Calling All Fiscal Conservatives

[rjaypeters]

IntLibber and Diogenes: Forgive my density, but how are your last posts related to the potential demise of the New Deal and Great Society programs?

[Diogenes]

Consider: who will select the subjects for involuntary sterilization?

They will select themselves. Just as prison inmates (in most cases) select themselves by their actions.

I know a little bit about this. I've spoken with a lot of women who let the state pay for their labor and delivery costs. Several of them have told me the state offered to give them a tubal ligation right after delivery while they were still in the hospital. What better time?

As for the males, believe it or not, the police will grab someone with an outstanding warrant. Offer them the choice of paying the bill, prison, or a vasectomy, and i'll warrant most of them will take the vasectomy. A lot of them will consider it to be a favor.

Yes, these are government actions in response to individual irresponsibility. A premise of this thread is less government action and the results.

Had the government never intervened in the first place, you would have a legitimate point. But as it is, the unnatural pressure from the government has created the artificial environment of unwed mothers not needing a normal family environment, the Government has now become responsible for the helpless people it created through it's previous foolish policies. As Colin Powell said of Iraq, "We broke it, now we own it."

If you are suggesting that we now cast these people to the wolves, and restore things back to the way they were supposed to be in the first place, I have to disagree. The IDIOT Democrats created this massive underclass through their IDIOTIC "War on Poverty" policies, and I personally think every supporter of these people should be stripped of all their property and assets to pay the present and future costs of their STUPID policies, but as these people (the victims of the Democrat policies) are our fellow citizens who have been put into their condition as a result of letting Democrats into positions of power, the Nation owes them at least, a way out.

The proposal suggested by myself and Wizwom is a step in the right direction, and it can probably even be done voluntarily with a combination of threats and incentives. But to cut them off cold turkey is unfair to them, and we should not do it. I say we should clean up the Democrat's mess as much as we can, and slowly restore government policy back to what it was always supposed to be in the first place! Individuals are primarily responsible for themselves. Not the Government, not anyone else, just themselves!

I have no objection at all to being called a heartless bastard by someone who is completely ignorant of who I am, how I live and what I stand for. I find it stimulating.

Oh, have it your way, you didn't call me a heartless bastard. But, honesty compells me to admit I am worse than you know. It is confidently attested to me my parents were married before I was born. Heartless? You got me there. I shudder when I think about how awful I am.

Yes, please reiterate the notion that I am calling you something, when in fact I was asking how you would like it if someone referred to that as your position and expected you to agree with it? Is the distinction really too subtle for you to see it?

My point is, you have proffered a thread tittle that is akin to the "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" question.

No, I don't think so. Others and you, on this thread, introduced a specific response, sterilization, to a broader question, no New Deal and Great Society programs. If you don't like the existing title of the other thread, propose a different one and I'll change it (I guess I have that power for threads I originate).

You use the terms "Involuntary Sterilization" which are known to be charged with emotional reaction, and you did not balance them with any qualifiers that might mitigate most people's emotional reaction. An analogous example. You might title a thread:

"Slavery is acceptable."

When in fact what I said was:

"Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


You are arguing using "emotional reaction" rather than reason, and thereby reinforcing a previous discussion in which I suggested that Emotional arguments are far more likely to win than are rational arguments. Is it too much to ask for a neutral thread title such as: "Pay for your children, or get mandatory birth control! "

That more accurately describes the idea, and contains far less "outrage" words than does the title you chose.

Speaking of the other thread, I like IntLibber's first response. It seems an interesting start.

If you accept the premise, then you are reinforcing the accusation.

I would not dream to catch you with such an elementary trick. Propose a different title, by all means.

See above.

As for me, I find clarity of thought and clarity of principle stimulating.

Among other things, I also find these things stimulating, if I can find them.

If you are like me, you find sometimes, that though you may wish for it, it is not always possible without assistance.

[Diogenes]

IntLibber and Diogenes: Forgive my density, but how are your last posts related to the potential demise of the New Deal and Great Society programs?

They are a continuation of a multi-thread previous argument. Most of us have been trained not to pay too much attention to the thread topic, because every discussion invariably bends back to drugs.

I personally don't mind leaving the drug discussion behind, and trying to keep messages on topic, but I tend to respond to whatever happens to be discussed, if I find it worth discussing and can provide input or insight.

Sorry.

[Diogenes]

Isaiah 1: 16 & 17 - Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean; remove the evil of your deeds from before my eyes; cease to do evil, learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow’s cause.

Emphasis mine.

Religion is the concentrated wisdom of our ancestors which they learned from the mistakes they witnessed in their own time. We ignore it at our peril.

[rjaypeters]

Diogenes,
At no point have I advocated throwing anyone to any wolves. I even wrote:

Now, it is fair to ask me if I think charities should take up pre- and post- natal care of children of irresponsible parents. I don't see any moral way out of the responsibility. Lots of reasons, but the gripping hand is children who are well-cared for do a lot better in the rest of their lives. Which is a bang-for-your-buck argument.

After I noted the moral hazard of supporting children of incapable parents. I'm the guy who thinks charities are the appropriate tools for these situations because I don't believe widows, orphans, the poor, etc. were ever government's responsibility. I looked up the quotation from the book of Isaiah and I think Alexis de Tocqueville had something to say about voluntary associations, too.

Re: "Heartless bastard". I'm just being honest about myself.

The title of the other thread is changed to that which you requested. It was not too much to ask.

Re: The British governments payroll and tax plan: I pity Britain. I hope no government in the United States is ever so bold as to propose anything like it here.

[chrismb]

I pity Britain. I hope no government in the United States is ever so bold as to propose anything like it here.

Enough to show a Brit some charity???...

[rjaypeters]

Enough to show a Brit some charity???...

Yes, but only one. Do you have a nominee?

[rjaypeters]

Is someone in the US Congress talking about privatizing Social Security?

"Privatize Social Security? Hell Yeah!" found at:

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/perm/?postID=14110

[MSimon]

Thread jack:

I have long argued that Government subsidizes bad behavior

Were you thinking of the drug war?

Heh.

[WizWom]

Enough to show a Brit some charity???...

Yes, but only one. Do you have a nominee?

I hear Queen Elizabeth has had to implement austerity measures at Buckingham palace. She could probably use a few bucks

[rjaypeters]

I hear Queen Elizabeth has had to implement austerity measures at Buckingham palace. She could probably use a few bucks

My measly contribution would be in the noise for HRH (or is she HM? How does one keep these forms of address straight?).

Another nominee?

[Diogenes]

Diogenes,
At no point have I advocated throwing anyone to any wolves. I even wrote:

Now, it is fair to ask me if I think charities should take up pre- and post- natal care of children of irresponsible parents. I don't see any moral way out of the responsibility. Lots of reasons, but the gripping hand is children who are well-cared for do a lot better in the rest of their lives. Which is a bang-for-your-buck argument.

After I noted the moral hazard of supporting children of incapable parents. I'm the guy who thinks charities are the appropriate tools for these situations because I don't believe widows, orphans, the poor, etc. were ever government's responsibility. I looked up the quotation from the book of Isaiah and I think Alexis de Tocqueville had something to say about voluntary associations, too.

Re: "Heartless bastard". I'm just being honest about myself.

The title of the other thread is changed to that which you requested. It was not too much to ask.

Re: The British governments payroll and tax plan: I pity Britain. I hope no government in the United States is ever so bold as to propose anything like it here.

I must have misunderstood something you wrote early in the thread, but as I understand you now, I agree with you but for one point. Because the government has been involved in taking care of the poor, it cannot simply withdraw overnight. We have to find a means by which it can evolve OUT of the business of providing support.

As I and Wizwom have suggested, a good method would be to make government support less desirable on the part of recipients. The idea of making them live in a very restrictive public housing environment, and not permitting them to shop with government money, but instead be fed from a cafeteria or some such along with other methods would very likely achieve the desired result of people not wanting to be on welfare unless they really had no other choice.

I think most Americans are willing to have a government financed safety net if it is incentivised to meet basic needs without making it desirable to remain in it. It is axiomatic that we are going to have people who will simply never be able to take care of themselves, and if their needs cannot be met by private charities, then at some point the government should step in and do what is necessary, but it should be the STATE government, not the Federal. The Federal government really needs to get out of the vote buying business.

Anyway, I agree with your notion, I just think we should transition slowly enough to give people time to adapt to the new conditions.

[Diogenes]

Thread jack:

I have long argued that Government subsidizes bad behavior

Were you thinking of the drug war?

Heh.

Nope, the war on poverty, government employee unions, and bureaucracy in general. The most damaging of course, being the war on poverty. By having the government pay for women to have babies and get free money and living expenses from the government, it has had a devastating effect on poor families. Many children end up growing up without a father, and as a result they do not get the discipline they need to be good members of society. Beyond that, women are incentivised into having more children.

There is no negative feedback system for behavior which is not only bad for society, but bad for the individuals themselves, and it's all paid for by the productive members of society.

It is perverse.

[rjaypeters]

...Because the government has been involved in taking care of the poor, it cannot simply withdraw overnight. We have to find a means by which it can evolve OUT of the business of providing support.

Transitions are tricky. What schedule would you suggest?

I think there are at least two sides to this coin. First, the federal government may more quickly run out of means than any like. Second, US citizens are not used to charitable giving at anywhere near the level required to support current programs, let alone the building and relocation program (start-up costs) you and WizWom envision. Later, the dormintory/cafeteria living might (please let it) be cheaper than the taxes we pay now. Probably the only things that will motivate us, the donors, are a skin-flint Uncle Same and desperate need.

I wonder about government housing. I have known (I think) only one family who lived in government housing. That family ended up educated and wealthy due at least partly to their character (an economic boom in Florida in the '60s didn't hurt). More recent experience with government housing has not been sanguine. In fact, the tread has been away from concentration because of the deleterious effects of other social ills dealt with on other forum threads.

I think most Americans are willing to have a government financed safety net if it is incentivised to meet basic needs without making it desirable to remain in it.

Americans are willing to help our neighbors, it's one of the reasons I like us. The fun parts are always the definition of "neighbor" and the avoidance of donor fatigue. One phrase in your statement reminds me of when I was grown up enough to start paying attention: "Safety Net." The Reagan administration used this phrase, I don't remember the time well enough to comment much about it, but in my opinion, We the People must be the safety net, not our governments. The transition time must be short and if it is, won't building dormitories and cafeterias be ill-spent money?

Incentives have been used, mostly to good effect as part of the "End of Welfare As We Know It". The two hard parts for charities will be defining the minimum needs and fighting mission creep. Mission creep, in this instance, means the struggle to do more as the real or perceived need increases.

It is axiomatic that we are going to have people who will simply never be able to take care of themselves, and if their needs cannot be met by private charities, then at some point the government should step in and do what is necessary, but it should be the STATE government, not the Federal.

Please, let us keep the courage of our convictions. The government should never have been responsible for these programs. I'll not argue about a transition period if you promise neither the federal nor state governments EVER become involved again. Deal?

If the governments get out of the way, we will be wealthy enough to care for our fellow citizens.

Anyway, I agree with your notion, I just think we should transition slowly enough to give people time to adapt to the new conditions.

It is not my notion. Although I just wanted to work and raise my family without anyone joggling my elbow, I expect I must now prepare myself and others for greater responsibilities. Even in the latest Republican "Pledge to America":"While stressing the need to reduce spiraling deficits, they did not offer specifics on how to restrain the growth of entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid*." We have tried and tried to reform these programs, I'm afraid sterner measures will be thrust upon us.

*CNN is the source of the quote

[Diogenes]

This is sorta on topic, and it's just so good i couldn't resist.