Thanks, Obama.

[Deacfreak07]

I would also love the see the right wing FB reaction to vouchers for local madrassas.

 

[jhmd2000]

actually, i said the Constitution was being used as a smokescreen. I don't think your opposition to current policies is a smokescreen, I just think I'm tired of reading the same posts from you over and over again. You're a smart dude and I'd really like to hear some ideas instead of screeds about how bad things are.

As for the driving thing, if all you are talking about is jerking a license for failure to pay child support, I guess my response is (i) that hardly seems like a global solution to all our societal ills, (ii) once you take the license and the guy loses his job and now cannot pay child support even if he wants to, what's your next stick to use on him? Indentured servitude? Debtor's prison? I just don't think you've thought through the implications very well.

Then maybe you shouldn't have said exactly that.

I want a system that replicates the things we already know work: ownership of your circumstances, personal responsibility for the outcome and ample resources for people who are willing to take the steps to move towards self-sufficiency. We don't have that, we don't have anything close to that, and in fact we've got contraflow policies every time you guys discover new "rights" to things that used to be responsibilities.

In terms of specifics, I think we have to install choices for people: if you've eaten yourself into a 35 BMI, you don't get free health care. Work out, do some push-aways, put down the lighter and then you can become eligible again. You guys want to find a "right" to health care, no questions asked. Sorry, but we should ask those questions: what are you doing for yourself? If you have children while you're already on government dependence, that child takes your entitlement to whatever government benefits you are currently receiving (long-term unemployment, etc.) and you forfeit other privileges that come with being a contributing member of society, such as a driver's license, hunting and fishing license, and the ability to apply for student loans. If there are absolutely no disincentives for making bad choices, why are we surprised that people make them?

 

[jhmd2000]

well hello there strawman.

I'm talking to BBD, not you. BBD can't decide which argument he'd like to have, but he knows what he doesn't want to talk about. It's a delicate dance with him.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Then maybe you shouldn't have said exactly that.

I want a system that replicates the things we already know work: ownership of your circumstances, personal responsibility for the outcome and ample resources for people who are willing to take the steps to move towards self-sufficiency. We don't have that, we don't have anything close to that, and in fact we've got contraflow policies every time you guys discover new "rights" to things that used to be responsibilities.

In terms of specifics, I think we have to install choices for people: if you've eaten yourself into a 35 BMI, you don't get free health care. Work out, do some push-aways, put down the lighter and then you can become eligible again. If you have children while you're already on government dependence, that child takes your entitlement to whatever government benefits you are currently receiving (long-term unemployment, etc.) and you forfeit other privileges that come with being a contributing member of society, such as a driver's license, hunting and fishing license, and the ability to apply for student loans. If there are absolutely no disincentives for making bad choices, why are we surprised that people make them?

What if you are born into a 35 BMI? Genetics have a big influence on how your body uses and stores energy. (also, http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106268439 )

How does a child use food stamps or long-term unemployment? How does a child pay rent or energy bills?

How does someone recover from making one mistake if they are not able to drive themselves to work or educate themselves to get a job?

 

[jhmd2000]

What if you are born into a 35 BMI? Genetics have a big influence on how your body uses and stores energy.

How does a child use food stamps or long-term unemployment? How does a child pay rent or energy bills?

How does someone recover from making one mistake if they are not able to drive themselves to work or educate themselves to get a job?

I remain willing to talk to people that are willing to listen.

 

[BeachBumDeac]

I remain willing to talk to people that are willing to listen.

You said "If you have children while you're already on government dependence, that child takes your entitlement to whatever government benefits you are currently receiving (long-term unemployment, etc.) and you forfeit other privileges that come with being a contributing member of society"

Do you mean if you have more than one child while you are on government assistance? Or are you saying that being on government assistance in the first place is already one mistake?

Also, do you deny that there is a genetic influence on weight?

 

[jhmd2000]

Since 923 and I apparently agree that personal responsibility is a good thing and should be encouraged by policy provisions, but he disagrees with my ideas on how to install these incentives, what is the collective wisdom of the board on ways to encourage these choices (or do we default to another generation of fail)?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

Since 923 and I apparently agree that personal responsibility is a good thing and should be encouraged by policy provisions, but he disagrees with my ideas on how to install these incentives, what is the collective wisdom of the board on ways to encourage these choices (or do we default to another generation of fail)?

Diet and Nutrition education in public schools. Realistic sex education and free and easy access to contraception. More STEM education to foster technological innovation. Encouraging more entrepreneurship and starting small businesses rather than propping up manufacturing that will always be done more cheaply in countries with lower standard of living.

 

[2&2 Slider To Leyritz]

Since 923 and I apparently agree that personal responsibility is a good thing and should be encouraged by policy provisions, but he disagrees with my ideas on how to install these incentives, what is the collective wisdom of the board on ways to encourage these choices (or do we default to another generation of fail)?

Paid voluntary sterilization to any adult citizen. $25,000 cash per person, tax free. It would solve the majority of our domestic problems, all with a nice Pro Choice sugar coating on it to get it passed.

 

[jhmd2000]

You said "If you have children while you're already on government dependence, that child takes your entitlement to whatever government benefits you are currently receiving (long-term unemployment, etc.) and you forfeit other privileges that come with being a contributing member of society"

Do you mean if you have more than one child while you are on government assistance? Or are you saying that being on government assistance in the first place is already one mistake?

Also, do you deny that there is a genetic influence on weight?

If I'm unemployed and dependent upon others to pay for my basic needs, I should be making exceptionally good choices with my limited resources, no? If instead of making good choices, I decide to father/mother a child, what should happen to me? Should the government a) do nothing, except pay for the child's needs and health care, thereby subsidize my bad choice, b) pay for the child as in "a)" above, but also pay me MORE since I now have more dependents, thereby encouraging me to make bad choices, or c) something else. In many areas of policy, we're doing "b)", which I view as inconsistent with our stated agreement that personal responsibility should be encouraged.

Also, sure, genetics are a factor, but you have to drink a lot of Cheerwine to get to 35 bmi. I'm not talking about somebody being Eric-Cartman-big-boned, I'm talking about morbid obesity. Further, I'm going to refrain from joining the chorus of others in accusing people of fashioning policy around one-offs and outliers; but I am willing to say that there are a LOT more people abusing our entitlement systems than those who are genetically sentenced to be 300 lbs. Drive past, don't drive through.

 

[Junebug]

The Constitution, in this case, is just a smokescreen. This nation (and all other modern industrialized countries) decided a long time ago that medical care is going to be made available to all citizens in one form or another. Junebug and JHMD want to cry Constitution to avoid directly stating that they don't want to pay for poor people to get care, and that they are OK with poor people dying avoidable deaths if it will save them money and keep government "small". They may also trot out the "forced charity" line, which is just another way of avoiding the issue, because everyone with any intellectual honesty knows that universal modern healthcare is not going to be made available through the offering plate.

We can turn the thread into a sham constitutional argument if you want, but just be aware that you are getting Constitutionally trolled.

You aren't reading very closely. My only point is that health care is not a "right" as others on this thread have claimed. That's the only position I've taken on this thread.

 

[jhmd2000]

Diet and Nutrition education in public schools. Realistic sex education and free and easy access to contraception. More STEM education to foster technological innovation. Encouraging more entrepreneurship and starting small businesses rather than propping up manufacturing that will always be done more cheaply in countries with lower standard of living.

Okay, here we go.

 

[RJKarl]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How can you have life without health?

 

[BeachBumDeac]

If I'm unemployed and dependent upon others to pay for my basic needs, I should be making exceptionally good choices with my limited resources, no? If instead of making good choices, I decide to father/mother a child, what should happen to me? Should the government a) do nothing, except pay for the child's needs and health care, thereby subsidize my bad choice, b) pay for the child as in "a)" above, but also pay me MORE since I now have more dependents, thereby encouraging me to make bad choices, or c) something else. In many areas of policy, we're doing "b)", which I view as inconsistent with our stated agreement that personal responsibility should be encouraged.

Okay. How does a child use food stamps or long term unemployment? How do they pay rent or buy groceries?

 

[Deacon923]

I guess I just think carrots work better than sticks, and result in less overall human suffering and misery. I think the overwhelming majority of people want to work and earn a better life. The government should support those choices with positive feedback and should remove obstacles to working and being productive. Your approach is all sticks and harsh consequences, and the end result is that people who make some bad choices or who are unlucky end up unproductive citizens at best, and at worst dead of preventable disease or incarcerated wards of the state. Your approach offers no path out of poverty, just punishment. Your approach would simply perpetuate a permanent underclass and reduce the human capital of our society. I recognize that we already have a permanent underclass and I agree with you that we need to fix it, but I don't think your approach would do anything meaningful toward that end.

Improved public schools (including charters) are part of the solution. Providing quality child care to help people work is another part. Providing public transportation options would help. Ending the war on drugs and treating drug users as patients instead of criminals would help. All these things would help a wide swathe of society and not just be "entitlements" for certain segments.

 

[WakeandBake]

I hate that I have been in meetings all morning and missed this, but I'm sure y'all haven't missed my one dimensional rants.

jhmd, you've been back in your copy of Atlas Shrugged, haven't you? That thing has more jizz stains in it than my sheets in middle school. Put that thing away.

Please address my points from a few pages back jhmd. If it is the wealthy elites who are running the show, isn't this how they want it?

Wouldn't it stand to reason that if big money runs the show and ultimately dictates policy in this country (which I agree with you on), that they have found it cheaper to just subsidize Medicaid for the poor and working poor rather than pay them them a good wage and benefits at a job at one of their businesses? This is the crux of the issue.

If it wasn't good for business, there would be no Medicaid.

And the proof is in the numbers: The top 10% of Americans - the risk-takers and job creators - have gotten richer faster in the past 30 years than ever before.

Why would they increase their labor costs by hiring, training, paying this woman a fair wage, paying for advanced training for her to advance, and paying for health benefits?

Follow the money.

 

[Deacon923]

Diet and Nutrition education in public schools. Realistic sex education and free and easy access to contraception. More STEM education to foster technological innovation. Encouraging more entrepreneurship and starting small businesses rather than propping up manufacturing that will always be done more cheaply in countries with lower standard of living.

All of this. There is plenty of entrepreneurship and starting small businesses, we need to encourage and remove obstacles to small businesses becoming big businesses. Most of this regulatory (i.e. triggering various regulations when you go over 50 employees).

Another thing that would help is smarter design of welfare programs. Right now there is a huge and wasteful alphabet soup of programs at state, local, and federal levels that are supposed to help poor people. First it makes help hard to access, so people are wasting time with bureaucracy when they could be looking for work, and second it's poorly designed so when people find work, all their help and support vanishes. I don't mind helping people who are poor and unemployed and I am willing to tolerate a certain level of abuse, because it's inevitable, but it is beyond stupid that once a motivated person gets a job earning slightly more than a subsistence level they lose eligibility for a lot of programs. There should be well-designed phaseouts, not cliffs, in that process.

 

[jhmd2000]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

How can you have life without health?

You can choose to be fat and die in your fifties. Now, how can you have life if you're aborted at 20 weeks and never given that choice?

I forgot to add: *crosses fingers, hopes RJ will cite the Declaration of Independence as a source of Constitutional Rights*

 

[WakeandBake]

Big business loves Medicaid. Get your head out of the sand.

We need a single-payer system.

 

[WakeandBake]

Heath benefits need to be untied from employers. That is the whole problem IMO.

But of course, group plans keep premiums low. And the bigger the group, the better.

How do we keep a group plan model, keep it big, and get the employer out of the equation???