Politics

[Ndaccountant]

I don't disagree about generational welfare, but the answer isn't to demonize people who have required help or currently require help. I have suggested a few times on here that the FDR programs that matched people to work needed in the society would be a great start to correcting this problem, and the problem of our aging infrastructure. Looking forward is where we should be as a nation, not looking back and looking for someone to blame.

It's all Bush's and Reagan's fault!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist

 

[Ndaccountant]

Religions plays a huge part.

Why black church culture rejects homosexuality - CNN.com

Many blacks take exception to the comparison because they draw a distinction between the two movements - race is an immutable characteristic and sexuality is a mutable characteristic (debatable, of course).

Thanks. That was a good read.

 

[GoIrish41]

It's all Bush's and Reagan's fault!!!

Sorry, couldn't resist

Looking forward on this issue is where we should be as a nation. On all other issues, we must discredit and crush the opposing point of view first.

 

[T Town Tommy]

I don't disagree about generational welfare, but the answer isn't to demonize people who have required help or currently require help. I have suggested a few times on here that the FDR programs that matched people to work needed in the society would be a great start to correcting this problem, and the problem of our aging infrastructure. Looking forward is where we should be as a nation, not looking back and looking for someone to blame.

Maybe you should read some of my prior posts. I have been very clear on my thoughts when it comes to welfare. But what I won't do is give those a free pass that have no desire to break that cycle.

 

[wizards8507]

Maybe you should read some of my prior posts. I have been very clear on my thoughts when it comes to welfare. But what I won't do is give those a free pass that have no desire to break that cycle.

The responses to your posts in the past have generally accused you of demonizing an entire group of people, namely those who have received government benefits. I think what GoIrish41 and others are missing is that identifying problems within a group of people is not the same as criticising the entire group. I can hold the position that "Matthias Farley is a poor tackler" but "the Notre Dame defense is pretty good" at the same time without being intellectually inconsistent. Likewise, it's unfair for folks to accuse you of hating the poor or demonizing those who have received welfare just because you disagree with the manner in which certain individiuals within those groups have chosen to conduct themselves.

 

[irishog77]

I don't disagree about generational welfare, but the answer isn't to demonize people who have required help or currently require help. I have suggested a few times on here that the FDR programs that matched people to work needed in the society would be a great start to correcting this problem, and the problem of our aging infrastructure. Looking forward is where we should be as a nation, not looking back and looking for someone to blame.

Except that really didn't work when FDR tried it. It seemed and sounded like a good theory, but did essentially nothing to get us out of the depression. WWII was the biggest, most influential reason we were able to get out of the depression.

I think the idea that people getting a check from the government (except for things like SS-- where they actually paid into it) are required to do some sort of work/job to "earn" sounds great...but am not sure it would be any type of net benefit to the country's financial status. I don't know-- perhaps if it were done radically different from the FDR model, it could. I'll also say, that even if it's a neutral economic-impact proposal, I think taxpayers would maybe at least think better of the program if the recipients of a check were at least out working. So maybe there's something to it.

 

[T Town Tommy]

The responses to your posts in the past have generally accused you of demonizing an entire group of people, namely those who have received government benefits. I think what GoIrish41 and others are missing is that identifying problems within a group of people is not the same as criticising the entire group. I can hold the position that "Matthias Farley is a poor tackler" but "the Notre Dame defense is pretty good" at the same time without being intellectually inconsistent. Likewise, it's unfair for folks to accuse you of hating the poor or demonizing those who have received welfare just because you disagree with the manner in which certain individiuals within those groups have chosen to conduct themselves.

I do not ever want to see a child suffer for the ills of their parents. We have an obligation to take care of the child. While others may not like the fact that am not "politically correct" when discussing this issue, but when I see the abuses over and over I have a right as a taxpayer to speak my mind on it. I am not against welfare as a temporary means to assist those that need help. What I am against is generational welfare, not having to do anything in order to receive it, and all the while talking on their $500 smartphone trying to find the next hookup while sitting at home watching cable on their $1000 HDTV. Meanwhile, I will be off to work to pay for it all. I am beginning to wonder if I chose the wrong career path.

 

[irishog77]

General question - With the whole Sam thing going on with the NFL draft, I read some articles that listed voting results for state level gay marriage initiatives during the last election. In almost every state, African Americans were the largest demographic opposed to the measures.

This strikes me as being odd considering the fight African Americans had over the last half century. If nothing else at all, I assumed this demographic would be the most sympathetic.

Why do you think this is the case?

This is very intriguing to me. A few years ago, Jason Whitlock wrote about the prison culture of blacks in America. He was widely criticized for it, particularly from the black community.

[At face value and take away the political/slanted viewpoints from both sides, and there still remains a disproportionate amount of black people in prison/committing crimes compared to their actual population.]

Whitlock segued the prison culture into broader demographics from there. Bottom line, he said the prison culture helped lead to more homosexuals among blacks, both male and female. The males because they spent many years in prison among males, were sexual activity was common. The females because so many of the adult males were in prison, that they turned to each instead. He also claimed, as a black person, that many adult males engaged in homosexual activity, outside of or after prison...it's just not talked about (it's on the down low-- the DL). That and the attitude of black males being "macho" caused the attitude of homosexuality to be hush-hush. He even wrote about the children, growing up without a dad (or perhaps 2 moms), as being affected by all this. Ultimately, he was acknowledging that homosexuality was a much bigger factor in black American society than is ever acknowledged.

So the idea in some of what you mentioned above may not actually be that far fetched-- against it publicly, but not so much privately. Abortion is another such issue. It is widely reported, that as a demographic, blacks in America are publicly against abortion, but ultimately not so when it comes down to it, privately.

 

[ACamp1900]

It's not like we don't have African Americans on the board... I believe Salty and Military are both black just off the top of my head... I'd be interested to hear their take.

 

[wizards8507]

It's not like we don't have African Americans on the board... I believe Salty and Military are both black just off the top of my head... I'd be interested to hear their take.

I agree. I've always been interested in the notion of "acting black" and whether it's a real pressure experienced by African Americans or if it's more driven by the overall "urban culture" in the cities. Say what you want about Will Smith as a rapper, but I've always been intrigued by these lyrics, which seem to highlight a real problem (even though it's not a very good song):

Black radio, they won't play though
Ever since "Summertime" they ain't liked none of mine
Even though the fans went out & bought enough
I guess they think Will ain't hard enough
Maybe I should just have a shoot out
Run up in the bank, bustin', grabbin' all the loot out
Whoop somebody ass, taking my boot out
Right on TV so ya'll can see me
Just ignorant, attacking, actin' rough
I mean, then will I be black enough?
Oh wait maybe I'll jack a truck
Full of cigarettes, guns & drugs & stuff

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Why don't black people like abortion, same sex marriage etc >> Religion. I think its the group with the highest rate of religiosity (with black women having the highest of all groups).

As far as urban culture in the mainstream... that's what white kids were buying, so that's what was being sold. Now, I believe it's Latinos taht make up the bulk of consumers.

Black people probably have the same rate of gays as other races.

 

[GowerND11]

I agree. I've always been interested in the notion of "acting black" and whether it's a real pressure experienced by African Americans or if it's more driven by the overall "urban culture" in the cities. Say what you want about Will Smith as a rapper, but I've always been intrigued by these lyrics, which seem to highlight a real problem (even though it's not a very good song):

Black radio, they won't play though
Ever since "Summertime" they ain't liked none of mine
Even though the fans went out & bought enough
I guess they think Will ain't hard enough
Maybe I should just have a shoot out
Run up in the bank, bustin', grabbin' all the loot out
Whoop somebody ass, taking my boot out
Right on TV so ya'll can see me
Just ignorant, attacking, actin' rough
I mean, then will I be black enough?
Oh wait maybe I'll jack a truck
Full of cigarettes, guns & drugs & stuff

I talked a friend/co-worker of mine in college who was from Philly about black culture, and he was willing to explain some things to enlighten me. We worked as painters in the apartment complex for students we lived in. He told me that a lot of his friends, family members, and friends' families love to spend their money on material things to look good and be looked up to. He said many of them chose to "live poor' to afford the Jordans, Xbox/PS3, HDTVs, etc etc. He admitted it's part of the culture and it can be extremely hard to break that cycle when you grow up in that environment.

 

[connor_in]

It's not like we don't have African Americans on the board... I believe Salty and Military are both black just off the top of my head... I'd be interested to hear their take.

You mean they aren't black anywhere else?

NS4W
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/klSM0AwjXJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[GoIrish41]

Except that really didn't work when FDR tried it. It seemed and sounded like a good theory, but did essentially nothing to get us out of the depression. WWII was the biggest, most influential reason we were able to get out of the depression.

I think the idea that people getting a check from the government (except for things like SS-- where they actually paid into it) are required to do some sort of work/job to "earn" sounds great...but am not sure it would be any type of net benefit to the country's financial status. I don't know-- perhaps if it were done radically different from the FDR model, it could. I'll also say, that even if it's a neutral economic-impact proposal, I think taxpayers would maybe at least think better of the program if the recipients of a check were at least out working. So maybe there's something to it.

I think that the people who were saved from starvation and homelessness would argue that it didn't work. As would anyone who has ever benefited from the massive amount of infrastructure projects undertaken under the New Deal that essentially created the backbone of this country. Even if it did not completely get the country out of the Depression, it is a bit short sighted to say it didn't work. Besides, Id rather have a return on investment, personally, than simply giving money away. I think it is a pretty simple answer to the problem.

 

[chicago51]

I don't disagree about generational welfare, but the answer isn't to demonize people who have required help or currently require help. I have suggested a few times on here that the FDR programs that matched people to work needed in the society would be a great start to correcting this problem, and the problem of our aging infrastructure. Looking forward is where we should be as a nation, not looking back and looking for someone to blame.

I always say you don't like welfare simply make the government the employer of last resort. Then if people don't work you know they are lazy bums. There is a risk that you can go to far and to too many workers away from the private sector (although a labor shortage would increase wages), however we have a jobs shortage not a labor shortage; we aren't close to peak output right now.

Upgrading infrastructure rather it be transportation, education, communication, or energy generates revenue for a couple generations after it is built. We could actually do things like installing solar pannels on federal buildings that would create temporary jobs and save government in electricity cost down the road.

People like to compare the Obama recovery to the Reagan recovery in a negative light. Reagan compared to Obama at this point in his presidency had hired over a million federal workers by borrowing while under Obama we've seen 800k federal workers lose their job from cuts. That's just the numbers who knows what the effect of those workers spending money or in day's case not spending money is having on job creation. Just adding 2 million federal workers would put the unemployment under 6 percent.

 

[MJ12666]

Does anyone know if the Obama's invited any of the 99% to last night's dinner held in the honor of the French President?

 

[irishog77]

I think that the people who were saved from starvation and homelessness would argue that it didn't work. As would anyone who has ever benefited from the massive amount of infrastructure projects undertaken under the New Deal that essentially created the backbone of this country. Even if it did not completely get the country out of the Depression, it is a bit short sighted to say it didn't work. Besides, Id rather have a return on investment, personally, than simply giving money away. I think it is a pretty simple answer to the problem.

If the point is to save people from starvation, then let's grow private sector/faith-based charities. They're more efficient at accomplishing their aim than the government.

If the point is to boost a country's economy, expand the workforce, and create jobs, if it is all encompassed by the government, then nothing has really been boosted, expanded, nor created. We've simply robbed Peter to pay Paul or used creativity to explain the ledger. How do we pay for this growing number of government employees? Taxes, right? If a road needs repair work, we now pay somebody who directly works for the government, to do only government work, instead of a private sector contractor who does government work...as well as other private sector work? Reward those who work for the government with more work...and create more barriers for private sector business owners?

 

[GoIrish41]

If the point is to save people from starvation, then let's grow private sector/faith-based charities. They're more efficient at accomplishing their aim than the government.

If the point is to boost a country's economy, expand the workforce, and create jobs, if it is all encompassed by the government, then nothing has really been boosted, expanded, nor created. We've simply robbed Peter to pay Paul or used creativity to explain the ledger. How do we pay for this growing number of government employees? Taxes, right? If a road needs repair work, we now pay somebody who directly works for the government, to do only government work, instead of a private sector contractor who does government work...as well as other private sector work? Reward those who work for the government with more work...and create more barriers for private sector business owners?

A program doesn't have to have a single benefit. I'd think it would be a better program if it had multiple benefits. A program that accomplishes putting money in the pockets of the poor, establishing job training programs, and investing in our infrastructure -- at at about the same cost as we are already paying to do just one of those things is a good thing, no?

We'd be getting something in return for the money we hand out to people currently with no return on our investment. Our taxes are already being spent to support these programs. Might as well get something in return for that investment. Those private contractors aren't doing the work unless they have a contract in place. This country's roads and bridges are in disrepair, so right now, it seems, nobody is doing that work -- government or contractors. Since we are already "paying" people, lets get them to do the work we currently can't afford (partly because we are giving away free money). Seems simple to me.

 

[irishog77]

A program doesn't have to have a single benefit. I'd think it would be a better program if it had multiple benefits. A program that accomplishes putting money in the pockets of the poor, establishing job training programs, and investing in our infrastructure -- at at about the same cost as we are already paying to do just one of those things is a good thing, no?

We'd be getting something in return for the money we hand out to people currently with no return on our investment. Our taxes are already being spent to support these programs. Might as well get something in return for that investment. Those private contractors aren't doing the work unless they have a contract in place. This country's roads and bridges are in disrepair, so right now, it seems, nobody is doing that work -- government or contractors. Since we are already "paying" people, lets get them to do the work we currently can't afford (partly because we are giving away free money). Seems simple to me.

Would this include picking up trash along the roads? Cleaning government vehicles and buildings? Menial labor? Physically demanding labor too? Or only jobs deemed "worthy" of pursuing?

 

[MJ12666]

A program doesn't have to have a single benefit. I'd think it would be a better program if it had multiple benefits. A program that accomplishes putting money in the pockets of the poor, establishing job training programs, and investing in our infrastructure -- at at about the same cost as we are already paying to do just one of those things is a good thing, no?

We'd be getting something in return for the money we hand out to people currently with no return on our investment. Our taxes are already being spent to support these programs. Might as well get something in return for that investment. Those private contractors aren't doing the work unless they have a contract in place. This country's roads and bridges are in disrepair, so right now, it seems, nobody is doing that work -- government or contractors. Since we are already "paying" people, lets get them to do the work we currently can't afford (partly because we are giving away free money). Seems simple to me.

This would never occur for because there is NO WAY Obama is going to alienate the unions by paying these people to work at wages equivalent to what they are currently receiving in government support.

 

[chicago51]

If the point is to save people from starvation, then let's grow private sector/faith-based charities. They're more efficient at accomplishing their aim than the government.

If the point is to boost a country's economy, expand the workforce, and create jobs, if it is all encompassed by the government, then nothing has really been boosted, expanded, nor created. We've simply robbed Peter to pay Paul or used creativity to explain the ledger. How do we pay for this growing number of government employees? Taxes, right? If a road needs repair work, we now pay somebody who directly works for the government, to do only government work, instead of a private sector contractor who does government work...as well as other private sector work? Reward those who work for the government with more work...and create more barriers for private sector business owners?

I don't know of a private charity that can handle food stamps, unemployment insurance, medicaid, children's health insurance.

t ain't exactly robbing Peter to pay Paul. When you hire people they go out and spend money.This creates more demand in the economy so companies have to hire more workers to meet demand. Then those workers go out and spend and the cycle continues. When private business picks up the government can and should back off hiring workers.

There are 2 problems with my scenario: giant transnational corporation and free trade. If we would have continued to enforce the Sherman Antitrust Act then we would have still local companies so when people spend their money it would stay in local business and local banks. Also we since we went to free trade the money usually doesn't stay in the country.

People say the stimulus didn't work. BS it worked some but it really worked creating jobs in China. Those workers the government hired spent money and so did everyone that got a temporary tax rebate in 09 and 10. The problem is when those people went to Walmart to buy something; a very small amount goes to Walmart workers, the rest gets sucked out of the local community every night, goes to some giant national bank, then it goes toward paying the Chineese workers that made the products, and what's left goes to Arkansas to the Waltons.

 

[chicago51]

Would this include picking up trash along the roads? Cleaning government vehicles and buildings? Menial labor? Physically demanding labor too? Or only jobs deemed "worthy" of pursuing?

Good point I get the concern. Any public works program should focus on worthy goals.

I think right now we have a ton of projects worth doing. I'm think a massive overhaul of our transportation infrastructure in our major cities in a way that would reduce traffic congestion saving people time and money on gasoline (that can be spent on other areas of the economy). We also build public fiberoptic network to bring high speed internet to all schools then we open the lines up to any private company. Internet in Europe cellular, and internet cost are dirt cheep because the infrastructure is public so a lot of companies end up being able to compete. Also as I mentioned we could make government buildings energy efficent. This should go a long way toward reaching the goal of full employment. There is enough wasteful corporate subsidies, and wasteful tax loopholes to pay for a lot of these things.

 

[irishog77]

There's a difference between saving someone from starvation and giving assistance.

Your ally in this thread mentioned doing something similar to what FDR did, to aid in improving our current welfare state. I pointed out that that essentially did nothing, on a macro level, to help us get out of the depression. He then came back and said it helped people from starvation. Which is probably technically true. Although it is extremely misleading because the only 2 choices were not "starve to death" or "enact FDR's legislation to end this." This is a quick, brief summation of our conversation.

I believe, if we want to help the neediest and worst off in our society, then lets help organizations that actually do that, not expand the government more so to do that. Nobody is claiming a local chapter of Catholic Charities can handle food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc. Also, things like SS and unemployment insurance are a bit of a different animal-- we actually pay into those. So is there a role for government interaction? Sure.

I think that is what he and I are discussing. Reforming the current state of welfare, as we know it. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. I'm skeptical to his idea because I think the model he used as a basis (FDR) is extremely flawed. And to add to this, I'm all for people receiving government aid to have to go and out and work and "earn" it. Except then we've created essentially a new welfare program-- millions of people who are now employees of the government.

I feel the ultimate goal should be to end welfare (this will only happen through human charity). Will we ever get there? Probably not. But I don't see any way how expanding a government bureaucracy improves it, let alone lessens it. As bureaucracies grow, so too may their power and ability to do things, but not in their efficiency. Nothing in the almost 300 years since nations started adopting Liberal Democracy as a form of government has shown us this.

 

[ACamp1900]

There's a difference between saving someone from starvation and giving assistance.

Your ally in this thread mentioned doing something similar to what FDR did, to aid in improving our current welfare state. I pointed out that that essentially did nothing, on a macro level, to help us get out of the depression. He then came back and said it helped people from starvation. Which is probably technically true. Although it is extremely misleading because the only 2 choices were not "starve to death" or "enact FDR's legislation to end this." This is a quick, brief summation of our conversation.

I believe, if we want to help the neediest and worst off in our society, then lets help organizations that actually do that, not expand the government more so to do that. Nobody is claiming a local chapter of Catholic Charities can handle food stamps, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, etc. Also, things like SS and unemployment insurance are a bit of a different animal-- we actually pay into those. So is there a role for government interaction? Sure.

I think that is what he and I are discussing. Reforming the current state of welfare, as we know it. Is there room for improvement? Absolutely. I'm skeptical to his idea because I think the model he used as a basis (FDR) is extremely flawed. And to add to this, I'm all for people receiving government aid to have to go and out and work and "earn" it. Except then we've created essentially a new welfare program-- millions of people who are now employees of the government.

I feel the ultimate goal should be to end welfare (this will only happen through human charity). Will we ever get there? Probably not. But I don't see any way how expanding a government bureaucracy improves it, let alone lessens it. As bureaucracies grow, so too may their power and ability to do things, but not in their efficiency. Nothing in the almost 300 years since nations started adopting Liberal Democracy as a form of government has shown us this.

 

[yankeehater]

Does anyone know if the Obama's invited any of the 99% to last night's dinner held in the honor of the French President?

Doubt it.....especially if the First Ladies' dress last night cost $12K. Someone better her introduce her to TJ Maxx so she can see how the 99% lives. I thought only Romney was supposedly out of touch.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

I always say you don't like welfare simply make the government the employer of last resort. Then if people don't work you know they are lazy bums. There is a risk that you can go to far and to too many workers away from the private sector (although a labor shortage would increase wages), however we have a jobs shortage not a labor shortage; we aren't close to peak output right now.

Upgrading infrastructure rather it be transportation, education, communication, or energy generates revenue for a couple generations after it is built. We could actually do things like installing solar pannels on federal buildings that would create temporary jobs and save government in electricity cost down the road.

People like to compare the Obama recovery to the Reagan recovery in a negative light. Reagan compared to Obama at this point in his presidency had hired over a million federal workers by borrowing while under Obama we've seen 800k federal workers lose their job from cuts. That's just the numbers who knows what the effect of those workers spending money or in day's case not spending money is having on job creation. Just adding 2 million federal workers would put the unemployment under 6 percent.

Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Adding federal workers is like a pizza shop owner making 50 pies and taking 45 of them home for himself. "But look...my orders are up!"

Ever take into account how much MORE tax revenue would have to be raised to pay these 2 million MORE federal workers?

 

[chicago51]

Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Adding federal workers is like a pizza shop owner making 50 pies and taking 45 of them home for himself. "But look...my orders are up!"

Ever take into account how much MORE tax revenue would have to be raised to pay these 2 million MORE federal workers?

Or we could pull a Reagan and cut taxes then hire a million more federal workers (mostly for defense) anyway.

 

[connor_in]

 

[magogian]

Speaking to the intersection of law, politics, and ND, I was at the Seventh Circuit today during oral arguments. The first case up today was Notre Dame's appeal on the issue of whether the government's contraception-coverage requirement forces ND to violate its religious beliefs.

It did not go well for ND. All 3 judges expressed significant skepticism with the arguments of ND's lawyer. ND's lawyer was unable to convince the panel that ND's forced involvement was anything more than trivial.

It will be interesting to read the opinion after seeing the oral argument in person.

 

[GoIrish41]

Is this supposed to be taken seriously? Adding federal workers is like a pizza shop owner making 50 pies and taking 45 of them home for himself. "But look...my orders are up!"

Ever take into account how much MORE tax revenue would have to be raised to pay these 2 million MORE federal workers?

Do we get to subtract what we are already paying them to do nothing?