but if your taxes are raised then you will raise your prices.

Great solution..... No one ever said we need more than that. and why 6 month? iwould do it as soon as they are offered jobs ... any job.



I dont think you really mean that. may be jailed and only if work was available and they refused to work. But what if there is no work for everyone? some will be willing and able but they cant find work. what do we do with them?

for that, i suggest we Make Work for them till things improve. .... just make them do something and get paid tell real work is available.



Again I gree if that is necessary and their parents are hopeless.

You know something LW ..... Your's is the only comment actually taking responsibility and trying to solve the problem.

comments that resort to insults and pretentions of knowledge is no way to discuss and solve probelms. It is a great way to avoid the main issue though .... isnt'it?

But the problems dont go away ..... they are there and need solutions

Thanks LW ..... i wish i can say this to many comments here .... but no chance to do it.

First time in my life ..... and it is not a small number of years ... that someone tells me that. They(everyone ... family, friends, coworkers, supervisors, ... etc)always say why do you always disagree with everything ... cant you for once go along?

I always respond by saying, I am not inventing things, it is all there and you guys are just ignoring the obvious.

Thanks Draginol .... for that comment and for the insults too.

The strange thing is i didnt use any particular ideology ... there is a problem and it needs a solution. i suggested one .... mere suggestion and said if it is stupid, well it is as best as i could do. please suggest more intelligent solution ... use whatever ideology or non-ideology. just please solve the problem.

and what did you offer Draginol? NOTHING.

nothing but insults and lots and lots of data. We, the poor ignorant NA members gave you all the authority you need and all we get from you are insults and data?

We are deposing you and replacing you with LW, she seems willing to offer some solutions. You are out Draginol .... just set and listen may be you learn something.

I wish insults would solve the problem. but they dont.... can an NA really afford to waste time on insulting someone who is suggesting a solution and open for revision or even replacement?

Does an NA have that kind of luxury?

no plotics needed to answer all these questions.

all you need is a brain and willingness and ability to solve problems ... societal problems ... not just software problems.

you could have used the time needed to write this response to think about and suggest and write a solution .... but you chose not to use the time productively ...

How unfortunate .... I dont think you would ever do that if this was a business issue.

And that is precisely the problem .... too many people do not think about the society as they do about things they are directly responsible for at work. they think the society is not their business .... let others do it .... politicians that is. and when politicians do what they think ... then we all criticise them ... vehemently .... with no idea or effort to formulate a coherent honest solution as we do every day in our jobs.

How unfortubnate indeed. That is not ideology ..... just commonsense.

What a response to a realistic and existing problem?

I, the ignorant and uneducated sugegsted something .... and what did you, the highly educated and intelligent, suggest? Nothing.

Dont assume too much Draginol, ..... you prove to me every day that .... well. I dont like to describe what you proved by this comment. you are trying to confuse the issue.... but i wont let you .... solve the problem if you are able to or just set and listen.

They say: lead, follow, or get out of the way ..... we dont need obstructions .... we have enough problems already.

i am sorry but nations did not replace city states for the benefit of all.


nations(empires) were started when city state A decided that city state B had better land to grow food on or what ever they decided was better at city state B.

yes sometimes city state b and city state c would ally. but that would only last as long as city state A wanted to attack city b or city c. or visa versa.

if city state a won the war the city b and/or city c would pay them tribute for a while.

eventually empires formed because the strongest city wouldn't let the others go be on their own. because they needed more men to take on other cities. and yes this process continued until you have an empire.


Rome was slightly different. in that when it took a city in the boot area. the romans made them roman citizens with all the rights of said citizenship. cities outside the boot were not treated that way.


and i have said this before. the roman empire did fall, but the roman government is still very much alive.

Yes. I do that. When I give an opinion, I provide data to backit up.  I don't base my opinions on what feels good or what makes me sound like a nice person. I base my opinions based on the actual facts.

I then insult people who give poinions that are not based on facts but rather on what makes them feel good.

People like you always have good intentions. And because you have good intentions you always try to weasel out of accountability when your policies lead to misery.

Great Society programs of the 60s? They had great intentions. But they have led to disaster. A poverty rate that stagnated until the 1996 welfare reform act which finally got it to start dropping again. A massive increase in illegitimate children. Massively higher health care costs thanks to nobody caring how much health care costs anymore on an idividual basis. 

Then lierals decided that it was wrong for us to hold the mentally disturbed against their will just because they were insane. So we stopped allowing people to be committed without massive effort. The resulting mass increase in homelessness with the result but you can't blame the liberals, they had good intentions.

Liberals had good intentions so we can't blame them right?

I have solutions to the problems, it's just that they don't sound warm and fuzzy. The answer is to have faith in mankind.  Faith that individuals know what's best for them.  And grasp that perfect is the enemy of good.

I do a lot more in my life than simply work a job, ThinkAloud.  I work with a number of charities -- ones of my own choosing based on their performance.  But putting that aside, I also create jobs and opportunity where those jobs and opportunities didn't exist before.  What exactly have you done?

Where exactly do you get off being on some sort of high horse? Oh, that's right, you have good intentions which absolves you from having to actually read up on what you're blathering about.

and that is equivelant to income disparity?

the 1% who won the race by 228% used their own energy? no one else contributed significantly to and are integral part of their achievements? they thought, planned, designed, coordinated, constructed, started, produced, sold, distributed and collected income ALL by themselves as the long-distance runner does?

unless they did all that by themselves the analogy is faulty.

Would that 1% have achieved what they did without the successful efforts of the middle-class? dont they deserve to have their income rise with at least a fraction of that 228%?

assuming that the COB figures are adjusted for inflation:
228% rise in income over 26 years means 3.2% raise per year above inflation level. compared to ZERO% for the middle-class.

dont the people who contributed in the success deserve to increase their standard of level too? say 0.5% above inflation? this would have led to 13.8% rise in income for the middle-class. is that too much? dont you think that would have strengthened the economy even more which very likely would have increased everyone's income even more by increasing the purchasing or saving power of the consumer base?

Is that a re-distribution of wealth as you call it or generation of more wealth as it really is?

but shortsightedness and tunnel vision prevented that.

More tunnel vision???

and the problem i am seeking a solution for is an individual problem? it is general and affecting the whole neighborhood. the problem is caused by individuals ... these individuals have to be dealt with one at a time ....

you look at the last section of the solution and scream .... individual .... look at the whole problem and you will see the general ..... not just the individual.

general welfare is to solve general probelms ..... but dont stop there

general problems are caused by individuals .....

solve each individual's problem in order to solve the general problem .... which is general welfare .....

too many steps for you to follow?

is there such a thing called "general welfare problem " without being a problem created by many individuals at the same time which is caused by the same thing like illness, ignorance, crime ..etc? if there is, then i agree ... no individuals should be involved in the solution.

but if the individuals are the cause of that problem ... then they must be involved .... can you solve the problem without them?

if so ... please explain and offer your solution.

The runner had a trainer, also was born with good genetics to be a runner, had access to good food. Had the instustrial society to produce the shoes. The track was built and maintained by other people.

You talked about income disparity. And disparity is disparity. The less regulated a thing is, the more disparity there is.  It has nothing to do with fairness or not.

 

Look, you asked about disparity. I told you what causes it. 

Now you're taking a different question - wheter it's fair. That's philosophy. Who defines what is "fair"? You? The men with guns?

How does it hurt you if someone else has more money than you? Is your political viwpoint purely driven by envy? Does the fact that Jerry Seinfeld made $60 million last year hurt you in any way?

Shouldn't the question be, are you satisfied with how much you are being copensated for what you produce? And if not, what can you do to change it?

No, pointing out what the framer's intended with the constitution is not tunnel vision. Words mean things. Often they mean very specific things such as what "to promote the generla welfare" was meant by the founding fathers. It's not subject to debate because it is known what those words meant and they did not mean to steal from one person to give to another based on "need".

If you want to argue that we should have welfare, so be it. But don't sit back and look like a dumb ass by arguing that the constitution was written with income redistribution envisioned.

who is resorting to slogans and politics now?

to hell with left and right ... liberals and conservatives

The problem will be solved by Faith?

and Faith is just words? or is there some kind of actions taken like the ones suggested by LW?

just let charities deal with it? well .... they didnt ... that is how we got the problem in the first place. If they were doing such a good job, how did we end up with all those sick, ignorant and criminal elements in our neighborhood?

I dont care and in reality no one cares how much you and all the charities in the world do, the fact is we have got a problem .... you and your charities and the charities of the whole world did not prevent the problem .....so what do we do?

still say Faith in people will solve it? it didnt before ....these charities were there but still the problem continued despite all the charities' efforts.it helped i am sure but they couldnt solve it on their own.

what do we do?

may be your solution is this: just leave it the way it is ... that is the way life is. Is that it? but the problem is dragging us with it ... dont you realize that?

and you think i am just a feel-good type?

you are sadly mistaken. I see myself and the neighborhood going down and i am worried about ME. May be you dont worry as much because you are high up on the ladder ...but most of us are not that high ... and any small dragging down will sink us ....

is that the reaosn for your total disregard for the problem? if it is then like i said before please set down, it is not your problem .... and we will solve it. If you dont like the solution ..... too bad. the majority rules.

Okay think Aloud, you're just nuts. Or at least, too dumb to continue conversing with.  When you've bothered to read up on these issues, feel free to re-read what I've already written and maybe you'll have a better grasp of what I said.

your saying that there aren't any sick, ignorant or criminal elements in your neighborhood now thanks to the government.


if that is what your saying i suggest that you either need to open your eyes. or you live in a gated community that has only one house in it.

and by the way the so called welfare program was designed to keep the status quo. it was not meant to help people. it was meant to keep people on it.

Thanks for sitting down.



I been reading about these issues before you were born Draginol ..... dont think just because i am not responding to you in kind that i dont know what i am talking about.

what i am talking about is the same as what the experts of macro and micro economics at the highest institutions of the land are talking about. not biased think tanks who were built specifically to spread the voodoo economics and unsound policies of Reagan
and the current crop of conservatives. These policies were discredited by Reagan's own budget director and later by Kemp ... one of his main supporters. and even Bush Sr. i didnt invent the term "Voodoo economics" Bush Sr did.

No reason to turn this into a personal bragging .... you are welcome to do it ... but along the way ... please offer a solution... a practical one .... if you have any.

is that what i am really saying?

we can do much better and we should do it effeciently.... that is what i am saying.



may be you are right and that is stupid for sure. but i doubt it was intentional and that is not what i am talking about. and you know it. so why divert the discussion that way?

there is always a way to solve or minimize problems .... excesses on either side make things worse.

i will tell you the samething i told gene. i do not want the government in my daily life.

i do not want the government in my daily life.

this is something we all agree and insist on. No argument from anyone about this point.

2 problems with this. First, charities are not in the business of preventing it, as they are geared to mitigating it.

2nd, Why would you blame someone or thing for trying to help just because they are not prepared to stop the problem from occurring? Should I not give to the homeless man because I did not stop him from becoming homeless? That is the most assinine statement I have ever heard, and you are telling us that?

Two Very excellent points. And it wasn't me who put ALL that responsibilities on the charities. I mererly said they were not able to handle the problems. That is not blaming them.

I agree fully with what you said. Charities can and do help. In fact i already said that earlier. But they are not prepared nor they are qualified or have the resources to deal with these problems on a full scale bases.
(in response #38 here is what i said:these charities were there but still the problem continued despite all the charities' efforts.it helped i am sure but they couldnt solve it on their own.. But you still chose to say i am the one who tells you asinine ideas???? amazing !!!!... it really is)

.... Charities have their role and Gov has its role. saying one should replace the other is just not sane policy. But when you say that to some, they jump in their boots and say Gov should not be involved and leave everything to charities.

Thanks for making my points.

i got the impression that the people who say leave everything to charities are really saying "we help as much as we like .... if that is not enough... well, too bad and tough luck .... that is life .... let them deal with it....etc"

but the problem with that is this: the problem creates problem for ALL of us and if not solved drags us all down. But some, dont care about that ..... That is ok too. but to say this view is the correct one is total nonsense. Fortunately, the majority recognizes that nonsense.

I made no one's points. It is a great leap of logic to assume that just because someone can help those who stumble, that we must now create a bureaucracy to prevent it from happening. I never touched on that part of the issue.

Nor do I believe that humanity should be put in rubber rooms to guard against any eventuality that they may fail. But that is what the mindset is about government and these programs. The problem with that, is then we are all children, protected from life, and not allowed to live it. Because we might fail.

A safety net is not a guarantee against failure. It is to mitigate it. And that is what charities are designed to do, and have been doing. You state they failed, but provide no proof or even anecdotal stories of where they have. You merely condemn them for not preventing failure, a job I pointed out they are not designed to do.

This country thrived, survived and prospered without a nanny state for over 150 years. Some died, some failed, and some lived and suceeded. That is called life. Gaurantees against failing are not living. It is existing. Terry Schiavo was guaranteed against failure. SO we must all be hooked up to the teats of government to guard against failure, or we cant live?

Sorry, my idea of living is to know that when I take a chance, I risk failing. And from that failure I will learn. Not that I will not allowed to even try because I might fail. But that to some is living.

Keep your brave new world to yourself. I want life, not existance.

again? i did not say they failed. You yourself admitted that they could not handle everything and every problem and that is what i said. They do what they are capable of and they mostly succeed but that is not enough. The problems are more than they can handle. when are you going to understand that?



First: yes it survived and prospered but was never great as it did after those 150 years. but how did that period end?in a great depression?

It became Great and dominant only when it realized that ALL should share in prosperity and lift the average standard of living through programs that opened the doors to the less fortunate and to the excluded.

Second: This is not a nanny state by any means and no one is proposing that it should.
no one is suggesting to do anything other than provide the safety-net that you mentioned.

It seems that you are disagreeing for the sake of disagreement.

The risk that we take in not dealing with the society's problems is not personal. It does not lead to personal failure. It is a risk to society and it results in society's failure. that is what the safety net is supposed to guard against. not personal failures but society's failure.

Not true, TA.

Universal health care is not a "safety net"; it is an entitlement. And it is proposed by each of the three leading Democrats.

The welfare system as it is is hardly a "safety net"; families who need a "safety net" can hardly get on it (as we discovered firsthand during our brief downturn in NV!), and many families are chronically on it with no intent of getting off of it until they are forced to.

You talk about the Great Depression, yet somehow you don't realize that the New Deal died a long time ago; the Great Society is more influential in the welfare system as it exists today. The New Deal built dams, wired the nation, built roads and bridges. The Great Society created an entire class of "shovel leaners".

Of course it is not. This is a service with people paying for it. The cost of a good designed system is much less than what the Gov pays now. It is all a matter of management and cost control. The insr comp are the ones who are benefiting from the current system. The Gov and the Public pays more and get less.

It is no secret that Univ health care is opposed by insr comp for the simple reason that if it is implemented, there will be no need for their services.

The Right makes all kind of deceiving reasons for opposing the proposed system but the real reason is the fact that it will render the insr comp obselete.

currently, the insr comp exist for the simple reason of getting money from the Gov and from people to pay service-providers. Can you tell me what is the logic behind that? why do we need this middle step? take them out of the pic and you have less cost, less nonsense, and easy service. But you and the rest of the right still say it is socialism in order to scare people. As if Canada, France, UK, Germany,...etc all going to be or already are communists.

The Right's dishonesty and deceit has no limit or shame ..... say it straight .... the insr comp will be hurt ..... that is the main problem for the Right. It is a legitimate concern, but if addressed openly and honestly could be resolved ..... but honesty is the forbidden policy for the Right. that is the main problem.