[QUOTE="aliasfreak"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] This is why it is best to ignore him.

He has the unique ability to make even the most delightful of conversations laborious and mind numbing

Source: LJ's post count 

LJS9502_basic

I suppose I am learning that as well.

Nope, tenaka replied to me in a civil and reasonable tone.  I have no problem calmly discussing differing viewpoints with him.  I just don't debate pricks.  That's all.

[QUOTE="aliasfreak"]

 

Did I say that I thought only charity should be for such cases?  No.  Learn to read instead of going off on people.  I said that such programs are important.  

Actually, yes, they probably could have gotten by on charity.  Even borrowing a little money from family for groceries while my mother put herself through school by working at least one job (possibly two) probably could have done it.  When my parents started out their married life, they had almost nothing.  TINY house, almost no furniture (we are talking a folding table, no real bed, that kind of thing).  That is poor.  Then my dad hurt his back and literally could not work until it healed, mom was pregnant and STILL worked as much as she could.  In that case, yes, I think people can take advantage of social programs if needed.  But then you have people having more kids just to get more money from the government.  You have people claiming disability when they really can work just so that they get their monthly check (prevalent around where a friend lives and somewhat in the branch of my family that I described).  

Where does government assistance end and charity begin?  If the government backed off trying to help EVERYONE (whether they deserve it or not), would charity pick up some slack?  These are questions that I honestly do not know the answer to because they are crazy complex and theoretical.  I just know that before cutting government programs to help the poor, I would start cutting things like grants for idiotic research, oil paintings of each new cabinet member .  

LJS9502_basic

 

Republicans/conservatives (or at least this one) believe in charity, not government programs.  We believe in personal responsibility, not coddling others.]aliasfreak

How can you show that enough people wouldn't have given my family (not me) money for said survival?  Answer, you can't.  And yet you said it was BS.  As for the other point, I was speaking in generalities.  I believe in charity over government programs but am okay with government programs for people who really are desperate and can't get it any other way.  Hence why I said in my original post that they are important.  

But I am done with you after my reply to your other post, so say what you want

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

LJ, I can see your point but all you have done is derailed this thread with personal attacks and disrupted the flow of conversation.

-Sun_Tzu-

He has the unique ability to make even the most delightful of conversations laborious and mind numbing

Source: LJ's post count 

I suppose I am learning that as well.

[QUOTE="aliasfreak"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You are right, I forgot to add greedy and lacking in any shred of compassion for their fellow man.

LJS9502_basic

Republicans/conservatives (or at least this one) believe in charity, not government programs.  We believe in personal responsibility, not coddling others.  My family was on food stamps for a time but worked hard and pulled themselves out of it.  They are now living comfortably because of the tremendous work that they put into bettering their lives.  Are such programs important?  Yes, but they are also abused.  One branch of my family represents that side of things as well.  

I would continue but you obviously hate Republicans/conservatives.  I strongly doubt that you would listen or even care about the views of one of them, but if you are, feel free to address anything you like with me.  

Did I say that I thought only charity should be for such cases?  No.  Learn to read instead of going off on people.  I said that such programs are important.  

Actually, yes, they probably could have gotten by on charity.  Even borrowing a little money from family for groceries while my mother put herself through school by working at least one job (possibly two) probably could have done it.  When my parents started out their married life, they had almost nothing.  TINY house, almost no furniture (we are talking a folding table, no real bed, that kind of thing).  That is poor.  Then my dad hurt his back and literally could not work until it healed, mom was pregnant and STILL worked as much as she could.  In that case, yes, I think people can take advantage of social programs if needed.  But then you have people having more kids just to get more money from the government.  You have people claiming disability when they really can work just so that they get their monthly check (prevalent around where a friend lives and somewhat in the branch of my family that I described).  

Where does government assistance end and charity begin?  If the government backed off trying to help EVERYONE (whether they deserve it or not), would charity pick up some slack?  These are questions that I honestly do not know the answer to because they are crazy complex and theoretical.  I just know that before cutting government programs to help the poor, I would start cutting things like grants for idiotic research, oil paintings of each new cabinet member (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/nov/11/picture-this-cabinet-portraits-for-big-bucks/?page=all), a $744,000 soccer field at Guantanamo (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/01/guantanamo-soccer-field_n_1314836.html), etc.  

[QUOTE="aliasfreak"]

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

You are right, I forgot to add greedy and lacking in any shred of compassion for their fellow man.

tenaka2

Republicans/conservatives (or at least this one) believe in charity, not government programs.  We believe in personal responsibility, not coddling others.  My family was on food stamps for a time but worked hard and pulled themselves out of it.  They are now living comfortably because of the tremendous work that they put into bettering their lives.  Are such programs important?  Yes, but they are also abused.  One branch of my family represents that side of things as well.  

I would continue but you obviously hate Republicans/conservatives.  I strongly doubt that you would listen or even care about the views of one of them, but if you are, feel free to address anything you like with me.  

As I said, this is an external view of republicans, as for the bolded above, a lot of republicans would argue there should be little or no social support, what would your family have done then?

Maybe I missed it, but who is it that is arguing for NO support?  I am being sincere here.  I know that I do not know everything that everyone says.  

As for your question, chances are that they would have had to lean on family members, try to borrow money from them.  I suppose they could have tried food banks.  I will address a bit more in the reply to the other person.  Thank you for taking a civil tone here...much more pleasant than the other guy.

As a conservative even I dislike the Republican party. mindstorm

I'm not that fond of them right now either.

[QUOTE="tenaka2"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] More like they want to keep their hands on their money and not fund social programs. They stereotypes you mentioned are just various sub groups of people. Guybrush_3

You are right, I forgot to add greedy and lacking in any shred of compassion for their fellow man.

While claiming to follow the teachings of jesus.

I'm sorry, is the government our brother's keeper or are we?  Like I said in the other post, I'm fine with some government help but not a ton.  

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] [QUOTE="tenaka2"]

From a UK point of view they all come across as a bunch of gun loving, bigoted, religious nut jobs.

tenaka2

You are right, I forgot to add greedy and lacking in any shred of compassion for their fellow man.

Republicans/conservatives (or at least this one) believe in charity, not government programs.  We believe in personal responsibility, not coddling others.  My family was on food stamps for a time but worked hard and pulled themselves out of it.  They are now living comfortably because of the tremendous work that they put into bettering their lives.  Are such programs important?  Yes, but they are also abused.  One branch of my family represents that side of things as well.  

I would continue but you obviously hate Republicans/conservatives.  I strongly doubt that you would listen or even care about the views of one of them, but if you are, feel free to address anything you like with me.  

I am currently a post-doc in a college engineering lab. Most grad students in my field seem to be Asian. I have spoken to a few of my Chinese friends about what school was like for them. You would not believe the pressure that is placed on them. Competition for jobs is so high that you have to really stand out academically in order to compete. Their parents give up so much to send them to a good school so that they can be successful. It is customary for the students to then help take care of their parents once they can afford to do so, thereby pushing them harder to obtain the education to procure a good job.

They have a single test at the end of high school that determines which college they get to go to. You get one shot. It is way worse than our ACT or SAT. I could go on, but I think you probably get the point.

[QUOTE="aliasfreak"]

[QUOTE="-Sun_Tzu-"] It wasn't perfect, but it did help a lot. It's not a coincidence that as the stimulus has gotten phased out the economy has gotten worse.-Sun_Tzu-

But isn't that the problem with stimulus? It artificially and temporarily props things up. You spend all of this money on hiring people, but then when the government money runs out, they are right back to where they started only now the country is in even more debt, we have increased the amount of money out there (which can't help but devalue the dollar), and there is less government money to go to important things because it is being used to service the debt.

I am by no means an economist, so please give me details on how I am wrong on this.

The problem isn't with stimulus per se, the problem is that the private sector is in so much debt that it is going to take years for people's balance sheets to recover, barring some sort of debt relief for households. But stimulus is valuable because it helps to bridge the huge gap in demand while the private sector is deleveraging. The government is not going to create jobs by cutting jobs. That only makes things worse.

First off, I can see what you are saying and most of it makes sense. However, I'm saying that the problem isn't that the stimulus didn't help, I'm saying the problem is that it is only temporary but with lasting down sides. You seem to agree with this (well, at least the first part, not sure how you feel about the second part). For how long will you (the universal you, not you specifically) try to prop up the economy while the private sector deleverages? If it takes a long time, at what cost does this prop take? Look at countries like Greece that have huge debt to GDP ratios (pretty sure that their debt is due to other things, but the ratio problem still compares). Now they are forced into austerity measures that the public is rebelling against. The whole situation is a mess. So how much do you spend, how much do you go into debt in order to try to bridge the gap? Thanks to Republicans AND Democrats, our debt is so large that it seems that continued deficit spending will bring us to that Greece point.

And why can't the government create jobs by cutting jobs? If you cut jobs, you can cut taxes (for everyone). Deleveraging of the private sector will happen faster because they have more money available to them, people have more money to spend (even Obama admits this since he is for tax cuts for the middle class), and spending should hopefully be increased by the private sector, thereby increasing the demand for jobs. (I've not been feeling well, so hopefully this is at least somewhat coherent :) ). I know it isa gamble to do this, but isn't stimulus also a gamble for the reasons outlined above? Personally, I would rather put my faith in the people to get us out of this than the government, regardless of who is in power.

Just some thoughts of mine. I know that it is over simplified, that much more goes into all of this than what was outlined above, I'm just looking at this from a theoretical standpoint.