|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
 Posted - 10/13/2010 : 13:32:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Please take into consideration my position which is that of an average ordinary working class guy who wants nothing more than to take care of his family by working hard and not get fucked by people who do not want to work hard. |
It's the people who can't work hard who liberals are concerned about. I don't think you'll see any arguments against the idea that we need more and better protections from people willing to commit Welfare/Medicare/whatever fraud.
|
Well, I too am willing to help people who "can't" which is why my wife and I have particular causes that we help out with both financially and using the sweat of our brow i.e Coats for Kids, Habitat for Humanity, and our local Humane Society (among others but those are the major ones. I think that those who really "can't" might possibly be outnumbered by those who "won't" pretending that they "can't". I prefer to choose my causes myslef.
Gosh Dave, I wish I had the answers. As usual once one question gets answered 10 more pop up.
I hate Glen Beck but I caught something he said recently which I beleive he stole from me because I posted it almost verbatim here many months ago. The idea was that it would be much more efficient to handle taking care of the poor and physically unable at the local level on a volunteer basis. I fail to see how this is an unworkable solution. it would be nearly impossible for the lazy to slip through the cracks and get assistance. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
 |
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 13:43:55 [Permalink]
|
Ebone4rock:
BTW you are building your own strawman here. |
Perhaps I should have put the sarcasm tags around it... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 13:45:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Ebone4rock:
BTW you are building your own strawman here. |
Perhaps I should have put the sarcasm tags around it...
|
Oh you mean I misunderstood? Never happens! |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 17:04:38 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Well, I too am willing to help people who "can't" which is why my wife and I have particular causes that we help out with both financially and using the sweat of our brow i.e Coats for Kids, Habitat for Humanity, and our local Humane Society (among others but those are the major ones. I think that those who really "can't" might possibly be outnumbered by those who "won't" pretending that they "can't". |
The worst I've heard is that Medicare (for example), with a budget of $489 billion, may have $40 billion in fraud. That 8% is uncomfortably high, but there's no way to get it down to zero, we have to settle for some amount of cheating, because some people are really, really good liars.
More importantly, even all of these government programs were privatized, there'd still be fraud and your money would go to waste. (A friend of mine witnessed a family stealing from Toys for Tots, fercryinoutloud.) That waste either hampers the efforts of the groups overall (perhaps to the point of shutting down), or just winds up going straight from your pocket to a thief's pocket. We can't change the fact that such things will happen, we can only try to minimize the occurrence of them through better policing and/or more severe punishment, both of which the Federal government is equipped to do, and private organizations aren't.
On top of that, private charitable groups generally lack the resources for proper geographic coverage, so we wind up with "competing" groups overserving some areas and underserving others.
I'm not saying that all charity should be government-run. Even as liberal as I am, I'd rather the Feds not do what Habitat for Humanity or your local Humane Society do. My idea for government-provided housing is more barracks-style than single-family home, for example.| I prefer to choose my causes myslef. |
And that will lead to uncertain coverage and funding, also, but "causes" are a different animal than people's basic needs.| Gosh Dave, I wish I had the answers. As usual once one question gets answered 10 more pop up. |
But this is what government is for: to have a national discussion on what needs to happen where and for how much, and then implement a single solution that is a compromise between competing tough-question priorities. You may not have the answers, but someone else might, and you (at a local level) may not have ever heard of that someone else, nor he you. The people with the answers can easily get in touch with their elected representatives, though.| I hate Glen Beck but I caught something he said recently which I beleive he stole from me because I posted it almost verbatim here many months ago. The idea was that it would be much more efficient to handle taking care of the poor and physically unable at the local level on a volunteer basis. I fail to see how this is an unworkable solution. it would be nearly impossible for the lazy to slip through the cracks and get assistance. |
What will slip through the cracks are people with needs, as localities find themselves lacking funds and/or volunteers. At a national level, if some town winds up needing an extra $100K due to some natural disaster (like a flu outbreak), the government can shift a hundred bucks out each of the budgets of a thousand other localities that have been less sick than normal, or just pay the costs and bump everyone's taxes by a tenth of a penny the following year. If each locality has to fend for itself, that sort of thing just won't be possible, and people won't get the help they need. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
podcat
Skeptic Friend
435 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 19:52:43 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Hahahahahahaha!!! Are you kidding me? Does that guy do standup?
|
Actually, Kil, now that you ask....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Crowder |
“In a modern...society, everybody has the absolute right to believe whatever they damn well please, but they don't have the same right to be taken seriously”.
-Barry Williams, co-founder, Australian Skeptics |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 10/13/2010 : 23:11:50 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by podcat
Actually, Kil, now that you ask.... |
He sounds about as funny as Dennis Miller.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
chefcrsh
Skeptic Friend
Hong Kong
380 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 02:33:51 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
there's no way to get it down to zero, |
Please demonstrate the logic that reaches your conclusion? I think in eBone's stance a clear result of deleting the program(s) would result in no fraud of that program.
| we have to settle for some amount of cheating, because some people are really, really good liars |
Please demonstrate the logic that reaches your conclusion? I think in eBone's stance a clear result of deleting the program(s) would result in no fraud of that program.
More importantly, even all of these government programs were privatized, there'd still be fraud and your money would go to waste.
First why is that necessarily so? Second the point may be that in a privatized program the waste and cheating would be lower. Wouldn't lower be better?
| we can only try to minimize the occurrence of them through better policing and/or more severe punishment, both of which the Federal government is equipped to do, and private organizations aren't. |
Erhm...have we forgotten the past... even just past 10 or so years of recent events? Two wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, Katrina, Economic Disaster, Fannymae, Freddymac, Blagoyavich, Bush, and on and on. Serious Dave? Government is a better force of good or moral entity than individuals or private (relatively smaller) orgs?
ETA: A very key point you miss with the rest of the glorification of government Dave, is that with government the average payer has zero control over the spend amount or direction. Most of the money put into government is mixed up, fermented, and then sidetracked in a million different ways to a million interests that you or your community may have no truck with: wars, pork, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, overpriced hammers, bridges to nowhere, and all that kind of shit. With private charity there is a wealth of information available as to how much of what you put in gets to where. Talk about inefficiency ...boooyah!
Do you know what you last tax bill payed for? Did it send Bombs to Iraq, pork to Alaska, Bonuses to wall street, money for ridiculous campaign ads, or did it go to grandmas medical bill, and clean water for the homeless?
I'll stop there...except to add I have no interest in the OP, it is more of the divisive tribalism so rampant and at the source of all the troubles in the world. It creates a straw dog of what is at best a fringe liberal mindset, no doubt not the majority, and then kicks it hard. ZzzZZzzZzzZ.
Pick and idiot, call him and idiot and add a party as prefix and you can win against vapor every time. |
| Edited by - chefcrsh on 10/14/2010 02:58:16 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 04:43:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by chefcrsh
Please demonstrate the logic that reaches your conclusion? I think in eBone's stance a clear result of deleting the program(s) would result in no fraud of that program. |
You must have missed the part where Ebone doesn't want the programs deleted, he wants to replace Federal efforts with local efforts. People will cheat the local programs, just like they cheat the Feds. Do you have evidence that says otherwise?| More importantly, even all of these government programs were privatized, there'd still be fraud and your money would go to waste. |
First why is that necessarily so? |
Because some people will still feel entitled to get something for nothing. Changing the level (local or Federal) at which the program exists does nothing to counter that.| Second the point may be that in a privatized program the waste and cheating would be lower. Wouldn't lower be better? |
I see no evidence that the waste and cheating would be lower in privatized systems, and since the administration of privatized systems would necessarily be duplicated, they would be more inefficient in principle.| Erhm...have we forgotten the past... even just past 10 or so years of recent events? Two wars of aggression, the Patriot Act, Katrina, Economic Disaster, Fannymae, Freddymac, Blagoyavich, Bush, and on and on. Serious Dave? Government is a better force of good or moral entity than individuals or private (relatively smaller) orgs? |
A nice straw man. I said that the national government is equipped to do things better, not that the government we've had has done things better. There are lots of things about our current system which would need to change to bring us closer to a liberal ideal, but ideals are what we're talking about in this thread, not the illiberal reality of the Bush years.  | ETA: A very key point you miss with the rest of the glorification of government Dave, is that with government the average payer has zero control over the spend amount or direction. Most of the money put into government is mixed up, fermented, and then sidetracked in a million different ways to a million interests that you or your community may have no truck with: wars, pork, bank bailouts, auto bailouts, overpriced hammers, bridges to nowhere, and all that kind of shit. |
Yes, things haven't been good. But it hasn't been a liberal's ideal government, ever.| With private charity there is a wealth of information available as to how much of what you put in gets to where. Talk about inefficiency ...boooyah! |
I could also add some rather famous examples of charities in which 85% or more of the money went to administration, and the people running them worked hard to disguise that fact. Private charities can themselves be frauds. How much of your donations have gone towards things you don't want them going towards? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 05:55:08 [Permalink]
|
originally posted by Dave
You must have missed the part where Ebone doesn't want the programs deleted, he wants to replace Federal efforts with local efforts. People will cheat the local programs, just like they cheat the Feds. Do you have evidence that says otherwise? |
No, I have no evidence because it is impossible to have this evidence yet. I'm just brainstorming here but I can see how fraud could be significantly decreased if programs were administered at the local level where people actually know each other rather than by the massive beaurocracy that is our federal government.
| Because some people will still feel entitled to get something for nothing. Changing the level (local or Federal) at which the program exists does nothing to counter that. |
Again I am banking on the fraud decreasing at the local level.
| I see no evidence that the waste and cheating would be lower in privatized systems, and since the administration of privatized systems would necessarily be duplicated, they would be more inefficient in principle. |
But we do have evidence of the waste that big government produces. I totally disagree with your thought that programs administered at the local level being more inefficient than that of the federal government. I am willing to try it and find out.
| Yes, things haven't been good. But it hasn't been a liberal's ideal government, ever. |
See, we are both using our ideals as ideas. I think it would be easier and more efficient for things to be organized at a local level. Have I any evidence to support my ideas? No, but I sure think it's worth a shot.
Quite frankly Dave I think that your position clearly illustrates the point that the author of the article is making.
From the OP
Liberals don’t believe in the ultimate concept of self-reliance, which is why they look to the government for stability. |
| Liberals simply believe that man is not good enough. Indomitable spirits be damned! |
I for one have faith(did I really say that!?) in my fellow citizens to do the right thing.
|
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 07:44:25 [Permalink]
|
| Tell that to the hundreds of charitys which give less than 50% of their funds to their dedicated causes. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 08:48:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
No, I have no evidence because it is impossible to have this evidence yet. |
But we've got years and years of local charities existences to look at. Does nobody ever eat at a soup kitchen who could afford to buy their own food?| I'm just brainstorming here but I can see how fraud could be significantly decreased if programs were administered at the local level where people actually know each other rather than by the massive beaurocracy that is our federal government. |
What kind of "local level" are you talking about? Getting a couple dozen families together to try to pay for someone's $100,000 cancer treatment is going to be taxing, if you'll pardon the pun.| Again I am banking on the fraud decreasing at the local level. |
And I don't know why you would bank on it. Even within a single family, there are people who refuse to pull their own weight, and mooch off of (and even steal from) their parents as long as they can. People walk into their local corner grocery stores, the sames ones they've been going to for 17 years, and pocket Snickers bars while chatting with the clerk about their kids' soccer game while he's slicing the ham. This sort of stuff happens all the time, even when people know each other really well.| But we do have evidence of the waste that big government produces. |
Yes, we have evidence of the waste produced by a horrible combination of career politicians and lobbyists; of greed, abuse of power and civic irresponsibility. A liberal ideal will never come about without a massive shift of the populace to demanding good governance instead of demanding dogmatic adherence to party lines, or demanding a slice of the pie. A liberal ideal will only come about after the nation starts viewing cuts to education budgets as treasonous, and refuses to vote for people with sound-bite platforms. Shortsightedness among the populace has got us to where we are today, and it's become a vicious cycle of self-damaging stupidity in which the average Joe can be convinced by a 15-second TV ad to vote to have more of his hard-earned taxes subsidize corporations making record profits, just because the "other guy" wants to make him wait a few days between buying and receiving a handgun. Having an informed and educated citizenry is what this country requires to get better governance (whether you'd prefer a smaller Federal government or not), and we won't have that while educational programs get gutted and people can defend outright political lies as "free speech."| I totally disagree with your thought that programs administered at the local level being more inefficient than that of the federal government. |
Consider an example of separate, locally-run free clinics. They each need their own HR people, their own accountants, etc.. Every aspect of running a clinic would be duplicated, instead of just the doctors and buildings (which need to be geographically diverse), and thus it is less efficient in principle. Also (for example) addicts seeking drugs will be able to game the system by flitting from clinic to clinic, caging a few Percocet out of each one, and never getting treated. A national healthcare system with a national database needs only one administrative staff, and can "catch" cheaters in the system by looking at patterns of behavior that simply aren't visible at the local level.| I am willing to try it and find out. |
So am I. Let's wall off Kansas and use it as a test bed.Quite frankly Dave I think that your position clearly illustrates the point that the author of the article is making.From the OP
Liberals don’t believe in the ultimate concept of self-reliance, which is why they look to the government for stability. |
|
But I'm not talking about doing away with self-reliance. I'm talking about helping the people who cannot rely on themselves. It's not a matter of them just working harder. Addicts, for example, can't rely on themselves - they engage in behaviors with bad consequences even if they know that there will be bad consequences.| Liberals simply believe that man is not good enough. Indomitable spirits be damned! |
Nobody can be "good enough" 100% of the time. Disease and bad luck can strike anyone at any time, wiping out a person's ability to fend for themselves, no matter how indomitable their spirit was. My sense of fairness, of empathy and of community demands that everyone get together and provide help to anyone who needs it, because I might be in their shoes tomorrow, through no fault of my own.| I for one have faith(did I really say that!?) in my fellow citizens to do the right thing. |
All of the lazy people and self-entitled assholes you're complaining about demonstrate clearly that your faith is misplaced, Ebone. There's no reason to think that they'll stop being lazy or stop feeling entitled just because the people handing out the free stuff are closer to home. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 09:20:42 [Permalink]
|
Oh boy. One thing is for sure. We need a better educated populace. No one here is suggesting that we move from a representative government, no matter what the system of delivery is. If the people are too boneheaded or lazy or just ignorant of how policy will effect them, how can they be trusted to choose a representative (supposedly an expert in public policy) to act in their behalf? We have seen too many examples of direct democracy by way of the initiative process elect such bad laws that they wind up in the courts for years, because they were not constitutional in the first place. Prop 8 is a pretty good example of that. I'm with Dave on this one. The feds are better set up to coordinate and track large programs. But either way, if the voters are dumbshits who just have a bug up their ass and will vote against anything or anyone that a sixty second sound bite tells them they should vote against (or for), without doing serious research into an issue, we're screwed no matter what way we turn.
A great example of that is what is going on now. At one time, while I didn't agree with much of the Republican policies, at least they had policies. Now it's all about "them." The tea party has thrown up so many bozo's who probably couldn't pass a fifth grade civics test as viable candidates for office and who's fault is that? They call those with an education "the elite" and are proud of the fact that they really know jack shit about how government works. They're going to fix it!!!
It comes down to education. We are failing in that area and we will pay the price for it. We are already... Whether it's federal or local, it ain't gonna work if the people make bad choices. The "bad actors" are out there and they will always be out there licking their chops as long as they know the electorate can be so easily manipulated. Just ask Karl Rove!
End of rant. |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Ebone4rock
SFN Regular
USA
894 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 10:13:11 [Permalink]
|
Kil,
You are now clearly justifying the thoughts that the young Mr. Crowder has expressed in his srticle. The initial comments this thread received from other liberal minded folks was that the article was "tripe".
What are your thoughts on that?
edited to remove Daves name. |
Haole with heart, thats all I'll ever be. I'm not a part of the North Shore society. Stuck on the shoulder, that's where you'll find me. Digging for scraps with the kooks in line. -Offspring |
| Edited by - Ebone4rock on 10/14/2010 12:00:52 |
|
|
|
astropin
SFN Regular
USA
970 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 11:03:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
So am I. Let's wall off Kansas and use it as a test bed. |
 |
I would rather face a cold reality than delude myself with comforting fantasies.
You are free to believe what you want to believe and I am free to ridicule you for it.
Atheism:
The result of an unbiased and rational search for the truth.
Infinitus est numerus stultorum |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 10/14/2010 : 11:26:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Ebone4rock
Dave and Kil,
The boat-a-yuz are now clearly justifying the thoughts that the young Mr. Crowder has expressed in his srticle. |
Having re-read it, I still don't see how what I'm saying justifies Crowder's nonsense, unless you think that "people sometimes cannot be self-reliant" and "man is not good enough" are equivalent statements.
...I was about to say that most people are good enough, but that's not the case. Left on their own, most people today would get eaten by feral chihuahuas. Give the average Fox News viewer a flint, a rifle and a knife and send 'em out into the woods, and they'll bleed out before the week is over. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Liberalism and Manliness
