Quote Originally Posted by motorfirebox View Post
The problem is mostly a problem as it applies to the financial elite, because they possess far more ability to cause damage.
Perhaps but there are far fewer of them in comparison to other problem causers...

Still there are probably too many to attack successfully. There are far, far fewer Congress Critters -- a much better and easier target.
We disagree on what the obstacles are--we both agree that schooling is one obstacle, but you hold that social programs are another obstacle while I hold that social programs are all that keep the obstacles from completely crushing the lower class and much of the middle class.
Not so. I do not hold that Social Programs are "another obstacle" -- I simply say they are not helping as much as you appear to think they are, IOW, they do not work as designed or hoped for. That doesn't mean they don't work or are obstacles, it just means that IMO they are not fully effective. More on this in a bit.
I'm talking about Fannie and Freddie and the recent creditpocalypse.
Ah, okay.We could trade dumb laws and flawed programs for weeks; Lord knows there are plenty out there on both sides of this discussion.
I think it's a pretty solid summary of your position, at least as I understand it. You view social programs, by and large, as an obstacle to getting people to work. You want to cut back on social programs with the goal of forcing people into the workplace in order to make up the subsistence they currently gain from those programs. That's a stick, not a carrot.
Not at all. You keep writing that and I've never said they were an obstacle, what I've written is that they do not work, they don't usually achieve the intended effect. Back to square one:


We have been increasingly investing in social programs since the 1930s. Here were are, almost four generations later, approaching 80 years and by and large the same populations are still at risk, still having to cope, just barely in too many cases. The per capita numbers on those below the nominal poverty lines are much the same, education has regressed. If these programs could or had done what was expected (hoped...) that would not be the case. What you advocate has not worked as well as anyone could wish.



That's what I have consistently written, there may be minor variations but the theme is constant -- these programs do not work as designed, thus they are ineffective. I contend they deserve a hard look and much retooling if not elimination but do recall the Minnesota program I mentioned that was a success but was canceled for a, to me, very dubious reason. That was a program that should not have been eliminated. There are others that should stay. SS, Medicare and MedicAid (all of which should be means tested) should stay but there are as many or more that need significant recasting or to depart. That will probably not happen for a variety of reasons and we will see most stay with only minor tweaks and see new programs added.

You may be right, things may thus be improved. I hope you won't mind if I reluctantly and sadly bet against that?
I'm an advocate of planning better, whether that involves more or less planning overall. Cutting farm subsidies and oil company tax breaks would be 'less planning', I guess, but in their place I would put much stronger controls on the financial industry.
I have no problem with either of those cuts (though a sensible farm policy to replace the loss of subsidies to those who get legitimate and need help should be a by product; Cargill can probably survive with no Federal assistance...

I could recommend several more; I too would opt for stronger financial controls -- but we are unlikely to get any of those things unless we can change the focus of Congress.That focus should be on the Nation. Currently it is on their reelection and their party in that order. That bit of human greed facilitates other greed, It is easier to control the greed of Congroids through the ballot box than it is to get all the humungously wealthy to be less greedy...
See, but I think the entire assumption on is terribly flawed...if for no other reason than that if you starve to death, you won't be paying your bills anyway.
We'll have to disagree on some of that but we're getting way down in the weeds on this. Suffice to say that if you can't put food on the table and you use your credit card to do that, all you're doing is forestalling the inevitable and possibly making inevitability more unpleasant than it needs to be. Aside from the fact that, taken too far, it's just theft. Stealing from your Banker because he's rapacious (most of 'em are...) may be 'morally' satisfying but it's still theft...
There is a tax base, that's my point...The lie that allowing these guys to do whatever they want because their earnings will result in more jobs is... well, a lie.
In some cases, not in others. My belief is that most of the things we've discussed aren't quite as simple as either of us have written for communications sake in a poor medium for discussion. We also aren't going to agree on many things and that should be okay; it is with me.
Yes, now the media gets to compete more directly with the guys who sold securitized liar loans as good investments, and who now complain because people are mean to them. It's a good thing.
Good thing, bad thing -- either way it's more equitable than the media having an open door that was slammed in the face of everyone else. I'm sure that at the time of the Bill the fact that both sponsors were media darlings (though neither now is) might merit consideration as to their motive back in '02...

As for lying loan sharks, bad stuff that -- then, so are lying media types who seem to exist in about equal numbers. We could argue for days about which of those groups does the most damage to the nation...
We'd be voting for different new faces, but I'm down with that
Works for me.

Time to move on , I guess, we've bored others long enough, we should let some of them comment...