Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

sebster wrote:

We have massive amounts of crime, un-employment, out of wedlock births, premature death and teenage pregancy in the black community. They have had every type of program thrown their way and yet they still are some of the poorest people in the country. Why? Because most (not all) of them have had initiative bred out of them, much like the Native Americans. It is supposedly benevolent liberals who look out for the little guy yet they keep enacting policies that crush the little guy and his employer under mountains of regulations and laws.

I'm pretty sure racism is a big no-no on Dakka. I'd suggest you stop being racist if you want to hang around.

He was making a comment about his beliefs in the deleterious effects of certain aspects of social welfare spending. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it isn't racist. I tell you, sometimes I think you're obsessed with racism on these forums. Regardless, who cares if someone does say something that the community feels is racist, can't you just ignore it? Would you ban everyone who said something racist once upon a time? Why not just tell them they're wrong and get on with life?

Regardless, I'm not seeing a MOD tag on your name. I wouldn't start prognosticating about who should stay or go, because that is probably against the rules to.

JDM wrote:

sexiest_hero wrote:1. republicans have a very solid base while democrats have to pull lots of little groups together.

2 Democrats don't have a spine.... at all. Nowhere.

3. Democrats want to work with republicans because BI partasianship was the big word in last election.

4.Bill clinton was a better president than Obama. I think Bush Jr, may have done more for minorities.

5. Democrats are weak, spineless, ineffective, BO is the leader of that bunch.

Someone Voted for McCain!

I doubt it. If you go back and read the rest of his posts you'll see. I think he's a disgruntled Obama-ite.

sebster wrote:

It's like taking a Assualt based IG army. Someparts will work out, and will rock! (i.e. tanks) But most will epicly fail. (i.e Not tanks) It's like the God part in The Pleage of Alegance. Most people don't have a problem with it, but when one person has a problem with it, than we have to make a big Facad about it.

It isn't 'one person' as much as a body of thought that takes the seperation of Church and State within the Constitution extremely seriously. Are you comfortable with a pledge of alliegance to your government that includes a specific mention to spiritual beliefs?

First off it doesn't refer to a specific religious belief, other than implying a monotheistic belief, though in fairness atheists are left out in the cold. I don't believe the pledge was extant when my country began, but the architects of the movement that became the U.S. often spoke of God, although many of them were deists.

But to answer the question, no, I'm not at all uncomfortable with that. Even though I'm not a real atheist, my religious beliefs are different than most members of my community, but I grew up with the pledge and never really got any persecution from the community in general. Elementary and high school, on the other hand, was quite uncomfortable for me. One of the worst was when everyone during assembly was "invited" to come down and make a public statement that they accepted Jesus or to do so if they hadn't, and I was one of the few people left sitting in the bleachers because I wasn't going to confess to a belief that was different from mine. Don't get me wrong, the J.C. is a great guy, but I do not agree with that particular sectarian belief in the public expression of faith ( it has a name, I don't remember it), and I have a more Catholic leaning view of Justification. I could go on and on about how every inmate on death row has some sort of "faith alone" belief ( Marylin Manson has called it "the God band-aid"), but I'm not trying to criticize the belief, but rather being pressured by social ostracism. The point is that was a private institution, not the government. Don't worry Sebby, the pledge is fine.

The fact is, the believe that if you harm no one, everything you do is ok is not something I entierely believe in. The fact is, the community I live in, and most of the U.S., believes a certain way that is reflected in the pledge. I'm not just an individual, I belong to a community. Therefore I just have to expect to be exposed to and taught their moral beliefs.

What is the Oz pledge, " Your hood ain't crap Britain, F you for sending me here"? Just kidding, no offense meant there.

sebster wrote:

I find that to be BS. If I walk into Walmart wearing my Youth Group Shirt, and Someone says "That shirt offends me" I will politley and calmly go tell that person to go preform an Imposible act oppon them selves. I shouldn't be banned from wearing my Clothes that show that I'm a Cathlic in Public. I'm not going door to door, forcing people to belive in the Big Man Upstairs, or Preaching about him. Just a shirt.

Another thing, about the 2nd Amendment. If the Government just shows up at someones door and says
"We would like your guns now, Please" That wouldn't happen. Some people have Million Dollor Gun colections.

No government body is planning to take everyone's guns off of them. Why are you making up things to be worried about?

I mean, seriously, you're in a recession and fighting two wars. There are lots of real things to be worried about. Why are you making up random other things?

I don't think that is what he's saying, he's saying how things are, I think. I'm not sure how I read his posts though.

Vene wrote:

Stormrider wrote:[Extending un-employment 2 more years coupled with our high minimum wage is another example:

Did you seriously just call $7.15/hr a high minimum wage? I know, let's compare to other first world nations.

Annual full time work on that is $15080 compared to Australia at $24,014, Canada at$16,738, Denmark at $23,590, France at $17,621, the Netherlands at $19,358, or the UK at $22,204. So, yeah, you're either grossly misinformed or lying. I hope it's the former.

Believe it. I know plenty of college educated people where I live who are making some of those minimum wage values or a little lower. Of course, I live in an area where it is cheap to live. It floors people when I tell them you can get a 2000 sqft home for 120000$ or a nice one for 140. The problem is that minimum wage is the same here as in, say, Atlanta, AFAIK

Oh, I know what that's like, I'm college educated and make less than some of those minimum wages. And yeah, minimum wage is nation wide, so it doesn't matter if you live in the middle of nowhere or in a metro area, you get the same wage.

So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.

Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

One of the bigger issues with illegals is the feth with the economy hardcore...

They take money out of the economy via wages, they put the bare minimum back in via living expenses and food, and the rest of the money is shipped back to their families in mexico...

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Vene wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:Wow, that's...that's one hell of a sentiment.

Its reality. You can't live on that amount, and at that level I can get better employees.
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

And it doesn't work, I'm college educated and getting paid gak because the economy is so bad. And how is somebody on minimum wage supposed to be able to afford to survive as well as go to school?

Go to school part time. Relying on the minimum wage to survive is not going to work. In the words of the Immortal Bard: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life son."

That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.

When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.

Kilkrazy wrote:Because it is in the Constitution -- Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

Rather ask why the Republicans don't want everyone to be happy.

The ability to "pursue" is not the right to "have."

Since when did "no" become bad and "yes" good by default?

Here's an example;

Guy 1: "Let's kill the jews."
Guy 2: "Yes"
Guy 3: "No"

All politicians are morons. Both sides. They go back and forth in this slowed partisan crap almost like neither are thinking of it. Democrats do this and Republicans by default do the opposite, and vice versa. It's practically automatic. The rhetoric has become so strong neither side seems to think about it anymore.

I wouldn't say the Democrats want everyone to be happy and Republicans don't. It's a matter of how they go about it and how they view happiness. The Democrats think the federal government can be used to achieve the end, while the Republicans think that if the government just stays out of the way, people will find it on their own. It's a difference between believing in people managing their own lives or thinking that there are people who can't manage their own lives and need help to get anywhere. That's the official platform anyway. Neither party really sticks all that well to what they "officially" stand for. Part of the reason we have a lot of problems in the US is less from one party but rather from the two parties arguing with each other, and generally sucking at problem solving. The Republicans never seem to be able to come up with a solution that doesn't just cause more issues, and the Democrats create "solutions" that aren't really solutions to the problem.

The economy is a complex issue. Right now the Democrats however are in fact making it worse. They're imposing new taxes and regulations on already stuggling institutions, and will probably try and pass cap and trade in the lame duck session after november elections. The economy is jacked up because doing business in the US is too expensive. It's too expensive because American workers demand to much for menial tasks, and the Federal government both over taxes and over regulates businesses. The issue is compounded by corporate executives who seem unable to adjust to changing markets and who also expect too much money for what they do. We need a complete overhaul of how he manage the economy, something neither party is talking about. Unnecessary regulations need to be dropped, Unions need to stop being greedy, CEO's need to realize that they make too much money, and the government needs to encourage business to come to back to the US with tax cuts for new business' coming in (for example: bring your factory here and we'll give you 50% on taxes on your profits for the next 10 years, and waive those pesky property taxes on your new production facility, just an example). It's all a domino effect. A series of events that began in the 60's and 70's and cumulated in the current economic situation. The American economic model is not sustainable and needs to be changed.

But that won't happen. That would actually fix the problem!

I could rant about this all day but it's probably not good for my blood pressure

My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government. The school buses are State Property, thus under the authority of the state and more importantly the City Of NO. The levees are maintained by the Corps of Engineers with money appropriated by the State of Louisiana. That fund to maintain the levees was gutted by state politicians (sound familiar? Social Security trust fund anyone?) for other programs and was effectively stolen. Since the area was declared a disaster zone by the US Government a couple of days later, only then did it become under their jurisdictional authority.

As for charges of racism, what I said was statistically true. It's purely analytical.

For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?

As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.

Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.

When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.

1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.

(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.

When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.

1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.

(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).

I don't know for sure, but I would would guess that you don't mind illegal immigration. I think you're a fiscal conservative, not a populist. I don't know, but I wouldn't be suprised if you think NAFTA is a good idea.

My comments about NO are perfectly illustrative of the failures of our Federal Government.

Not really.

For minimum wage, all of the countries mentioned have much smaller populations than the US, so using that type of analysis automatically skews the data in favor of the smaller country. What's the median income of those countries compared to the US?

Thats not how statistics work. Smaller countries don't get to have higher minimum wages because they're smaller, a countries ability to cope with it's minimum wage is purely an artifact of it's economic capability which increases at an even rate as your population grows.

As for deficit spending, I oppose it utterly. I wasn't alive while Regan was president so I wasn't around to oppose it, '08 was my first election (voted for Bob Barr in protest of McCain). But, trying to argue that Regan and Bush and Clinton did it too is moot when you compare the numbers to Obama. It's like trying to put out a tire fire with more tires.

You should take some economics and statistics classes.

The advent of public education and it's uptake alone ensures that the majority of westerners know how to do more things now than they did during the 1800s when a good number of them couldn't read.

That's wonderful. Too bad it's not what I said. I agree completely, a modern American knows a huge amount of information, far more than a frontiersman would have. But what I'm referring to are the needs of basic survival. Hunting, farming, carpentry, clothesmaking, etc. Frontiersmen knew 100% of what they needed to know to survive. Modern Americans know far, far less. We don't know how to produce our own food, build our homes, manufacture clothing, etc. etc.

I was speaking about survival skills, not total knowledge. I was quite clear about that.

I figured I would inform you of their implications before you actually took one in the chin in real life.

Seriously, have a little intellectual honesty. You didn't threaten me with violence because you're concerned about my wellbeing. You did it because you think my ideas (or at least the imagined strawman ideas you assign me) are so awful that physical violence is an appropriate response. However, because you fancy yourself a sophisticated lad, you didn't even have the courage of conviction to threaten me directly. You instead point to your hypothetical friends.

One presumes they're not the same ones who tolerated you saying the "n-word" twenty times the other week.

You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me. I know how you roll. You're so proud of your false moral highground that you like to picture people who don't agree with you getting beaten up. You don't even have the intellectual maturity and restrain to know that's not a useful thought.

You can always find people with a given opinion and lack of restraint. It's not proof of anything.

Guess what? I know people who would listen to 20 seconds of your narcissistic faux intellectual garbage and then break your jaw. I don't bring it up, because while I think it'd be hilarious to watch, I also don't think it'd be morally justifiable or in any way admirable. It proves no point except that I know people who don't tolerate punks like you. That doesn't make me Gandhi, nor does it make me Yoda. It doesn't even make me Genghis Kahn.

But it does make me, between the two of us, the one who had the maturity not to mention it until it was actually material, and to know what it actually meant when I did.

They could have done plenty of things, many didn't think they had too.

And why didn't they? I think I've been pretty clear, a lot of things besides EVIL DEMOKRAT cause Katrina to be a cluster. But, I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume that as a person's faith in government increases their initiative to provide for themself will not correspondingly decrease.

I think it's also worth mentioning that because of the expectiations of the citizens of New Orleans, and because of the total failure of government to meet those expectations, that citizenry suffered considerable emotional distress, above and beyond what one would already expect for people in their situation. They weren't just people who lost it all to a natural disaster, they were people who lost it all to a natural disaster and ALSO lost faith that recovery was even possible. It's very dangerous for people when they have nothing and also have no hope.

So, even if you want to dismiss the idea that any population would do much to prepare, that's not all there is. There's also how you respond after the fact.

To be clear, I'm not saying "awww, these lazy darkies, they just need to bootstrap, bootstrap, man up, bail faster!" I'm not placing blame on them. I'm simply not willing to just heap victim credit on them all day long, and deny that they could have done anything to help themselves. It's not because I don't think they're victims. It's because telling somebody they're a victim doesn't help them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that somebody got screwed. People need to be encouraged to try, to take responsibility, to fight for themselves. NOT because it's their fault they're having problems, but because trying, taking responsibility and fighting for yourself is ALWAYS a good thing to do. Telling somebody they're just a helpless victim is stealing that from them.

I'll worry about whose fault it is five years later when it goes to court. Today people need food, water, and a place to live. If they are proactive, take responsibility, and have pride in themselves in their community, they will be much better positioned to get what they need. Telling them that the government is racist against them, and that they can't hope to make it with such hate... That doesn't help them.

All that is is turning their suffering into a political club. It's selfish and ridiculous.

I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.

It's a mistake to presume that people who don't think like you do don't care. I mean, how compassionate is it REALLY to feel sorry for somebody? It's free. You feel sorry, they still don't have any food, nothing changed, but you tell yourself that at least you're thinking right.

What good does it do? Now, I'm not saying that it's impossible to help the poor, but currently to the extent that they're not being helped, what good does well-wishing do them? People are awful excited about helping the poor, but it's always with somebody else's tax money.

Frazz's viewpoint is, at least, honest. Nobody is gonna help you. Go get what you want/need, don't wait for help, cause it doesn't appear to be coming.

For me, that's what it comes down to re: race and the two parties. Neither of them is actually going to help anybody. At least the Republicans don't pretend they do.

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:That sentiment baffles me. How is the person supposed to survive while in school?
Have you ever been really, really poor Frazzled? I don't mean to personalise this, but your viewpoint is almost totally alien to me, and it seems heartless.
I think the minimum wage should give people enough to live on. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't.

When you guys say "survive" and "live" do you actually mean that someone wouldn't be able to pay rent and buy food on minimum wage? I just want to make sure we're working off the same definition.

1. As you said, you don't me, nor what I have been through. Would it help if i note the neighbors next door, across the street, and behind are illegal, and we get along great (ok the damn messed up rooster that crows all day and night can be annoying)
2. I'm saying that the minimum wage is not meant to be a minimum standard wage for you to live on with a decent standard of living long term.
3. Its also blindingly irrelevant. When you ahve an open border, I can get better labor more cheaply that people on minimum wage now.
Do I pick Joe "minimum wage aint enough Man!" or do I pick Jose "I just travelled 2,000 through a desert to work for you." Mmmm that question takes all of no seconds.

(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).

I'm pretty sure thats why hiring illegals for under the counter wages is illegal. You can "hire" the minimum wage dude and pay him under the table too you know. Thats sort of irrelevant to the argument of minimum wage though as a majority of states don't heave ready and easy access to cheap illegal labor and many businesses are unwilling to risk the fines if they're caught.

Frazzled wrote:So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.

The problem Fraz is that you're assuming the market will reward the hardest workers who provide the most benefit for society. The first is probably not true and the latter is certainly not. The fact is that things we need as a society are not necessarily going to be things that people will willingly pay for. Who is going to pay the social workers who removes children from abusive homes? What about an artist who challenges conventional ideas and aesthetic values....probably not going to get paid no matter how hard he works, unless he finds a wealthy patron or gets an NEA grant.

Did the poster you responded to not go to college to improve his skills? Is it so wrong that he's disappointed that he isn't getting paid better? I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a return on your investment both in terms of money and job satisfaction from higher education, otherwise, why are people going in the hock for 30 years to pay for it.

Frazzled wrote:
(can you guess what I think about illegal immigration? you might be surprised).

..they taste great and are less filling ?

..no..wait..!

The problem with the work harder argument is simply how much is enough. The idea that government aid is going to deadbeats and welfare moms doesn't reflect every situation, or I believe, the majority of situations. People who need government aid aren't necessarily showing learned helplessness ( Some are, no question, I've known them), but sometimes things happen that you just can't work your way out of. What happens if someone is uninsured, comes down with cancer, then is in debt with a 70k medical bill? I don't know about you, but I don't think I could get out of that one, no matter how hard I worked.

The idea is, what if you had something that would help you out of a bad situation, so that you could get back to working? I know its trite, but I believe in a hand up, not a hand out.

That's wonderful. Too bad it's not what I said. I agree completely, a modern American knows a huge amount of information, far more than a frontiersman would have. But what I'm referring to are the needs of basic survival. Hunting, farming, carpentry, clothesmaking, etc. Frontiersmen knew 100% of what they needed to know to survive. Modern Americans know far, far less. We don't know how to produce our own food, build our homes, manufacture clothing, etc. etc.

I was speaking about survival skills, not total knowledge. I was quite clear about that.

Except modern survival skills aren't frontier survival skills. I can survive in the modern world. A frontiersman would have a much harder time earning a days pay and navigating the streets of a modern city. You're comparing apples and oranges and acting like the current social climate makes people less capable because we can't till our own fields or operate a bear trap correctly. I can read and drive while being able to operate an email account.

Also most frontiersman didn't know how to make clothing in most instances. You should really take a class involving colonial living or read some books or something relating.

Seriously, have a little intellectual honesty. You didn't threaten me with violence because you're concerned about my wellbeing.

I didn't threaten you at all. I said I knew people that would punch you in the face for saying what you said. I do. They would. They aren't me.

You did it because you think my ideas (or at least the imagined strawman ideas you assign me) are so awful that physical violence is an appropriate response. However, because you fancy yourself a sophisticated lad, you didn't even have the courage of conviction to threaten me directly. You instead point to your hypothetical friends.

Hypothetical friends. Yes. Thats what this is.

One presumes they're not the same ones who tolerated you saying the "n-word" twenty times the other week.

Interestingly enough, they are actually!

You can lie to yourself, but you can't lie to me. I know how you roll. You're so proud of your false moral highground that you like to picture people who don't agree with you getting beaten up. You don't even have the intellectual maturity and restrain to know that's not a useful thought.

You're starting to lose your cool here I think.

You can always find people with a given opinion and lack of restraint. It's not proof of anything.

Irony!

Guess what? I know people who would listen to 20 seconds of your narcissistic faux intellectual garbage and then break your jaw. I don't bring it up, because while I think it'd be hilarious to watch, I also don't think it'd be morally justifiable or in any way admirable. It proves no point except that I know people who don't tolerate punks like you. That doesn't make me Gandhi, nor does it make me Yoda. It doesn't even make me Genghis Kahn.

Why are you threatening me?

But it does make me, between the two of us, the one who had the maturity not to mention it until it was actually material, and to know what it actually meant when I did.

Do you need a hug?

And why didn't they? I think I've been pretty clear, a lot of things besides EVIL DEMOKRAT cause Katrina to be a cluster. But, I think it's fairly ridiculous to assume that as a person's faith in government increases their initiative to provide for themself will decrease.

I think it's also worth mentioning that because of the expectiations of the citizens of New Orleans, and because of the total failure of government to meet those expectations, that citizenry suffered considerable emotional distress, above and beyond what one would already expect for people in their situation. They weren't just people who lost it all to a natural disaster, they were people who lost it all to a natural disaster and ALSO lost faith that recovery was even possible. It's very dangerous for people when they have nothing and also have no hope.

So, even if you want to dismiss the idea that any population would do much to prepare, that's not all there is. There's also how you respond after the fact.

I was just saying that people weren't warned sufficiently of the gravity of the hurricane, nor were many governmental functions designed to create preparedness functioning as they should of been.

To be clear, I'm not saying "awww, these lazy darkies, they just need to bootstrap, bootstrap, man up, bail faster!" I'm not placing blame on them. I'm simply not willing to just heap victim credit on them all day long, and deny that they could have done anything to help themselves. It's not because I don't think they're victims. It's because telling somebody they're a victim doesn't help them. It doesn't matter whose fault it is that somebody got screwed. People need to be encouraged to try, to take responsibility, to fight for themselves. NOT because it's their fault they're having problems, but because trying, taking responsibility and fighting for yourself is ALWAYS a good thing to do. Telling somebody they're just a helpless victim is stealing that from them.

Are you the dude that says rape victims shouldn't of been dressed that way?

I'll worry about whose fault it is five years later when it goes to court. Today people need food, water, and a place to live. If they are proactive, take responsibility, and have pride in themselves in their community, they will be much better positioned to get what they need. Telling them that the government is racist against them, and that they can't hope to make it with such hate... That doesn't help them.

Most people weren't fans of when Kanye said that, though when the presidents wife mentioned the terrordome being a step up for many of those peoples living conditions it got a lot more personal.

Grignard wrote:

Frazzled wrote:So? Get a better job or improve your skills. Anyone who thinks you should be able live on the minimum wage is an idiot. Frankly if you think you should be able to live off the minimum wage I'd rather hire the illegal immigrant than you. He works harder, is more motivated, and again, isn't an idiot.

The problem Fraz is that you're assuming the market will reward the hardest workers who provide the most benefit for society. The first is probably not true and the latter is certainly not. The fact is that things we need as a society are not necessarily going to be things that people will willingly pay for. Who is going to pay the social workers who removes children from abusive homes? What about an artist who challenges conventional ideas and aesthetic values....probably not going to get paid no matter how hard he works, unless he finds a wealthy patron or gets an NEA grant.

Did the poster you responded to not go to college to improve his skills? Is it so wrong that he's disappointed that he isn't getting paid better? I don't think it is at all unreasonable to expect a return on your investment both in terms of money and job satisfaction from higher education, otherwise, why are people going in the hock for 30 years to pay for it.

I'm making no such assumptions actually. I assume no effiicencies. Assumptions require thinking, which is like work. I hate work.

Wow... a question about the motivations of Dems becomes a discussion of minimum wage, gubment handouts and illegals.

Why am I not surprised?!?

Grignard wrote:The problem with the work harder argument is simply how much is enough. The idea that government aid is going to deadbeats and welfare moms doesn't reflect every situation, or I believe, the majority of situations. People who need government aid aren't necessarily showing learned helplessness ( Some are, no question, I've known them), but sometimes things happen that you just can't work your way out of.

I agree there are situations where someone is so far down there's no possible way to get up, but the problem with a lot of the current government programs intended to help those people is that they never get the money to the people it was intended for. It ends up in the hands of community organizers or wasted in our mindlessly bloated federal government in the form of pointless paperwork that needs to be done in triplicate.

What happens if someone is uninsured, comes down with cancer, then is in debt with a 70k medical bill?

That's his own damn fault depending on the situation. Could he afford health insurance to begin with? If he can, and that happens, no one is to blame but the person effected and it shouldn't be societies job to pick up the tab for him.

Part of the problem though for that is in the medical industry where a number of variable have caused the cost of care to explode. Ironically none were addressed in the current healthcare "reform" bill.

Oh Shuma, saying something while actually saying nothing.

Point out what the Federal Government does quickly or cost effectively?

A $1.4 Trillion budget deficit for 2011 is justified because other presidents spent some too?

I feel bad that NO got flooded, but if you live in a city that is below sea level you should be prepared for something akin to Katrina. It's not a condemnation of the people, however if it happens again and people still aren't ready for that, they're beyond help.

I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.

BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.

You're comparing apples and oranges and acting like the current social climate makes people less capable because we can't till our own fields or operate a bear trap correctly.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's unfortunate that we've lost the baseline survival skills that all people once had. It's entirely understandable, given the environment that we live in, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.

You should really take a class involving colonial living or read some books or something relating.

Right, because the only way people would not agree with you is if they're uneducated. If I had a nickel for every time you've fallen back on this little trope, I'd have the cash to give everyone in then 9th Ward a year's supply of canned foods.

I have read about colonial living. I actually thought about posting a link to one of my favorite books on the subject, but I figured that would make me as much of a pedant as you, and it made me feel a little dirty.

Do you need a hug?

No, buddy, I'm good. I needed to speak the truth. I know you don't listen. Your arrogance makes you incapable of absorbing anything, so I had no illusion of you actually hearing the truth. But as long as it's said, that's all I need.

Are you the dude that says rape victims shouldn't of been dressed that way?

Is that really the best strawman you could come up with? Jeez, you need to take a class in Strawnman Construction, or read a book or two on the art of dishonest debate.

Yet another vanishing skill. You can bet that the frontiersmen knew how to build a good, solid strawman.

I agree there are situations where someone is so far down there's no possible way to get up, but the problem with a lot of the current government programs intended to help those people is that they never get the money to the people it was intended for. It ends up in the hands of community organizers or wasted in our mindlessly bloated federal government in the form of pointless paperwork that needs to be done in triplicate.

I missed your posts LH.

That's his own damn fault depending on the situation. Could he afford health insurance to begin with? If he can, and that happens, no one is to blame but the person effected and it shouldn't be societies job to pick up the tab for him.

It's his fault for getting cancer? Wouldn't that depend on the type of cancer?

Part of the problem though for that is in the medical industry where a number of variable have caused the cost of care to explode. Ironically none were addressed in the current healthcare "reform" bill.

A good number of them were adressed within the bill, it just doesn't adress the core issue. That being the combination of for profit healthcare system, the cozy doctor/pharmaceutical relationship causing endemic overuse of specialized and non preventative care, and a middleman insurance system which generates profits based on coverage denial. To adress the problems with the system would require a new system, and people didn't want the public option.

Stormrider wrote:Oh Shuma, saying something while actually saying nothing.

Point out what the Federal Government does quickly or cost effectively?

A $1.4 Trillion budget deficit for 2011 is justified because other presidents spent some too.

I feel bad that NO got flooded, but if you live in a city that is below sea level you should be prepared for something akin to Katrina. It's not a condemnation of the people, however if it happens again and people still aren't ready for that, they're beyond help.

I'm still waiting for some figures regarding median income.

BTW, I have taken classes in economics and statistics.

Prior to Katrina storms were state issues. FEMA came after to help with support. It wasn't meant to be an emergency and long term recovery entity. Emergency response was local and state level issue. Its just that Nagin and Louisiana responded so ineptly they needed the Republican fed agency to blame. no the other hand FEMA was indeed just as incompetent in dealing with what they were supposed to be there for: long term relief and coorrdinating after an event. We had multiple mission trips there, and church members had family (this is on the Miss. side) and the incompetence/bureaucracy was staggering, just staggering. Evidently they didn't get better with the coastal areas hit with Ike.

No, I'm not. I'm saying it's unfortunate that we've lost the baseline survival skills that all people once had. It's entirely understandable, given the environment that we live in, but that doesn't make it any less unfortunate.

Why is it unfortunate? How would those skills help us?

Right, because the only way people would not agree with you is if they're uneducated. If I had a nickel for every time you've fallen back on this little trope, I'd have the cash to give everyone in then 9th Ward a year's supply of canned foods.

Then you should probably stop being wrong.

I have read about colonial living. I actually thought about posting a link to one of my favorite books on the subject, but I figured that would make me as much of a pedant as you, and it made me feel a little dirty.

It makes you feel dirty to site sources?

No, buddy, I'm good. I needed to speak the truth. I know you don't listen. Your arrogance makes you incapable of absorbing anything, so I had no illusion of you actually hearing the truth. But as long as it's said, that's all I need.

An impartial observer could well say the same of you depending on which side he/she agrees with.

Is that really the best strawman you could come up with? Jeez, you need to take a class in Strawnman Construction, or read a book or two on the art of dishonest debate.

I only give the responses that are deserved.

Yet another vanishing skill. You can bet that the frontiersmen knew how to build a good, solid strawman.

Maybe, though thats more of a farm skill. Good for general garden keeping though.

Frazzled wrote:
Wait, whats wrong with the statement in the first place? If you don't like the crap wages that are minimimum wage you improve your skills so you can get a better business.
thats why we have universities, technical schools, training programs, and union based journeyman programs. Thats how its supposed to work.

Why did you post this? All that was indicated is that the minimum wage isn't high in America, and that its difficult (but not impossible) to live on. You seem to agree with this sentiment, and have still chosen to behave like a petulant child.

Seriously, this is poor behavior even given your rather sad track record.

I cant decide if i like politics or religion discussions the most.. you blokes always manage to bomb the threads.

Especially you Shuma, you must get custom made thread IEDs!