Librarians, Keepers of the Liberty

Originally Posted by pgardn

So the question remains: If Blacks as a whole were in such great financial shape in the 50's, why did they even need welfare?, and as a %, why did blacks fall for welfare? Quit playing stupid games.

And the Clinton adm. "got rid" of more welfare families than any Rep. president ever.

Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.

I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.

Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.

In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?

I can't explain why everyone does the dopey things that they do ... if I could I'd be able to explain Courtney Love to you.

And ... yes ... Wee-Wee Willie finally signed the Republicans' welfare reform legislation ... after vetoing it twice ... because Dick Morris told him that his chances for reelection were dead if he didn't.

He did the right thing for the wrong reason ... but nonetheless ... it's the results that count ... and he deserves some of the credit for the success of welfare reform.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your question is based on your misreading of my earlier post.

I said that in the 1950's black families were as stable ... or a bit more so ... as white families. I didn't say they were as affluent.

Go back and find that post ... and if you read it carefully ... I'm sure you'll agree that that's what I said.

In any case ... all individuals ... regardless of race ... who eschewed government welfare programs ... and relied on their own work and talent ... have done far, far, far better than those who bought into the fool's gold of the welfare state. You agree with that, don't you?

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.

I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

Now if you do answer the above, I think eventually you would come around to understanding my very first statement on this thread that caused an uproar, but which I firmly believe to be true... Even today, but not as much so as in the past.

I will agree that many of the ways the welfare system was set up based on Lyndon Johnson's dreams turned out to be a disincentive to work. I think it was well meaning, but horribly thought out. I do believe certain government programs are still needed to help people get a start. But no government program should be a disincentive for able bodied people to work. I believe working and making your way in a society, helps one cherish the benefits we do have in this country. But clearly some people need a leg up, and once they have the means, they are on their own. Churches, charities, etc... can only do so much.
I think people that reaped huge financial rewards have a duty to do everything they can to help the country that allowed them to make these gains. Like Gates and Buffet. But I dont think the government should make people do what Gates and Buffet had done.

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

The only one who really needs a "leg up" ... is a short jockey trying to get on the back of a tall horse.

And Gates and Buffet are intelligently doing what they're doing in order to avoid having the government confiscate their wealth. Do away with the thieving outrage known as the death tax ... wherein the government confiscates wealth which it has already taxed over and over again ... and neither of those two highly successful men would be doing what they're doing in the way that they're doing it. They'd make much better use of their money if left to their own capacious wits without the threat of confiscation.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

The only one who really needs a "leg up" ... is a short jockey trying to get on the back of a tall horse.

And Gates and Buffet are intelligently doing what they're doing in order to avoid having the government confiscate their wealth. Do away with the thieving outrage known as the death tax ... wherein the government confiscates wealth which it has already taxed over and over again ... and neither of those two highly successful men would be doing what they're doing in the way that they're doing it. They'd make much better use of their money if left to their own capacious wits without the threat of confiscation.

So you dont think our government role extends to helping people in any way?
In other words, the government is needed to do what? Example: I consider the military a big leg up for many people. I know of a number of people that would not be where they are today without our government's military training. Why is the military controlled by the government? Why not just let proftit driven private entities run the military?

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.
Your sites dont give you the whole story. You need to have more weapons in your arsenal if you wish to argue intelligently. Those crappy biased political sites are exactly that, political sites. They do not attempt to reveal truths. Keep searching for things that fit your worldview and throw out the rest, and you will continue to handicap your ability to learn because you dont have all sides of an issue. Its up to you, old or young. If you cannot be flexible mentally, you are a great disadvantage into today's world. Good luck.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by pgardn

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.

I honestly can't fathom that anyone would actually believe Gates and Buffet are being motivated by self-interest. Gates is possibly the most generous benefactor EVER of global health problems. His dad is a major proponent of KEEPING the estate tax (I've talked to him one-on-one a few times, so I know, but he's made very public statements in support of the estate tax).

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

I honestly can't fathom that anyone would actually believe Gates and Buffet are being motivated by self-interest. Gates is possibly the most generous benefactor EVER of global health problems. His dad is a major proponent of KEEPING the estate tax (I've talked to him one-on-one a few times, so I know, but he's made very public statements in support of the estate tax).

Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.

This is true. But why did they do it? The Gates mission is thought of as one of the best at giving out CHARITY. They do their homework on how the money will be spent best. So again, you are saying Gates and Buffet just do this work to avoid giving it to the government, not to help other people besides themselves.... is this what you are typing?

You are making these gentlemen sound like all they are trying to do is keep money away from the US government... That this is their sole purpose. That is bogus.

Again you give out a fact and then dont go any further. You just stop and dont dig any deeper. Very much like your websites. It is really sad that people like you dig deep enough just to skew the real issues and satisfy your beliefs that would never change, even if the evidence changes. Its your choice. Stay handicapped. Borders on zealotry. Very sad indeed.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Nonetheless ...

... both Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have moved their billions out of the reach of the tax collector. The U.S. government will not be "benefiting" from any of that money.

That ... my good friend ... is what is known as a fact.

Yes, but your insinuation that they did it out of some sort of anti-tax logic is a little off-base.

Like I said, Gates Sr. *supports* the estate tax, and from what he's said, his son does, too...so I don't really think they were thinking, "Yippee! No estate tax!" when they committed their lives and energy to fighting global poverty. Gates is quitting his company to work on improving global health. Don't hold him up as the poster-boy for fiscal conservatism, because he's not.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So you dont think our government role extends to helping people in any way?
In other words, the government is needed to do what? Example: I consider the military a big leg up for many people. I know of a number of people that would not be where they are today without our government's military training. Why is the military controlled by the government? Why not just let proftit driven private entities run the military?

The U.S. military is in no way a welfare program. It exists to perform the very function for which the government exists ... that is ... to maintain the freedom of the citizens who form that government.

Those who enrol in the miltary must work very hard ... and meet exacting standards ... in order to remain there. All money and benefits accruing to military personnel is earned by them ... military salaries are not welfare payments.

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

The U.S. military is in no way a welfare program. It exists to perform the very function for which the government exists ... that is ... to maintain the freedom of the citizens who form that government.

Those who enrol in the miltary must work very hard ... and meet exacting standards ... in order to remain there. All money and benefits accruing to military personnel is earned by them ... military salaries are not welfare payments.

The military has been an incredible opportunity for people who find themselves in much worse situations than you or I have, to access the enormous opportunity that this country has to offer. In my definition that is a leg up. Helping people to help themselves. The rigor and discipline required in serving ones country is an obvious advantage later in life to many.

Should a government in any way be responsible for helping people to help themselves? Or that should all come privately, or it just does not need to happen at all (people should have no reason to enter any program that will help them to be better equipped to succeed in our society)? Please do tell.

Originally Posted by pgardn

And Buffet could have given a hell of a lot more money to his descendants and he decided not to. His children will still be very wealthy, but he could have "captured" a hell of a lot more of his personal money for relatives. You are misinformed on his decision.
Your sites dont give you the whole story. You need to have more weapons in your arsenal if you wish to argue intelligently. Those crappy biased political sites are exactly that, political sites. They do not attempt to reveal truths. Keep searching for things that fit your worldview and throw out the rest, and you will continue to handicap your ability to learn because you dont have all sides of an issue. Its up to you, old or young. If you cannot be flexible mentally, you are a great disadvantage into today's world. Good luck.

You can blather all you want ... and indeed you do ...

... but the unmistakable fact is that neither Gates nor Buffet will be paying any estate taxes to the government ... all those billions of dollars have been sheltered from the government's reach.

None of us know their real motivations ... but it makes no difference .. . no matter what their motivations are ... that doesn't alter the fact that they have indeed sheltered their money from the taxman's reach.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

You're beginning to see the light ... but ...

... why should anyone ... who has two legs, two arms, and a functioning brain ... need "a leg up"? And who will decide who needs the leg up and who doesn't? And who will decide just what a "leg up" means ... and what it doesn't? That's just another high-minded sounding bit of socialist claptrap.

Maybe the girls I knew in the transitional housing program who had a child or two when they were barely adults themselves, whose parents had completely failed them, who were on the streets themselves as children, who were usually molested as kids, who've overcome addictions to save their own kids, who wanted a chance but were screwed by the current system (one of the many incongruities of the current welfare reform is the rule that you can't afford childcare or be given time to look for it until you have a job...but you can't find a job until you have somewhere to put your kids...). Of course, you'll probably tell me that it's their fault they got pregnant, had bad parents, didn't have anyone to watch out for the as children, dropped out of high school, couldn't find jobs, wound up on the streets and are trying to fix their lives now with -- gasp! -- actual help from the government. Obviously, they should just spend the rest of their lives paying for their mistakes until they can do everything without any help at all, because that's the American way. And then *their* kids will end up on the streets. And you'll complain about all those poor people draining the system.

People in the social work world will tell you that Welfare to Work reforms have mostly harmed honest people who *WANT* to do better. Although I have a feeling you probably equate social work with bleeding-heart liberal socialism (my apologies if not). As far as I'm concerned, the government should definitely give people a leg-up when they need it. In my personal opinion, a lot more people need it than you think. It's certainly more important for the government to do that than some of the roles it currently fills, like prying into every aspect of our personal lives to shake its finger at "aberrant" behavior.

(Like pgarden, I consider the military to provide precisely that function. There's a reason most of my high school classmates are in the military: my hometown is poor. Most kids don't have anywhere else to go apart from the local tire stores, so guess what offers them a better opportunity?)

Thinkg about all of the people who need a "leg up" that the government assists: veterans, via the VA; victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); family members of those killed in action, who receive some financial support after the deaths of their loved ones; students who take out federal loans (getting smaller by the day)...most of us receive some sort of help in some way or another.

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

... victims of natural disasters, via FEMA (at least in theory); ...

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

[SentToStud]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

People who choose to live on known seismic fault lines shouldn't be surprised when there are earthquakes ... people who choose to live below sea level shoudn't be surprised to find themselves under water ... people who choose to live on a table-flat land which juts into or borders the volatile Caribbean Saa shouldn't be surprised when there are hurricanes ... people who choose to live in river basins shouldn't be surprised by floods ... people who choose to live within forests which are regularly subject to months-long droughts shouldn't be surprised when there are fires.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

people who choose to live on your block should toss you a frisbee and perhaps ypu'd miss it and it would gently tap your head and knock some sense, or better yet, courage. into you.

We can always hope.

[irishtrekker]

Originally Posted by Bold Brooklynite

Your post was so wide-ranging that I'd need to write an encyclopedia to address all of it ... so let me just address the point of "disaster" relief.

As free citizens of a free country ... Americans can choose to live wherever they want to. Those who choose to live in places known to be more susceptible to violent acts of nature ... do not have a right to demand money from those who choose to live in safer places when the inevitable natural acts occur.

If you wish to live dangerously ... you either take you chances ... and/or buy insurance against nature's violence. If private insurers ... who are in business to make a profit from selling insurance ... are unwilling to write you an insurance policy ... then you surely know that that particular location is really, really dangerous.

If you still choose to live there ... good luck ... but don't claim any right to the money of others who have been more prudent.

When the government subsidizes insurance ... which private insurers would not otherwise issue ... it only encourages dangerous behavior ... and becomes an enabler of disastrous outcomes.

Have you ever looked at it that way?

You may not name-call like some posters, but you sure know how to throw a backhanded insult like the first line.

Of course I've looked at it that way. I just completely disagree. I would actually, sincerely, like to engage in a deeper discussion, but I am woefully behind on my workload, so I'll just make a few quick points.

One nitpick: Sure, people can choose wherever they want to live. WHETHER they can afford to live wherever they like is another question. I can't afford rent in a lot of cities where I'd like to live.

Second: there aren't too many places in the country that aren't prone to one sort of disaster or another, so I question whether anyone can actually be more "prudent" than another.

Third: Katrina wasn't exactly your run-of-the-mill disaster. Does it somehow make our government better or more noble if it considers the plight of so many now-homeless individuals and decides not to act because they shoulda bought homeowner's insurance?

I could never share your outlook on life. Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.

Originally Posted by irishtrekker

Some people need help more than others, and I personally believe that it is the responsibility of those who've succeeded in society to give back by helping out those who truly struggle. I'm not talking about protecting deadbeats here, although those seem to be the only faces you see when you look at the poor. Your fixation on keeping every last almighty dollar that's rightfully yours is a bit disturbing. You can't take it with you anyway.

Individual Americans should be free to use their money in any way they choose ... including donating it to others whom they deem worthy of those donations ... even if they're "deadbeats" ... but ...

... it's an outrage for the government to confiscate money from Citizen A and hand it over to Citizen B ... for any reason whatsoever.

Private voluntary donations are fine and dandy ... government confiscation and allocation isn't.

Originally Posted by pgardn

So black families were not as affluent as white families on the whole. We of course know that SOME white families were poorer than black families, but on the whole... why did black families experience more economic hardship compared to white families?

And you bypassed the above.