Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

Hmm, but that was a clear strawman. You're defining "social+fiscal liberal" as something that's clearly irresponsible and doesn't make any sort of value judgements.

But the problem there is that "fiscal liberals" are basically non-existent. The entire concept itself is a strawman. For example, under Obama the brakes really went on, in terms of federal spending. Total spending grew slower than inflation, i.e. the total size of the federal government shrunk under Obama in real-dollar terms. And other "liberal" Clinton saw surpluses in his final years in office.

"fiscal conservative" is a phony way to link "saving money" to conservatives, when in fact both sides want to save money, so "fiscal conservative" itself is a backhanded strawman. It's the same as "pro-life" making out that the other side is "anti-life", which is a bullshit strawman. Whereas "pro-choice" is valid: the other side really are anti-choice, that's not a strawman, it's basically true.

[wierd]

It is the way I see them, when I see arguments like "every moment this legislation remains unpassed, people suffer horribly!"

Especially when the reason for wanting to postpone enacting said policy, is because it relies on handwavium economics.

See affordable care act.

[Reelya]

No that's the right wing's "trickle down" economics.

Giving money to the poor guarantees that it's spent. No program has more stimulus effect that Food Stamps for example.

Basically, liberals are demand-side economics, whereas conservatives are supply-side economics. But supply-side economics became discredited because it lead to the Great Depression, and it can be argued that Bush's supply-side economics lead to the Global Financial Crisis, whereas Clinton's demand-side economics lead to 300 billion dollar surpluses. WWII pulled the USA out of depression, purely by focusing on demand-side economics.

[wierd]

See the deleterious effects pointed out by several eurozone participants to this thread about what happens when assistance levels exceed the min wage.

[nenjin]

I do not believe that the generals one has, or the color of ones skin, has anything whatsoever to do with thier ability to be self sufficient or to ecxel above their peers.

Then you live a magical, fairy tale life. Because being not-white, stupid, living in a bad neighborhood, being prejudged by every fucking person you meet and possibly having a shit family are all significant barriers to success, or alternatively, risk factors for becoming the poster child you hold up as your example. The whole try-hard stars-in-your-eyes is unrealistic at best, intentionally biased at worst. Yeah some people pulled themselves up by their boot straps. And because they're the exception to the rule, they're the rule?

Why do YOU feel that these things have real influence?

Because I've grown up in a lot of different places, and associated with a broad cross-section of wealth, race and culture? I'm not going to pull out the "i have black friends" because I don't. But I've gone from seeing what privileged living is like one minute, to hanging out with people at or below the poverty line. (Which would surprise you how high it is.) I've worked with the homeless, I've handed out food to people on food stamps. Some of them were so stupidly grateful it'd be bring tears to your eyes if you're not a total fucking bastard in your heart. I've seen the difference it can make it in people's lives and I've walked a while in other people's shoes, hung out in their houses, heard their struggles.

But the short answer is because I actually care. There but for the grace of god could I be these people and have the stress they do. And I believe the best way you can help them is to help their kids get better educations, get better jobs and see a different life for themselves, and make sure their parents can put food on the table every night until they're adults.

[misko27]

Put another way, if two evenly matched sides are fighting, and one of them has the high ground, guess which one probably wins.

Obi-Wan.

But the problem there is that "fiscal liberals" are basically non-existent. The entire concept itself is a strawman.

You know I don't think I hear anyone say the phrase "fiscally liberal" about anyone except as an insult. It implies profligacy and almost reads as a synonym for "loose with money".

Of course, that doesn't mean they don't exist. No one calls themselves reactionary either, even though they clearly exist. It's all about the implications. You call yourself conservative even if you are a reactionary at heart because you just decide that reactionary is a made-up word that people use to insult you, when in fact, it's quite possible to be a reactionary. Reactionary doesn't exist to be an insult, it's an actual thing. Of course, I think reactionaries are out of their minds, but that's because that's how I feel about them personally.

It is the way I see them, when I see arguments like "every moment this legislation remains unpassed, people suffer horribly!"

So you've defined someone who is a "fiscal and social liberal" as "bleeding heart liberal". That's not exactly neutral.

[Reelya]

See the deleterious effects pointed out by several eurozone participants to this thread about what happens when assistance levels exceed the min wage.

It pushes up the effective minimum wage.

The "deleterious effects" are that people aren't willing to take the shitty $3 an hour jobs anymore. It's people who want to pay slave wages who are the most upset. Overall unemployment in those countries is no higher than countries with low welfare, but poverty is much worse where there's no welfare.

For example the unemployment rate in UK and Germany are virtually identical to USA, yet the poor in those countries get free health care, housing and money to live on. And for the cost of all that: UK and Germany have less government debt per GDP than USA does. So it arguably has not exploded either unemployment or the budget.

[wierd]

Neither is defining conservatives as synonymous with reactionaries, as others have here misko.

Nenjin, again, I GREW UP POOR. SO POOR WE SUBSISTED ON CAUGHT FISH FROM DIRTY RIVERS.

We went from a below 5k/yr standard of life without air or heating to middle class, due to hard work and desire for betterment. I went from low middle class to upper middle class in my adult life through the same. Despite low food availability and much more limited options, we were successful. And yes, single mom, no, no food stamps.

You do not get to lecture me. Check your own goddam privilege.

Reela:

Read again, it causes an uncontrolled inflation cycle that the market cannot bear.

[nenjin]

So, because you survived and you bettered, you have zero sympathy or willingness to believe those that just weren't tough as you aren't welfare queens and fuckups. Got it. Great outlook.

My privilege is fine, thanks.

[Reelya]

Not having a decent welfare system basically dooms future generations to constantly go through your upbringing. You can talk about how you rose from virtually Africa levels of poverty to be middle-class through monumental efforts, but that's not need to subject future generations to the same privation for no apparent reason. After all, countries that provide a living allowance for the poorest people have less total debt than the USA does.

Basically your choice is between a working welfare system or building more prisons. You can argue that people who fail and end up in prison are their due to their own faults, but that attitude costs you actual tax dollars which would have been avoided if the welfare system was better.

[wierd]

No, bastard.

I mean I have lived in the damn slum, and know what all else lives there.  I actively help people who seek to improve themselves, but have no sympathy for leeches who syphon resources from the system away from people who would use them, and improve.

[smjjames]

Reela:

Read again, it causes an uncontrolled inflation cycle that the market cannot bear.

What does? The assistance exceeding the min wage? I'm only partially paying attention to the economics discussion, which is outside my area of knowledge. At least the finer points anyway.

edit: Calm the hell down guys!

edit2: Is SSI included in the whole 'leeches sucking money' thing?

[nenjin]

Watch the PAs.

I mean I have lived in the damn slum, and know what all else lives there.  I actively help people who seek to improve themselves, but have no sympathy for leeches who syphon resources from the system away from people who would use them, and improve.

Ok, but how does an entire government system identify those worth helping, and what does it do about literally leaving the rest to die? You really want kids raised in a country where it's ok to go "Don't worry about those people, they aren't worth helping." And do you really think in this country that kind of ideology won't eventually be abused to sickening levels? That these attitudes don't snowball after generations?

[Reelya]

No, bastard.

I mean I have lived in the damn slum, and know what all else lives there.  I actively help people who seek to improve themselves, but have no sympathy for leeches who syphon resources from the system away from people who would use them, and improve.

But you end up paying a lot more to house people in prison. Not funding basic services is the reason the slums exist. In Australia we toured some American experts through our worst inner-city slums, and they liked the place and wished they could live somewhere like that in America. Slums in countries with decent welfare resemble upper middle class areas in America.

You're just not seeing the circular logic problem. Resources provided for a better upbringing now saves tons of resources dealing with dysfunctional non-socially integrated adults later. The choices are between a future of a socially integrated society, and a high-debt society with police militarization and wire fences around slum areas designated "losers".

[smjjames]

As far as welfare goes, is SSI included in that?