From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability

[Chris]

The primary problem with government subsidies and assistance is that you are paying money to people/corporations/whatever for making bad decisions. You cannot eliminate a problem by rewarding it, at any level. When your child takes all of his allowance money and loses it after investing in a scam or gambling with friends....do you replace his allowance, or do you say, "Gosh, that was a really bad decision. I'll bet you don't make that mistake again." When a child skips school do you do his homework for him and excuse his absence...or even better, attend his classes in his place? No, of course not, because that is rewarding bad behavior.

So if people come into this country illegally, or they have children out of wedlock, or they become addicted to drugs, or they enter into ill-advised mortgages...why on earth would we suspend our good sense and give them money?????

The money is going to the mortgage companies, not to the buyers. The buyers aren't receiving any money.

 

[AllieBaba]

And they shouldn't. That's the point.

 

[Chris]

And they shouldn't. That's the point.

You needn't worry.

Congress will always look after the corporate lobbyists.

Like giving subsidies to the oil companies.

 

[AllieBaba]

You want they should be put out of work? Gosh, that would really help the economy, nitwit.

 

[Tristan]

You needn't worry.

Congress will always look after the corporate lobbyists.

Like giving subsidies to the oil companies.

The idea from the OP was "From each according to his ability, to each according to his ability".

Under such a philosophy, no one should get subsidies. Not people and certainly not corporations. The best way to kill the power of lobbyist is for the government to get out of the buisness of handing out money in the first place.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

People are pissed because the disparity between what a bank president makes relative to what a shoe salesman makes has grown to an obscene level.

More and more working people are living in homeless shelters while other working people own homes as big as hotels. Some of them own a bunch of these homes. Eventually, if you do nothing to rectify the situation, you have a rise in crime and maybe a revolution when people get fed up with the disparity. That's also pretty much how things work.

Well revolution happens and it rarely results in changing those things it sought to change, it merely resets the board; whereupon the whole process begins anew and those that can DO and those that won't... don't.

But it absolutely CRACKS ME UP that the Advocates of Social Science are so darned determined to strike out at the most prosperous period in human history where the biggest problem facing the American poor is chronic obesity.

 

[Tristan]

Well revolution happens and it rarely results in changing those things it sought to change, it merely resets the board; whereupon the whole process begins anew and those that can DO and those that won't... don't.

But it absolutely CRACKS ME UP that the Advocates of Social Science are so darned determined to strike out at the most prosperous period in human history where the biggest problem facing the American poor is chronic obesity.

Well said sir. Though I would like to point out an "obscene" remark by Anguille who slandered the poor. Poor people don't turn violent because someone makes more money than they do. Most people revolt when they are not free to pursue whatever wealth they might obtain and they have a reasonable expectation of success.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well said sir. Though I would like to point out an "obscene" remark by Anguille who slandered the poor. Poor people don't turn violent because someone makes more money than they do. Most people revolt when they are not free to pursue whatever wealth they might obtain and they have a reasonable expectation of success.

Indeed... Typically the Advocates of Social Science will revolt because of a classic result of their intellectual limitations which for some unknown reason prevents them from recognizing a distinction between fairness and equality. This causes them to look at any function of inequity and more often than not erroneously conclude that such is not FAIR...

Now one of the most hilarious exceptions to this is found in sports reporters... intensely leftwing, and loud mouthed advocates of fairness; chonic harpers of the plight of the poor and the inequitable prosperity of anyone that is not poor.

However, in their JOB... they same understanding never even occurs to them; can you IMAGINE if the ownership and management of a pro-sports team leading in the playoffs, CRUSHING their opponents were suddenly struck leftists and fired the highly skilled professional athletes and hired instead players from the roster of fans who frequent the local mega-sportsbar around the corner from the stadium? THEY WOULD BE OUT OF THEIR FREAKIN' MINDS!

But essentially, this is what the Advocates of Social Science are demanding, that government strip the highly skilled productive citizens of the product of their labor, so as to even the playing field, because it simply isn't FAIR that the un or lessor skilled citizens have less than the highly skilled.

 

[dilloduck]

Indeed... Typically the Advocates of Social Science will revolt because of a classic result of their intellectual limitations which for some unknown reason prevents them from recognizing a distinction between fairness and equality. This causes them to look at any function of inequity and more often than not erroneously conclude that such is not FAIR...

Now one of the most hilarious exceptions to this is found in sports reporters... intensely leftwing, and loud mouthed advocates of fairness; chonic harpers of the plight of the poor and the inequitable prosperity of anyone that is not poor.

However, in their JOB... they same understanding never even occurs to them; can you IMAGINE if the ownership and management of a pro-sports team leading in the layoffs, CRUSHING their opponents were suddenly struck leftists and fired the highly skilled professional athletes and hired instead players from the roster of fans who frequent the local mega-sportsbar around the corner from the stadium? THEY WOULD BE OUT OF THEIR FREAKIN' MINDS!

But essentially, this is what the Advocates of Social Science are demanding, that government strip the highly skilled productive citizens of the product of their labor, so as to even the playing field, because it simply isn't FAIR that the un or lessor skilled citizens have less than the highly skilled.

nice work you two
I'm afraid we have gone from minorites and women getting equal pay for equal work to everyone jsut getting paid the same no matter what skills they have. Competition apparently is rigged and needs to be abolished.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

nice work you two
I'm afraid we have gone from minorites and women getting equal pay for equal work to everyone jsut getting paid the same no matter what skills they have. Competition apparently is rigged and needs to be abolished.

BINGO! Competition is not WHAT? It's not FAIR...

 

[dilloduck]

BINGO! Competition is not WHAT? It's not FAIR...

We could split up all the wealth in the world evenly but once we started again as you said--

the whole process begins anew and those that can DO and those that won't... don't.

 

[editec]

Well revolution happens and it rarely results in changing those things it sought to change, it merely resets the board; whereupon the whole process begins anew and those that can DO and those that won't... don't.[/quote

Such does seem to be the inevitable outcome of revolution

But it absolutely CRACKS ME UP that the Advocates of Social Science are so darned determined to strike out at the most prosperous period in human history where the biggest problem facing the American poor is chronic obesity.

One does not advocate for the social sciences, sport, except in the sense that one believes that they are useful disciplines to study, and especially useful things to help us understand the world of man.

As to your theory that

Advocates of Social Science are so darned determined to strike out at the most prosperous period in human history

I'm not entirely sure what "Strike out at.." actually means in that context?

You do realize that the many of the people advocating that everything is okay, and that nothing should change are ALSO social scientists, right?