Misery Loves Company

[ding]

The overall tenor of your previous post is that Republicans are unwilling to help the disadvantaged. My point was that if you truly feel the disadvantaged need help what is stopping you from doing it? Are you waiting for the government to do it for you?

Or are the disadvantaged just people you use to unjustly criticize others.

Pardon the error. I help the poor in my way, but I also know the numbers. Take food for example! All of the private charities together provide about $5 billion in food aid to America's poor. The government bill is about $100 billion, and half of the recipients are children. To say that the private sector - that is, the churches - can solve this problem is a fantasy.

To believe the government is doing it or should do it is a fantasy.

To believe that it will get done by any way other than government is a fantasy. So you either make the government system work or, in the case of food assistance, your country pays for its neglect in higher health care costs. Take your pick!

Even FDR acknowledged " that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

There is a better way. It is called subsidiarity.

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

Pardon the error. I help the poor in my way, but I also know the numbers. Take food for example! All of the private charities together provide about $5 billion in food aid to America's poor. The government bill is about $100 billion, and half of the recipients are children. To say that the private sector - that is, the churches - can solve this problem is a fantasy.

To believe the government is doing it or should do it is a fantasy.

To believe that it will get done by any way other than government is a fantasy. So you either make the government system work or, in the case of food assistance, your country pays for its neglect in higher health care costs. Take your pick!

Even FDR acknowledged " that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

There is a better way. It is called subsidiarity.

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

 

[ding]

To believe the government is doing it or should do it is a fantasy.

To believe that it will get done by any way other than government is a fantasy. So you either make the government system work or, in the case of food assistance, your country pays for its neglect in higher health care costs. Take your pick!

Even FDR acknowledged " that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

There is a better way. It is called subsidiarity.

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

 

[BreezeWood]

.
- true misery is relying on a book of forgeries as a religion never to traverse the truth. and it shows. throughout history.

It is hard to believe there is a downside to literacy, but when it comes to reading the Bible, we can see it clearly. It is one thing to be able to read the Bible, but an entirely different thing to understand what an earlier language, culture, era was conveying.

It's very much like someone today writing, "I'm blue," and someone in the far future insisting that blue was an actual racial color in our time. People are being equally ignorant with the Bible, and it is a shame.

.
again, your reply shows your complete disregard for the recorded historical events of persecution and crimes against humanity the 4th century bible has conveyed from that period to the present time and the same for the other two desert religion's whose scriptural liturgy portrayed as religion have had the same deleterious results.

without their book of forgeries christianity would cease to exist much less be considered a religion. literacy has always been and remains the primary threat to christianity they have dueled against for centuries.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

To believe that it will get done by any way other than government is a fantasy. So you either make the government system work or, in the case of food assistance, your country pays for its neglect in higher health care costs. Take your pick!

Even FDR acknowledged " that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

There is a better way. It is called subsidiarity.

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

 

[ding]

Even FDR acknowledged " that continued dependence upon relief induces a spiritual and moral disintegration fundamentally destructive to the national fibre. To dole out relief in this way is to administer a narcotic, a subtle destroyer of the human spirit."

There is a better way. It is called subsidiarity.

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

About "To dole out relief in this way", it all depends on the "way" in which it is handled. You need to read on the "Mincome Experiment" done in Canada in the 1970s. Aside from lowering hospital cost by 8.5%, they found that children did better in school, crime decreased, and domestic violence went down.

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

 

[ding]

Why wasn't it implemented in Canada?

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

So, if I don’t start WORSHIPIN’ JESUS I will become a goose-stepping pinko?

Oh well. Valhalla I am coming.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

If you read on the Mincome Experiment, you find that in the middle of . . . well, frankly, being successful, a conservative government won the election and took over. The conservatives found the idea so abhorrent that they cut the funding stopping the program and did not even leave enough money to evaluate the results. Years later, several sociologists, including Evelyn Forget, an economist at the U of Manitoba, found the results that had been stored and forgotten. Those sociologists have since produced the analysis.

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

 

[ding]

That was back in the 1970's though, right? Why hasn't it been implemented since then?

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

 

[ding]

So, if I don’t start WORSHIPIN’ JESUS I will become a goose-stepping pinko?

Oh well. Valhalla I am coming.

Not exactly. It is your militant atheism which opens the door for them.

 

[ding]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

If you do not understand that the rich, who run this country, attack every and any program that might cost them money, you are not paying attention. Think about it, if people discover that even one government program can solve some of their current problems, the rich are in trouble.

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

 

[ding]

I thought we were talking about Canada and why Canada didn't implement the wildly successful Mincome Experiment?

How would the rich be in trouble if the Mincome Experiment were implemented here?

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

 

[ding]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution. As noted in the other post, the conservatives in Canada slashed the program and, through lack of funding, basically buried the results.

And yes, the rich are involve in everything economic. You need to read on the transition from "classical economics" to "neoclassical economics." The latter is also called "Neoliberal economics", but many economists call it economics invented by and for the rich.

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

 

[ding]

What is stopping Canada from bringing it back now?

Is it your belief that conservatives have always run Canada?

It is all about "consciousness raising." The people of a country have to be aware of how things could be done before a program can be put in place - and certainly, conservatives and the rich would demonize such a program no matter how good it may be.

If it is such a good program and if conservatives are the ones stopping it and liberals have been in power for more time and in greater numbers than conservatives, how do you know the reason isn't that they don't believe it is such a great program?

About "liberals have been in power", what makes you think that liberals are not as sold out to the big corporations as the conservatives. It is just that conservatives have a longer track record.

Because you made it sound like it was the conservatives that did it. Are you changing your tune now?

No, if you read on the topic, it was the conservatives who axed the program because of their view - at the time - of cutting government spending. I cannot change the facts!

By the way, I am not so tribal as to defend one political party at all costs. I am an issues person.

And at anytime it could be implemented by liberals, right?

 

[T.E.C. - Iowa]

The rich would be in trouble because all such programs involve income redistribution.

Let me ask this question, are you in favor of the government regulating prices, wages and profits?

About "government regulating prices, wages and profits", heck no, we should not regulate this. We need markets. Yet, do not confuse markets and capitalism and think they are the same thing. We had markets when our economic system was slavery, and when we used the feudal system, and when, at times, we had no system at all. Markets are not the same as capitalism.

How is redistribution of wealth any different?

You did seem to be for that, right?

About redistribution", we have reached a point of dangerous inequality. IMHO, if we do not address this, you are pushing for bad things to happen. Inequality lead to the French revolution, and the Bolshevik revolution, and it will lead to something bad in America. It will be different for America, but it will be ugly.

If you choice is to let inequality continue on its current course of ever increasing, you are just asking for disaster. The question is, how do we handle this?

My view which is incomplete at this point is to apply socialism to the items Americans cannot handle by themselves - that includes health care, education, and retirement. The political slogan would be "We need to take the big items off the table of the average American family."