The first operation is scheduled for June 24.

“This measure, personally for me, is very sexy,” Vasiliauskas said. “It can make direct impact on the real economy.”

 

[Einherjar86]

Why not just hand it to the poor then instead of propping up the real estate and stock values of those rich enough to have either or both.

So... why not?

Two other distinguished black professors at liberal universities saying the same thing and getting the same push back.

You mean making the same precarious argument and being criticized for it?

Also, one of them is from the same institution as Sowell.

 

[rms]

And you wonder why I rarely drag in much evidence. People don't understand what I post if they even bother to read it.

Page 1 has the thesis and I don't think it's possible to disagree with it. Why read 5 more pages on it?

Still doesn't change the fact that her argument and Sowell's are different.

 

[Dak]

So... why not?

Price levels in other areas would be inflated.

 

[Dak]

Still doesn't change the fact that her argument and Sowell's are different.

Umm......

He believes continued societal deference to the victims of racial discrimination has permitted blacks "the license not to meet the same standards that others must meet," which has been detrimental to every aspect of African-American life. "To talk about black responsibility is "racist' and "blaming the victim,'" he says. "They just keep refusing to acknowledge the elephant in the living room -- black responsibility. When anybody in this culture today talks about black responsibility for their problems, they are condemned and ignored."

and

You cannot take any people, of any color, and exempt them from the requirements of civilization — including work, behavioral standards, personal responsibility, and all the other basic things that the clever intelligentsia disdain — without ruinous consequences to them and to society at large.

 

[rms]

Sowell's responsibility is quit whining about the past, get a job and stay married.

The “legacy of slavery” argument is not just an excuse for inexcusable behavior in the ghettos. In a larger sense, it is an evasion of responsibility for the disastrous consequences of the prevailing social vision of our times, and the political policies based on that vision, over the past half century.

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/artic...al-breakdown-ghetto-communities-thomas-sowell

Her argument is don't demonize intelligence with being white and then realize that you haven't been good 'school parents' and also acknowledge the shortcomings because that is more important than seeming racist. (in this article the lazy black stereotype)

"They believe the school system should take care of the rest. They didn't supervise their children that much. They didn't make sure their children did their homework. That's not how other ethnic groups think."
African-American parents worried that Ogbu's work would further reinforce the stereotype that blacks are intellectually inadequate and lazy.

He concluded that there was a culture among black students to reject behaviors perceived to be "white," which included making good grades, speaking Standard English, being overly involved in class, and enrolling in honors or advanced-placement courses

"There is an element of black identity today that sees doing well in school as being outside of the core of black identity. It's a tacit sentiment, but powerful. As a result of that, some of what we see in the reluctance of many parents, administrators, and black academics to quite confront the 'acting white' syndrome is that deep down many of them harbor a feeling that it would be unhealthy for black kids to embrace school culture too wholeheartedly."

"That victim mentality is perpetrated by parents and they're doing their kids a disservice. ... My primary objective is not to hold someone accountable but to close the achievement gap."

Tots similar dough

 

[Oblivious Maximus]

Not to interrupt the current discussion but there were some interesting happenings regarding the Jian Ghomeshi debacle yesterday: Jian Ghomeshi apologizes to former colleague as part of deal to drop charge.

Read Henein's full remarks here.

 

[Dak]

Tots similar dough

It's almost amusing you think it isn't.