So, jobless claims are up again. Now what?

[fansince62]

Conservatives expect people on welfare to stay on welfare and not try and find work. They assume immigrants don't want to assimilate into our society and come here for the sole purpose of leeching off entitlement programs. They assume poor people are lazy. They assume those who aren't religious are immoral.

Expecting the worst of people is not a flaw with liberalism. It's a tool used by both ideologies to justify policy.

Hell, Sarge's 'why should my taxes support the people who don't work' question practically defines that technique.

And that was the point.

hmmm...well...it was Clinton who set set up the equivalent of a statute of limitations on welfare...with credible results. Is he Conservative?

the key is growth...and too many factions in the Democrtaic Party are anti-growth, anti-business, etc., etc.

as for some of your assumptions....welllllll

- in fact we do know there are large welfare dependancies

- we do know....across the globe...that many immigrant communities do not assimilate; that there are tremendous social costs associated with this immigration (see CA)

- those who aren't religious are immoral? that's a twist. how does one make such a judgment? I haven't come across any philosophical argument to the effect that if one does not believe in a God one is immoral - such an assertion would have to be based on a moral transgression. I have come across discussions about the lack of a sanctioning moral authority. I have also come across discussions about the dangers of moral relativism for those not anchored in a religion based moral code. I would hasten to add that those who do not believe in God can still be law abiding. (btw...I am not a religious person)

Sarge likes to exaggerate for sarcastic effect.

We all know that fundamentally...Liberalism/Progressivism believes in the power of the State. That the State should be the final arbiter of right, wrong and justice. This is what Obama, Pelosi, Reid, etc., all believe as their religious credo. This is ultimately predicated upon certain assumptions about human behavior, obligations to the collective....."rights"......and the efficacy/rational intelligence of scientifically guided government. Conservatives believe in the primacy of the individual and freedom.....government secures these liberties and protects these freedoms. Government, for Conservatives, is a necessary evil since since free, autonomous individuals will make bad decisions. which is worse then? the evils governments create...or the evils individuals are susceptible to? which side of the balance should carry the heavier weight?

 

[Goaldeje]

Seems logical since all these groups will not serve Christianity, under the church's guidelines, either.

Is there a problem officer?

Oh, and when did homosexuality become a religion.

I know that's not what you said, but you did lump them together as if they were one in the same.

But we weren't talking about serving the church. We were talking about the church serving those in need, excepting some groups, a few of which I mentioned, others I did not. Some of those groups could be designated by sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. THAT is the benefit of the government handling these things, less likely to be discriminated against.


EDIT: Please note that I am not making a value judgment one way or the other on either the church or the government. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

 

[Goaldeje]

the issue isn't social justice - the issue is whether one elects to employ the full force of government to enforce what some elements of society consider "justice" on other elements of society.

Church's terminology FS, not mine. Most Catholic churches still have a social justice ministry that deals with feeding/clothing the poor, etc.

I take it from your tone then you would do away with entitlements all together then? If you're poor, tough ****! Does that about sum it up?

 

[Nobody]

I take it from your tone then you would do away with entitlements all together then? If you're poor, tough ****! Does that about sum it up?

It is sad that there are really people with that perspective. People that really think like that are blind to reality. Hard times can fall on anyone.

I don't care who you are, what you have or where you come from. Nobody is immune to hardship.

 

[Goaldeje]

It is sad that there are really people with that perspective. People that really think like that are blind to reality. Hard times can fall on anyone.

I don't care who you are, what you have or where you come from. Nobody is immune to hardship.

Yep. I have been the recepient of govt aid (lots) when my wife and I first got married. It drives me nuts to think how angry those people are about helping people who really need help. We used the aid for a while, got on our feet and now are tax-paying members of society. That's life, and that's the way the system SHOULD work.

EDIT: And just to be clear, I don't actually think FS thinks that way, unless he tells us otherwise. It just feels that way sometimes.

 

[fansince62]

Church's terminology FS, not mine. Most Catholic churches still have a social justice ministry that deals with feeding/clothing the poor, etc.

I take it from your tone then you would do away with entitlements all together then? If you're poor, tough ****! Does that about sum it up?

1) My wife is Catholic.

2) What Churches do is voluntary.

3) Yea. I would do away with entitlements and restore the original purposes of just about all this legislation - getting people under duress back on their feet. These programs have all turned into government coerced income/wealth redistribution campaigns...speaking of differing/divergent moral agendas/codes.

Life isn't always fair. It aint my burden to shoulder every social inequity. Just like it aint the burden of just about all Liberals/Progressives I know to enlist in the military and actually participate in National Defense at the pointy end.

 

[Nobody]

1) My wife is Catholic.

2) What Churches do is voluntary.

3) Yea. I would do away with entitlements and restore the original purposes of just about all this legislation - getting people under duress back on their feet. These programs have all turned into government coerced income/wealth redistribution campaigns...speaking of differing/divergent moral agendas/codes.

Life isn't always fair. It aint my burden to shoulder every social inequity. Just like it aint the burden of just about all Liberals/Progressives I know to enlist in the military and actually participate in National Defense at the pointy end.

So let's say hypothetically that you lost everything, and had no family or friends that you could turn to. Would you seek government assistance, and be a burden on society as you put it, or would you just wither up and die on the streets and keep your pride and principles intact?

The stance you're taking on this makes you come across like you think anyone who accepts government assistance is a worthless stain of society. I can tell you from what I've seen that a lot of times that is the case, but it's not everybody as you're lumping it together to be.

Trust me, it can happen to anyone. In my last year landscaping, we lost two customers previously worth millions due to the economy tanking. One of which was in the waiting area shooting the **** with me when I went to apply for food stamps, because he was there for the same reason.

 

[Ax]

But we weren't talking about serving the church. We were talking about the church serving those in need, excepting some groups, a few of which I mentioned, others I did not.

1. I haven't heard of the church not serving those in need. That doesn't mean, in the case of homosexuality, that they should have to facilitate them by sanctioning, or supporting their lifestyle.

2. Would a Muslim seek, or even accept, help from Christianity?

3. You didn't mention "a few", you mentioned two. Religious groups, and homosexuals. Seeming to equate the two.

Some of those groups could be designated by sexual orientation, religion, race, etc. THAT is the benefit of the government handling these things, less likely to be discriminated against.

Less likely? Only if you adhere to the governments requirements. The government also can, and has, and does, give preferential treatment based on orientation, gender, religion, race, financial standing, etc...

If they're allowed, then why shouldn't a church be?

EDIT: Please note that I am not making a value judgment one way or the other on either the church or the government. Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts.

Likewise.

 

[fansince62]

So let's say hypothetically that you lost everything, and had no family or friends that you could turn to. Would you seek government assistance, and be a burden on society as you put it, or would you just wither up and die on the streets and keep your pride and principles intact?

The stance you're taking on this makes you come across like you think anyone who accepts government assistance is a worthless stain of society. I can tell you from what I've seen that a lot of times that is the case, but it's not everybody as you're lumping it together to be.

Trust me, it can happen to anyone. In my last year landscaping, we lost two customers previously worth millions due to the economy tanking. One of which was in the waiting area shooting the **** with me when I went to apply for food stamps, because he was there for the same reason.

1) How you get from what I have argued about the purposes of government programs to my value judgments on people who benefit from these programs is beyond me. There is no logical relationship. Good people can benefit from bad programs.

2) I have stated this mutiple times: in my book...helping those in duress get back on their feet has value. Permament wealth/income redistribution programs does not qualify as such....and that has been the inexorable logic of the welfare state....an ever expanding set of mandatory entitlements. an ever growing set of deleterious social consequences.

3) There is a moral dimension to the flip slide of all of this goodness: the full force of the government ultimately threatens submission (i.e., it's not voluntary goodness....it's forced).

 

[Goaldeje]

1. I haven't heard of the church not serving those in need. That doesn't mean, in the case of homosexuality, that they should have to facilitate them by sanctioning, or supporting their lifestyle.

2. Would a Muslim seek, or even accept, help from Christianity?

3. You didn't mention "a few", you mentioned two. Religious groups, and homosexuals. Seeming to equate the two.

I am equating the two, first off, as two groups that many churches would not serve. That is the context of the discussion. In no way, shape or form am I calling homosexuality a religion or vice-versa. Which, based on your previous comments, I think you know.

And if you haven't heard of a church not serving those in need, I trust you are not in churches every single day, as I am. That's what I do, every frickin' day, work with churches. Guess you'll just have to believe me on this, but they aren't as helpful as they could/should be. That is not to say they are all bad, or even most of them. But they do turn people away based on some, ummm, interesting criteria.

No idea if a Muslim would ask or accept. Can't help there.

Less likely? Only if you adhere to the governments requirements. The government also can, and has, and does, give preferential treatment based on orientation, gender, religion, race, financial standing, etc...

If they're allowed, then why shouldn't a church be?

Nowhere did I say a church should not be allowed to. If you, as a conservative, are talking about taking away entitlement programs and asking churches to fill in the gaps, just be aware they can and do discriminate. I personally happen to not like that. You may be different. Just be aware.

Relying on churches to step up to the plate in the event of major budget slashing is not entirely realistic.

 

[Goaldeje]

1) My wife is Catholic.

2) What Churches do is voluntary.

3) Yea. I would do away with entitlements and restore the original purposes of just about all this legislation - getting people under duress back on their feet. These programs have all turned into government coerced income/wealth redistribution campaigns...speaking of differing/divergent moral agendas/codes.

Life isn't always fair. It aint my burden to shoulder every social inequity. Just like it aint the burden of just about all Liberals/Progressives I know to enlist in the military and actually participate in National Defense at the pointy end.

I think we agree about getting people back on their feet. I am no happier than you that my tax dollars are used to help drug dealers continue to collect welfare checks.

But...

If the only choice is to help people who need it and use it properly along with people who abuse the system, I personally am inclined to continue helping people.

However, I do not think that is the only choice.

 

[Nobody]

1) How you get from what I have argued about the purposes of government programs to my value judgments on people who benefit from these programs is beyond me.

It aint my burden to shoulder every social inequity.

^^^^From what you wrote here, and have implied with your multiple accusations that nearly the entire system is corrupted and abused when it's actually probably 50/50.

2) I have stated this mutiple times: in my book...helping those in duress get back on their feet has value. Permament wealth/income redistribution programs does not qualify as such

I agree, but how is destroying the system and starting from scratch going to change any of that? Corruption is everywhere, you can't prevent it.

 

[fansince62]

So let's say hypothetically that you lost everything, and had no family or friends that you could turn to. Would you seek government assistance, and be a burden on society as you put it, or would you just wither up and die on the streets and keep your pride and principles intact?

The stance you're taking on this makes you come across like you think anyone who accepts government assistance is a worthless stain of society. I can tell you from what I've seen that a lot of times that is the case, but it's not everybody as you're lumping it together to be.

Trust me, it can happen to anyone. In my last year landscaping, we lost two customers previously worth millions due to the economy tanking. One of which was in the waiting area shooting the **** with me when I went to apply for food stamps, because he was there for the same reason.

1) How you get from what I have argued about the purposes of government programs to my value judgments on people who benefit from these programs is beyond me. There is no logical relationship. Good people can benefit from bad programs.

2) I have stated this mutiple times: in my book...helping those in duress get back on their feet has value. Permament wealth/income redistribution programs does not qualify as such....and that has been the inexorable logic of the welfare state....an ever expanding set of mandatory entitlements. an ever growing set of deleterious social consequences.

3) There is a moral dimension to the flip slide of all of this goodness: the full force of the government ultimately threatens submission (i.e., it's not voluntary goodness....it's forced).

so..yea...let's say hypothetically you loise everything:

- I can see short-run support for necessities

- I can see support (carefully managed) for retraining

- I understand the need for tort law to cover individuals wrongfully deprived of a livelihood through workplace malfeasance

After that...it's up to the individual to succeed or fail. I do not see any law written or unwritten that guarantees a lifestyle in perpetuity.

and yea...I have considered "what if it happened to me". and I'm sure my emotional reaction would be to take advantage of whatever assistance was available. that's entirely understandable......

 

[Henry]

Al, I think the point here is that just because some people take advantage of the system, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a system.

Some people are going to take advantage of whatever system is in place. That's true of the rich as well as the poor.

 

[Goaldeje]

Al, I think the point here is that just because some people take advantage of the system, that doesn't mean there shouldn't be a system.

Some people are going to take advantage of whatever system is in place. That's true of the rich as well as the poor.

I think that's actually Al's point too. Because some people take advantage of entitlements, there shouldn't be entitlements at all (corporate welfare aside, I'm sure).

And because some companies (like GE) take advantage of the tax system, there should be no taxes.

Did I get that right, FS?

 

[Ax]

I am equating the two, first off, as two groups that many churches would not serve. That is the context of the discussion. In no way, shape or form am I calling homosexuality a religion or vice-versa. Which, based on your previous comments, I think you know.

Yeah, I was pretty sure that's how you meant it, but wanted to be certain.

And if you haven't heard of a church not serving those in need, I trust you are not in churches every single day, as I am. That's what I do, every frickin' day, work with churches. Guess you'll just have to believe me on this, but they aren't as helpful as they could/should be. That is not to say they are all bad, or even most of them. But they do turn people away based on some, ummm, interesting criteria.

I base my thoughts on some limited, yet personal knowledge of family members involved in their church, preachers, missionary's, and volunteers that have indeed come to the financial aid of homosexuals, and a Muslim family whose home was destroyed by a tornado. I understand that these days, they may be in the minority. I personally washed my hands of religion years ago. So, I will have to trust you, to a point, as it is possible that your experiences could be more exception than rule, as well.

No idea if a Muslim would ask or accept. Can't help there.

Yeah, me neither. My guess would be, depending on how hardline they may be, some would think it ok. Others might see it as forbidden. Just a guess.

Nowhere did I say a church should not be allowed to. If you, as a conservative, are talking about taking away entitlement programs and asking churches to fill in the gaps, just be aware they can and do discriminate. I personally happen to not like that. You may be different. Just be aware.

First off, I'm a registered Independent, and a practicing extremist/realist. I have opinions that disqualify me from being considered Conservative, Liberal, Democrat, or Republican. I do however tend to agree more with the so-called Conservative/Republican side of most debates.

Now then, I do not think we can "take away" entitlement programs and ask churches to fill in the gaps. Entitlement programs need to be whittled down to a functional minimum. And, if I had all needed information, I could tell you how to do it. Just be aware, I am an extremist/realist. Believing that a sharp knife, cuts quickest, and hurts the least.

Relying on churches to step up to the plate in the event of major budget slashing is not entirely realistic.

Neither is believing the government will ever dig themselves out of the financial hole they're in, when they don't even acknowledge that the hole is all that bad to begin with.

 

[Sarge]

Hey, McDonalds is hiring 50,000 peopel next week! Whoo hoo to the Obama economy!

 

[Goaldeje]

Hey, McDonalds is hiring 50,000 peopel next week! Whoo hoo to the Obama economy!

Fair warning, you caught me on a bad day...

Your statement encapsulates what I detest about the Republican Party. So one the one hand, you all want to withhold help from people who might work at McDonalds, and on the other hand you mock them for their job. Have you ever considered that some folks might not be qualified in life for anything more? Isn't it better to be trying, to be working somewhere, even McDonalds than sitting at home collecting unemployment and everything else? Because the feeling I've gotten is that you all would take most if not all help away from these people, and then tax them more to cover up from the tax breaks you are apparently willing to extend to the rich.

At least they're trying. Sheesh.

 

[fansince62]

Fair warning, you caught me on a bad day...

Your statement encapsulates what I detest about the Republican Party. So one the one hand, you all want to withhold help from people who might work at McDonalds, and on the other hand you mock them for their job. Have you ever considered that some folks might not be qualified in life for anything more? Isn't it better to be trying, to be working somewhere, even McDonalds than sitting at home collecting unemployment and everything else? Because the feeling I've gotten is that you all would take most if not all help away from these people, and then tax them more to cover up from the tax breaks you are apparently willing to extend to the rich.

At least they're trying. Sheesh.

ummm...nope. it is people like you who...however wll intentioned...want to raise minimum wages or increase healthcare costs (i.e., Obamacare) to the point that corporations like MickeyD's don't hire and need waivers.

btw...

1) your post sounds like a rip from the moveon homepage.

2) I don't begrudge someone where they wprk. It's in my interest to support full employment.

3) I don't care whether someone makes 500/wk or 500,000/wk. It's their income....not the GD government's. income envy is not something to be terribly proud of either in the grand scheme of things. that's where we part company. moreover, since we apparently want to be virtuous about everything...it never escapes my notice that the Dems/Libs in power pushing hardest on these class warfare issues...always...always...take care of themselves first with their own sweetheart deals. evryone of those rectal orifices has cut deals (some suspiciously like Clinton, Obama, Reid, Rangel, Franks) to amass considerable wealth along the way. others lack that sort of mischievous talent...so they just marry weatlth (e.g., Kerry, Pelosi). you live near DC...you must hear the whispers about how connections are used by all these people to get in on the groundfloor for countless good deals. it torks me off to no end to be lectured about right and wrong by these blow-hards....one hears "what's ok for me isn't ok for you." well.......blank them. they don't have the moral authority to lead. they're just another group of power hungry frauds.

Goaldie...you're a good person who sometimes leads with his chin and who wears his heart on his sleeve. but you keep resorting to extremes when the message doesn't square with your preconceptions. no one is advocating for eliminating all these programs. many, however, are drawing the line when it comes to purposes and costs. for a number of reasons, if things play out like I expect over the next several years, I am in danger of a drastic decrease in my standard-of-living. when that happens...I am going to be very pissed. I won't be as philosophic as Extreme as I will be pointing a finger directly at the people on whose watch this all collapsed. there will be many others like me - and we will destroy many of these programs you support. so the knuckleheads leading things right now better right this economic ship....or the costs are going to be dear FOR EVERYONE.

 

[Goaldeje]

ummm...nope. it is people like you who...however wll intentioned...want to raise minimum wages or increase healthcare costs (i.e., Obamacare) to the point that corporations like MickeyD's don't hire and need waivers.

Go read the thread on Obamacare. My entire point in that thread was to cut costs. I think we can do that while providing health care to people who need it and don't currently have it. As I have said before, I am not a fan of Obamacare, but again, figure it is better than what we had. Another example of me asking you conservatives to give me a better alternative, and getting absolutely, positively nothing in response.

As for minimum wage, I don't believe I have ever stated my position on that one. Thanks for assuming though.