Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
This is the source of a basic philosophical difference between us. I understand what you write and there is much truth in it -- but I'm also pretty well convinced that you could redistribute all the money in the world today and within a year, most of it would migrate back to the same people without a great number of exceptions. Class, as used here, is as natural as breathing and it is not going to be eliminated no matter how hard some wish and some try.
I agree to a large extent. Class isn't ever going away, and I wouldn't get rid of it if I could--not only is it as natural as breathing, it's a necessary result of a system that allows success.

But the role class plays in future success can and should be limited. If we're not going to limit it, then we ought to quit pussyfooting around and go back to absolute monarchy. The purpose of a capitalist economy, as opposed to an economic free-for-all, is to keep the pot stirred. When the top goes up, part of that good result should be used to bring the bottom up a few points. Not up to the top, not so much that the top goes down to the bottom, but enough to keep circulation happening.

Because what's happening now is the exact opposite. The top is going up, which is fine, but it's doing do in large part by lowering the bottom. That is natural, too--as natural as the strong caveman barging in and taking the weaker caveman's wife.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Most programs start as good ideas -- the problems accrue as they are modified by politics to cater to certain events, persons or efforts. That is a natural evolution and will only be changed by changing the players or actors on the political scene very regularly. Those actors know that and thus try to skew things to insure their continuity or continuing incumbency. Programs must be modified to adapt to changing circumstances and doing that with politicians as opposed to referendums is more efficient and effective.
I agree. I've often thought that most laws and government programs ought to come with an expiration date rather than automatically being perpetual. Even that can stagnate, of course, and result in a government that spends most of its time voting to renew aging laws, but that's a procedural issue rather than a matter of principle.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
There is no logical reason to not means test Medicare and Social Security -- yet that idea is strongly resisted by many politicians not due to their oft stated 'slippery slope' argument but because in reality it would mean lessened 'loyalty' bought from voters, lessened control by those who wish to impose their vision of 'governance' (scare quotes obligatory because that is scary...) on a docile populace. I don't buy it
Sure, that's fair.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
That's the progressive mantra. Unfortunately, it's not at all what I wrote, not even close.

...That again is something I did not suggest or write. What I have written is that most social programs have merit but have been prostituted and transmuted into vote buying schemes by venal Congressional fiddles and that fiddling should be eliminated.
Hyberbole on my part, and some conflation with those who actually do argue that result is the sole indicator of ability and worth. Buuuuut...

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
My comments also attack the "what's the government going to do about this" outlook of a great many Americans of all classes and wealth levels today. Sixty or so years ago, one rarely heard or read that, people would pitch in an fix things themselves. There was, for example no FEMA. Are we better off now with FEMA? Unquestionably. Does the existence of FEMA adversely impact self sufficiency and foster reliance on the government? Also unquestionable. Whether this is a good or bad thing is viewpoint dependent. In my view it is not totally beneficial. For example, FEMA says that, post hurricane, you must be prepared to survive on your own for a week or so without their assistance (the States are far faster, Counties and cities faster yet...) but they downplay that excellent advice, tout their good works -- and provide oversized checks to people not always in need in an effort to buy loyalty and keep the local Congroids happy with FEMA 'performance.' Good program -- manipulated and misused -- needs adjustment (Not by any Congress person whose district or State benefited from FEMA's excessive largesse... ).

There are those who contend one should not confront miscreants; let the Police do it. Unfortuantely, it's proven that there's never a cop around when you need one...

Government absolutely cannot do everything for everyone, regardless of income level, and it is IMO criminal for politicians and academics to imply that it can. It is also probably unwise for folks to believe they can rely on the government to make bad things go away...
I don't deny that there's over reliance on government, but I don't think that over reliance is on the part of people who have to worry about whether or not there's a cop around when they need one. Most of the reliance seems to be on the top end, rather than the bottom end--it's on the part of the guys who are able to afford personal security. Gosh darn those poor and middle class people, why can't they go get their own multi-billion-dollar bailout instead of trying to steal what the financial industry rightfully obtained as ransom!

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
That's sorta specious, isn't it? Regardless of fiat-ability, one can only get so much blood even from a turnip. It becomes an issue of priorities. I gather your priority would be toward social spending with a view toward 'equalizing'. Mine would provide adequate social spending to care for those with needs but would means test such funding; 'equality' would not be a goal but equal opportunity (which we do not now emphasize -- been to Court lately?) would be a major goal.
Not really. The US isn't a turnip, it's a... tick. You can get a lot of blood from a tick if you squeeze it hard enough! Gross analogy, but it's hard to buy the turnip argument when Wall Street is posting record profits.

I don't see equalizing--movement towards equalizing, not to be confused with absolute imposition of equality--as separate from equal opportunity.


Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Your comment addresses part of it, no question but the excessive emphasis by the Federal Government on the regulation of every facet of business is burdensome and expensive. A Doctor I know could operate his Office with himself and two others. He has seven and is hiring another because the new computerized medical record requirement will add another to his two billing and insurance clerks who are needed not to answer the insurance company requirements but to insure compliance with federal regulations. The burden is not due to this Administration (in fact, they've vowed to try to reduce the problem (LINK) the Regulatory overkill has been building for years and both parties as well as our governmental system are at fault. Congress can effect change but it is not in their interest to do so -- unless the voters start wholesale firings of them to send a message. As I said above, the issue is not the burden of any particular regulation and few of them are very onerous, it is the cumulative effect of a massive government that is trying to do things to justify its existence -- or, more correctly, of the various departments and agencies of a massive government who must justify the existence by doing something...

A significant part of the that regulatory problem is that those diktats from one Agency often contradict those from another and adjudication is required, the bureaucracy grinds very slowly and to most businesses, time is money.
Mmmmm okay. There's bloat. My concern is that in getting rid of the bloat, we'll end up skewing things even more to favor those who already well-positioned.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
I agree with that. We probably agree on goals -- we just disagree on how to get there...
I think that's true. Mainly, I think that our current situation comes as close to fulfilling the phrase "fox guarding the henhouse" as one can get without involving actual poultry, and I think the most effective solutions are going to be those that remedy that.

Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
Proving yet again that this era is not really very dangerous...
I think we're heading towards danger, but I agree that we're not really in danger right now. We're a lot closer than is comfortable, though, and I think a lot of current violence that is attributed to other causes--mainly race--is more accurately the result of financial distress.

(I've cut out a lot, trying to keep my responses to the main points--starting to run into the text length limit.)