Aufan59

20 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Your lack of moral responsibility to our species is duly noted. It's no wonder you think I  am overly moral in that regard.

You avoided all of my questions.

Where does the moral obligation end?  Are you morally obligated to spend your time, money and energy on every problem our species faces?  

Also, do you have children?  
 

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

It is what it is.  The world is over-populated - at least if one assumes that all of those people will strive to improve their standard of living.  Our ecosystem will be destroyed unless we act to mitigate the damage that is causing.

Your lack of foresight and abrogation of personal responsibility as a human does not change that one iota.

Curious - do you have children?  Do you take responsibility for their future?

I guess here I have to ask, you realize nobody chooses to be born, right?  Being born is not a lack of foresight.

Being born does not make you obligated to fix the world’s problems, especially those you cannot fix.  Where does your moral high ground end?  To what extent?
 

I have no children.  Maybe I am contributing to the solution more so than anyone who does have children?

I assume you are doing your part and not having kids?

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

That's something only a narcissist would think. (Presumably you don't have offspring.)

Accept it or not, you helped cause the problems by being born.

 

Ah yes, that decision we all made, choosing to be born.  I guess it is my fault then!

10 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I don’t think I was.  I was pointing out by saying 50% with no context seems horrendous, but realize that was over a 100 year period.  Scientist are worried that number would increase over 250% in the next 70 years in comparison is a bit of fear mongering which the climate crisis is.

Again; the climate is changing, how much man is contributing or how much it can affect that change is up for debate.  How much people are willing to sacrifice as a whole is yet to be seen by anyone.

I think this is a fair point.  I for one have zero interest in the state of our planet after I die, so I don’t care to expend too much effort to fix problems I did not cause nor cannot solve.  Just need to make sure I die before catastrophe.
 

That being said, I’m a firm believer that technology will solve problems.  I have zero problem with some of my tax money going toward potential solutions.    Advancing technology will be how we solve this problem, and get other counties on board with the solution.

I used to argue against renewable subsidies, but I was wrong.  As of now, they seem to be able to hold their own economically against fossil fuels, but that might not have been possible without assistance.  And even ignoring global warming, CO2 is a pollutant of our oceans (acidification) and fossil fuels have other polluting downsides besides CO2.

17 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course the 50% raise in CO2 does seem horrendous, it has increased from .028% to .04% during that time.  Climate sciencist are worried it *might* increase to .1% by 2100.

Careful with dismissing small numbers just because they are small.

For something we can all relate to, when my BAC is at 0.028%, it is probably unnoticeable to most, I can comfortably drive home.  
 

But at 0.1% I’m breaking the law and risking lives on that same drive home.  

Complex systems can change quite significantly to seemingly small changes, so small changes can’t immediately be dismissed because they are small.

Getting government assistance requiring service in the armed forces is an interesting idea.

Though from a report in 2020, most of the people receiving SNAP or medicare worked full time. 
 

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-21-45

Walmart and McDonalds would lose a significant amount of their workforce if they needed to be in the army instead.  I’m not sure this is practical.
 

You bring up a good point about the nuclear family.  Maybe we should have required paid maternity/paternity leave?  Or wages high enough for one parent to not work?  How would we do this?

26 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course poverty will exist.  That is not the issue.  The issue is a welfare system that doesn’t even try to get the recipients off of the system and is not helping people feel they can succeed.  I don't know the answer, but the current system is not it.  Probably too late to try so that is why the politicians avoid the subject when it comes to elections and balancing the budget.

Don’t look now, but;

According to Homeless Deaths Count, an average of 20 homeless people die daily in the United States of America. This number is not only alarming, but it is also increasing at an unprecedented rate.

https://invisiblepeople.tv/the-true-toll-of-homelessness-20-homeless-people-die-daily/#:~:text=According to Homeless Deaths Count,the United States of America.

People are being overlooked even with our system of welfare.

We agree that a social safety net is needed, but we should be aiming to reduce the amount of people who rely on it.

As pointed out in the speech you highlighted earlier, government providing employment can do that.

Do you have a better solution?  Or is it to tell people to stop being lazy?

13 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yes we would, for 2%, much lower than we have today.

It would be higher than 2%.  In a world where everyone does the right thing, there will still be poverty.  Poverty will always exist.  Even if everyone worked hard and did all the correct things, there will still be people at the bottom.

Thus poverty should be treated as a societal problem, not a problem of individual actors and their choices.

Do you believe poor people will always exist?

Also as a footnote, poverty line for individuals in 2010 was about $11,000, less than full time minimum wage.  Yikes!  

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

What if we had a plan to avoid poverty? What if the plan worked 98% of the time?

If this plan worked 98% of the time, we would still need a safety net.

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, because it requires taking personal responsibility which some don’t have.

Exactly, some people don’t have personal responsibility and need a safety net.

The alternative is that we let them die on the street.  I assume that is not your take.

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

Originally the National Welfare System was set up as a temporary measure.

 

I suggest you read the entire speech.  This snippet we can agree on, that we would prefer for nobody to have to rely on the safety net.

But do you agree with the rest?  It’s a damn socialist manifesto if said today:

“We have, however, a clear mandate from the people, that Americans must forswear that conception of the acquisition of wealth which, through excessive profits, creates undue private power over private affairs and, to our misfortune, over public affairs as well.”

This is more true now than ever.

And how does he propose to get people off the government dole?  Emergency government employment:

“It is a duty dictated by every intelligent consideration of national policy to ask you to make it possible for the United States to give employment to all of these three and one half million employable people now on relief, pending their absorption in a rising tide of private employment.”

Works for me!

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

If you don’t think the government is controlling you by giving you *free money* why does a politician who brings up limiting entitlement programs is shouted down or voted out of office

Popular policy does not mean government is using it to control us.  

8 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

The first point was establishing the size and degree of society’s safety net is a critical debate.  Ultimately - what’s the role of gov? A classic and refreshing  gop vs dem argument (vs screaming about bud light).

The second was local vs national laws and regulations. Yes the country is obviously more mobile today but many laws can and should still be localized - not everything has to be a common denominator and shouldn’t be.  When I see more and more the word “succession” - it’s time for that discussion.

I agree the size and degree of the safety net is a good discussion. 
 

But first you have to establish that the safety net is needed, and not just government trying to make you dependent as brought up by I_M4_AU.

I believe you agree it’s needed.  Then next you have to establish that the safety net shouldn’t be dependent on arbitrary judgement of what the individual should have done to avoid needing the safety net in the first place.  Or as you put it :  “a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices”.

I’m not sure where you fall on the second point, but the answer is that yes, safety nets should include protecting those who made poor life choices.  
 

“Poor life choices” is undefined and arbitrary, outside of breaking the law.  In the world where everyone is an upstanding highly qualified doctor or engineer, there would be poor doctors and engineers who need a safety net.  Their poor life choice was what exactly?  Not being a better doctor or engineer?  And if they were better, it would be someone else at the bottom.

5 hours ago, auburnatl1 said:

I think this is a great discussion. Who should the gov “protect” and provide a safety net for (ie someone with autism) vs a nanny state protecting people from the consequences of poor choices (ie not doing short term saving for potentially losing a job or longer term retirement). Some people mismanage their lives - what’s the role and degree of gov in protecting us from ourselves.

Additionally, what laws should be common nationally vs at the state or county level? Ie Somebody from Opp will culturally not agree with someone from Boston on gun rights - and never will. Localization is critical for the health of the country.

We’re called the United States for a reason - the founders brilliantly realized that this only works if regions can have some autonomy. To end these concerning succession narratives - we need to respect and rediscover the founders original intent again.

On your point about safety nets, poor people will always exist.  The Bible says it and capitalism guarantees it.  I think this is reason enough to provide a social safety net, and reason why it shouldn’t be contingent on someone else’s high horse opinion on life choices.  
 

In a world where everyone studied hard and became an upstanding doctor or engineer, there would exist poor doctors and engineers who would need a social safety net.  The need for a safety net is independent from the fact that some individuals make bad life choices.

On states autonomy, we tried that.  States used to have more autonomy but some states used their autonomy to treat people as property.  Kinda ruined that whole idea.

Ignoring that obvious example, and back to yours, regions having more autonomy worked much better when it took five weeks to get from Boston to Alabama.  Now you can do it within a day.  Alabama having their own idea of gun rights, in your example, potentially affects Boston. 

19 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You implied by you original post that conservative were worried about their SS checks.  You brought the financial aspect into the conversation. When you brought up the financial aspect, I went with that and clarified that in a subsequent posts.

Conservatives are worried about losing their socialism, which I find funny.  

54 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Of course we are, but it shouldn’t be a way of life and one should not be fully dependant financially on the government.  Are you?

I am not fully dependent, but you have changed your words from ‘dependent’ to ‘fully dependent financially’.

13 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Dependant on the Government.  It’s pretty simple.  Work so you don’t have to rely on the government.  But that requires a little initiative.

We are all dependent on the government.  Who do you think protects your rights?

20 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Yep, the government has us right where they want us.

Where do they want us?  Relying on them for protections and safety nets?

My favorite thing about the idea of Texas seceding is conservatives asking what would happen to their social security checks.

In other words, if we secede, will we still get our socialism benefits?

On 1/16/2024 at 4:04 PM, TitanTiger said:

If you've ever wondered, "How in the hell does a guy like Hitler take over and gain the support of normal, decent people in Germany?"...this is how.  Gullibility and extreme willingness to believe or be talked into anything as long as it comes from one's own tribe.  Evidence doesn't matter, and anything given the right spin or cast in enough ominous overtones is gobbled up like Thanksgiving dinner.  People will believe literal, absolute horse***t if it plays into their fears and reinforces what they already want to believe.  

Many people are raised to take things in faith based on fear, not facts or evidence.  It is no surprise that there is a large overlap between those who take things in faith, from their own tribe, without evidence - and those who have faith in Trump.

So he is talking about media lies that he feels led up to what happened on January 6, 2021.

Yet there was no mention of the biggest media lie that led to January 6, 2021?  The one that cost Fox News nearly a $billion?

I’m all for holding media accountable, but if the point is that media lies led up to January 6, 2021… at least don’t be a shill and mention them all.  

I like someone who will speak truth to power, but come on now.

On 1/4/2024 at 9:54 PM, homersapien said:

So to summarize, the economy is "bad" regardless of the statistical indicators, because some people are poor and struggling.

Got it.  

Economic indicators indicate how capital  is doing, not people, as now the top 10% own 70% of the wealth (aka capital) in the US.  

The economy doing good is another way of saying that capital is earning more capital.  Kraft Heinz and Exxon Mobil have record profits as we pay more for food and fuel.  Their increased profits are part of the positive economic indicators.  Their names are indicators how capital accumulates.

It is not that ‘some’ people are struggling - most people are struggling - as most people aren’t capital holders benefiting from economic indicators.

I think in short, economics does not trickle down.

On 1/1/2024 at 6:00 PM, I_M4_AU said:

I will when you can back up the claim Trump incited an insurrection

"We fight like hell. And if you don't fight like hell, you're not going to have a country anymore,"
 

6 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

I understand the premise, but I can assure you underserved communities and even middle income families feel $709. Most were working on thin margins to begin with and this added burden is devastating. Just do a Google search and read the stories., look at the surveys, etc. I did so last night and they are never-ending. Probably a better option is to go serve in the community and see it first hand. It will change your life.  Happy New Year! 

I’m agreeing with you.  A ‘good economy’ doesn’t necessarily benefit those on the low end.

The poor - those without capital -won’t see most of the benefits of a booming economy without some intervention.  If the goal is to enrich the less fortunate, it needs to be done through redistribution efforts, whether through tax law, social programs or other means.

12 hours ago, AUFAN78 said:

Clearly Americans,  particularly those I mentioned in lower income levels are struggling in this economy. I just read a dozen reports stating the same. I leave just one for your consideration:

I tend to agree, but they will struggle in any economy.  Capital will always tend to accumulate at the top.  The only way lower income levels will improve is through policy - some sort of redistribution.  

On 12/23/2023 at 9:31 AM, Mikey said:

I hope that's stalled forever. I limited my borrowing in college years because I understood what the word "loan" meant. It was tough, but I paid my student loans back. Those who now owe astronomical amounts should have to pay theirs back. That could be considered a part of their education that apparently they didn't get the first time around.

The biggest mistake of these students was not considering themselves a “small business”.  Loans to “small businesses” easily forgiven without political resistance.

9 hours ago, homersapien said:

Clearly, he believes there is no constitutional right do so, otherwise, he presumably wouldn't be arguing against it.

I presumed a misunderstanding, I had no idea such people existed.

33 minutes ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Then there you have it. You want a constitutional right to worship satan? Just “imagine” it into the constitution and there you go! What a reliable interpretive method. This is akin to virtually every “new right” the Warren Court declared under the guise of “substantive due process,” ie, sodomy, gay marriage, abortion, etc. 

There already is a right to worship Satan.  No imagination necessary.  To cut through the fluff, do you not agree that we have a constitutional right to worship Satan?