Pin the Tale on the Donkey: Democrats' Horrible Racist Past | Bill Whittle

[ben_who]

Alright, let's do things your way.

Let's enact legislation that confiscates everyone's wealth, and makes every job pay $250K a year. That way the CEO of Wal-Mart and the door greeter make the same money.

Then, let's check back in five years and see how everyone's doing.

Hey, that's only fair, right? I mean, wealth redistribution, say goodbye to income inequality, and it "levels" the playing field, does it not?

That way, we're all considered rich. Except we're not.

But you don't like that plan, do you? It's "ridiculous", right? But it fixes things, and it's Liberal, so you should be for it.

I can't argue with this. Not because it's watertight, but because I literally can't. It's not an argument. That's not the liberal position, and you KNOW that's not the liberal position. So either you're being an idiot on purpose, or you think I'm an idiot.

"Well, if taxes are so wonderful, why not just tax everyone 100% and then we'll all live in paradise." Because that's not the progressive thesis and you know damn well that that isn't the progressive thesis. So why say such a stupid thing? Because then we're forced to unpack your asinine word puzzles rather than discuss the topic.

That's not what I'm here to do. I'm here to discuss good governance as one of many tools toward easing the burden of poverty - not as the sole arbiter of the worthy as a method of ensuring consistent and enduring Communist rule. And you KNOW that. You are NOT that stupid. Which means that this feint is a detestable, desperate method of derailing a perfectly good conversation. Stop insulting me and denigrating yourself. You're better than that. (Actually, I came into THIS thread to discuss the Democrats' unfortunate Dixiecrat past and the mutations that the virus of racism has undergone in the 21st Century, but I guess economic justice is kind of my bait, so there's the derail.)

I've seen you sort of struggling in here as your Fox News talking points start to run dry. You are being had. The media is screwing with you. You have yet to say anything that I haven't seen a thousand times on various message boards and the more uncomfortable regions of the Internet. Seriously, somewhere in your mind must be an independent thought, an idea that isn't predicated on a right-wing conspiracy theory.

The role of governance in dealing with contemporary issues is a worthwhile debate. We should be having it. We're not. We're having a discussion that goes, "Well, I think the local, state, and federal Governments of the United States can take a positive role in changing people's lives for the better," followed by "OH YEAH WELL IF YOU LOVE GOVERNMENT SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU MARRY IT!" Put down the rageohol, explain your position, and let's have a conversation. Quit trying to "win" by going cheap. If you think you're stimulating the conversation with these tired old argumenta ad absurdia, you need to read more.

[mjr]

Oh, and toss around examples such as "false dichotomy" and "Texas sharpshooter" at random, because they're likely the first two terms to come up if you google "logical fallacy."

Do you know what they are?

and triggered some type of automatic, hind-brain, Fox News social commentary about how the poor's problems aren't the government's problem and if people just tried harder instead of expecting handouts, well, it wouldn't fix anything but they should stop bitching about it anyway.

This is laughable on the face of it. I can't remember the last time I actively watched Fox News, except for maybe debates, it's probably been YEARS.

Which I think says a lot more about the OP's personal bias than anything, especially in a case of someone derailing their own thread that almost had a point to go on such a worn-out tirade.

A bold statement, considering you don't know my background.

And since this conversation has been torpedoed by the ship's very captain, I am well and truly done here.

Didn't you say that a couple of pages back?

I'm off to hug trees, grab a nonfat soy latte, and establish a communist utopia or something.

You go do that. I'll be sure to send some granola an birkenstocks your way, too.

[mjr]

I can't argue with this. Not because it's watertight, but because I literally can't. It's not an argument. That's not the liberal position, and you KNOW that's not the liberal position. So either you're being an idiot on purpose, or you think I'm an idiot.

"Well, if taxes are so wonderful, why not just tax everyone 100% and then we'll all live in paradise." Because that's not the progressive thesis and you know damn well that that isn't the progressive thesis. So why say such a stupid thing? Because then we're forced to unpack your asinine word puzzles rather than discuss the topic.

Because the liberal answer to most questions seems to be "let's just raise taxes". And "it's unfair that some people make significantly more than others!"

That "plan" addresses both of those.

as your Fox News talking points start to run dry.

Laughable. As I've repeatedly said, and I'll say again, I don't watch Fox News. I think the last time I watched it actively was during debates last time around. Otherwise, I haven't watched Fox News in YEARS. And I don't listen to political talk radio, either.

The role of governance in dealing with contemporary issues is a worthwhile debate. We should be having it. We're not.

Oh, I'm willing to have the conversation. If you're willing. The problem is, I'm going to present a legitimate idea below, and you're probably just going to dismiss it right away.

Here goes:

I'm in favor of "safety nets". Not hand outs. I can't make it more simple than that. I'm sorry, but I don't think some of these programs should be perpetual, and yes, some of them should come with strings attached. I'm in favor of helping the young, old, and infirm. Do I have all the answers? No. I'm sure you don't, either. But I don't think the way that it's being done now is the correct way to do it.

Do completely away with the EBT program, or add more restrictions as to what you can actually do with it.

If you NEED a program like that, you implement something like WIC. You provide "vouchers" that say you can use the voucher for meat up to X amount per pound, or 1 gallon of milk, or whatever. You make the vouchers look like checks, with the person's name (at a minimum) on them. This could curtail "black market" sales of items.

Sorry, but you don't get to buy smokes, booze, and a lot of other "non food" items with it.

In my opinion, this is a much less exploitative way to do this, and it could possibly save money in the long run (which could make for more money per individual, or put more individuals on the program).

There. Now, go ahead and dismiss it right away...

[Kheldarson]

If you NEED a program like that, you implement something like WIC. You provide "vouchers" that say you can use the voucher for meat up to X amount per pound, or 1 gallon of milk, or whatever. You make the vouchers look like checks, with the person's name (at a minimum) on them. This could curtail "black market" sales of items.

Sorry, but you don't get to buy smokes, booze, and a lot of other "non food" items with it.

If you honestly think that this is going to stop the black market, you're sorely underestimating human ingenuity. All they'd have to do is buy the food and sell it to neighbors, buddies, etc. Still has the same end result. The problem is catching those who commit fraud, either on the current systems or on any new ones. That's the hard part that we don't have enough people for and, honestly, not even enough fraud for.

[mjr]

If you honestly think that this is going to stop the black market, you're sorely underestimating human ingenuity. All they'd have to do is buy the food and sell it to neighbors, buddies, etc. Still has the same end result. The problem is catching those who commit fraud, either on the current systems or on any new ones. That's the hard part that we don't have enough people for and, honestly, not even enough fraud for.

Curtail =/= stop.

[Kheldarson]

Curtail =/= stop.

Curtail also indicates that it's a major problem. It's not.

[s_stabeler]

I'm in favor of "safety nets". Not hand outs. I can't make it more simple than that. I'm sorry, but I don't think some of these programs should be perpetual, and yes, some of them should come with strings attached. I'm in favor of helping the young, old, and infirm. Do I have all the answers? No. I'm sure you don't, either. But I don't think the way that it's being done now is the correct way to do it.

the issue is that the "strings" tend to get tighter and tighter- making it harder and harder to actually get help- that it becomes increasingly not worth it to even try ot get help.

Also, you need to be careful putting time limits on assistance programs- since what happens afterwards? do you simply cut the befits, or do you try to help them find a job?

which is another point- if you find people a job, then you need to be careful about making sure it is an appropriate job (the issue si that if you expect someone to get a minimum wage job rtaher than look for abetter one, you're just going to trap them in poverty- since minimum wage jobs more-or-less mean you have no time to look for a new job, since you suualyl need at least two to be able to pay the bills and keep food on the table

Do completely away with the EBT program, or add more restrictions as to what you can actually do with it.

oh yeah, that's smart. take away a program that allows many people to pay for food. fraud rates are low enough that at least 95% of the people you are letting starve probably legitimately needed it.

If you NEED a program like that, you implement something like WIC. You provide "vouchers" that say you can use the voucher for meat up to X amount per pound, or 1 gallon of milk, or whatever. You make the vouchers look like checks, with the person's name (at a minimum) on them. This could curtail "black market" sales of items.

the issue with this is two-food: 1. it means shops need to have separate systems for dealing with WIC transactions- including specially trained staff- and you have all the overhead of dealing with issuing the checks, not to mention processing them.

Sorry, but you don't get to buy smokes, booze, and a lot of other "non food" items with it.

depends on what the program is that the money comes from. if it's unemployment benefit, then, to be frank, butt out of what people are spending it on. If it's meant so people can buy food, thne fine, add restrictions.

as a side note, it REALLY irritates me when people feel justified in combing through what someone who is on benefits is spending, as if receiving benefits entitles random people to nitpick on what you buy

In my opinion, this is a much less exploitative way to do this, and it could possibly save money in the long run (which could make for more money per individual, or put more individuals on the program).

fraud isn't actualyl high enough that you would get significantly more per person- if you completely eliminated fraud from the program, there MIGHT be 5% more money in the program. Before you add in the cost of eliminating fraud. You need to trike a balance between keeping fraud down, and the cost of fighting fraud,

There. Now, go ahead and dismiss it right away...

We aren't, now you've actually made some arguments.

[ben_who]

Because the liberal answer to most questions seems to be "let's just raise taxes". And "it's unfair that some people make significantly more than others!"

...you're probably just going to dismiss it right away.


...There. Now, go ahead and dismiss it right away...

I really miss the days of William F. Buckley. The old guy might have had some truly paleolithic beliefs, but I never read an essay by him that was insulting. I might have considered him factually wrong, but he never made his readers feel like an idiot about disagreeing with them and never made them debate anything but his points. There was a sense that he respected his opposition and didn't attempt to degrade the conversation with cheap shots. It wasn't about winning with him; it was about convincing.

Maybe that's why I keep engaging in this conversation, against my own better judgment. I really want to unscrew the top of your head and find out what makes you tick, because nothing's going to curbstomp your efforts to make a point like insulting your opposition. What do you think saying such things is going to accomplish? Do you think I'll suddenly snap my fingers and say, "Well, gosh, there's a point there; I guess I was all wrong?"

The three isolated quotes above reveal contempt for anyone who self-identifies as liberal, as well as a troubling prejudice that will undercut any attempt on your behalf to make a point. You're making it clear that you have us all figured out and won't be convinced, while holding anything we say in a state of perpetual contempt. This is not debate - this is a cornered animal trying to make its competition go away.

You have to see the structural flaw in your own post here. Insult, insult, insult, oh why are liberals so dismissive of me. I feel that this kind of "debate" is one of the reasons liberals and conservatives are finding it so hard to talk to each other. If you're going to kick the chess set over every time things stop going your way, people aren't going to want to play with you anymore. I want the conversation. I don't hate you; I don't want the antagonistic relationship you seem determined to cultivate. I want to have the conversation.

I'm in favor of "safety nets". Not hand outs. I can't make it more simple than that. I'm sorry, but I don't think some of these programs should be perpetual, and yes, some of them should come with strings attached. I'm in favor of helping the young, old, and infirm. Do I have all the answers? No. I'm sure you don't, either. But I don't think the way that it's being done now is the correct way to do it.

Do completely away with the EBT program, or add more restrictions as to what you can actually do with it.

If you NEED a program like that, you implement something like WIC. You provide "vouchers" that say you can use the voucher for meat up to X amount per pound, or 1 gallon of milk, or whatever. You make the vouchers look like checks, with the person's name (at a minimum) on them. This could curtail "black market" sales of items.

Sorry, but you don't get to buy smokes, booze, and a lot of other "non food" items with it.

In my opinion, this is a much less exploitative way to do this, and it could possibly save money in the long run (which could make for more money per individual, or put more individuals on the program).

All right, let's discuss this, then. You've made a point. I'm going to challenge that point. It doesn't mean I hate you; we're discussing the point.

You address a number of separate issues above. You start by conceding the necessity of some form of welfare state. That's an interesting concession. You imply that these benefits are subject to perpetual availability with no strings attached. This is factually inaccurate. You claim that the solution is to do away with the progrm entirely. This is...well, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, actually. There's even a discussion of the economics of the program. So let's go over these elements one at a time.

Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Ronald Reagan...well, lied about something that came to be called the "Welfare queen," inner city mothers on welfare who drove around in Cadillacs and fed their children lobster, or whatever the narrative was. The claims weren't true, and were debunked several times, but the narrative stuck - people were receiving welfare benefits that didn't deserve them. The reason for this narrative was simple - enforcement could be used as a cost cutting tool.

In 2013, Florida governor Rick Scott signed into law a bill that mandated drug testing for welfare recipients. He figured he could kick enough users off welfare to save money. And it looked good on paper - nobody wants their food stamp dollars to go toward a kilo of crystal. Unfortunately, only 2.6% of applicants tested positive, for a program that cost $118,000. Not much savings there. And then the courts overturned the law. I don't know how much it cost the state to defend.

So you can tie strings to a food stamp, but those strings cost money - often more money than you'll save. Enforcement is important, but the goal of enforcement should be to ensure the integrity of the program, not to save money.

In 1996, President Clinton signed welfare reform into law. This law replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with TANF. It set a five-year limit on Federal benefits and established job requirements after two years. It also turned Federal benefits into block grants, allowing individual states the ability to create their own programs with their own requirements. The job requirements were called "Workfare."

This is why I'm concerned. You're using a false premise to endorse welfare reforms that were signed into law nineteen years ago. Even you have to admit at this point that you're getting bad information from somewhere. You really need to start questioning that source.

There are two other points I'd like to raise. The first is that rigorous and unnecessary enforcement places the poor under a level of scrutiny that goes against conservative "small government" values. Drug testing for welfare recipients turned out to be unnecessarily punitive, prohibitively expensive, and constitutionally questionable. It advocates a police state for the poor even as the administration tries to roll back regulation on the wealthy in the name of economic stimulus.

Economics is the other point I'd like to raise. If it's cost cutting you're interested in, how about we just don't get involved in any more three trillion dollar wars? The F-35 has cost $400 billion since the program's inception in 2006. Oil subsidies reached $37.5 billion last year. There were no strings on any of this money, no oversight, no guarantee of results. We do not have a Federal deficit because some mother in East St. Louis decided to buy fruit. We have it because conservative budget hawks are shoveling money as fast as they can back to their own districts, and then blaming the deficit on the poor.

We might not have the best welfare system ever, but reforms should be humane and gradual, and ensure benefits keep going to those who need them. What would ending EBT do, except inspire fraudsters to come up with more innovative ways of defrauding the government? If you create a system, people will try to hack it. If you decide to solve that problem by removing the entire system, you unnecessarily punish people who need it. Ending fraud should be a civil or criminal matter, not a cost-cutting exercise.

There are other points I'd like to make, but I seem to be on the verge of writing a book. (Hell, I haven't stayed entirely relevant HERE.) I'll make 'em if they come up.

[Andara Bledin]

In my opinion, this is a much less exploitative way to do this, and it could possibly save money in the long run (which could make for more money per individual, or put more individuals on the program).

Actually, handing out straight cash to those who qualify ends up costing less and providing more benefit than handing out vouchers. It's utterly counter-intuitive, but what very few studies have been one on the subject all point to the best cure for poverty being throwing cash at those who are poor.

Hell, there are a couple of areas that have nearly eliminated homelessness entirely by just giving homes to people who don't have them. And it turns out that when people aren't living on the street, they use a lot less other resources that cost more than just providing them with adequate shelter. And that's before you start counting the myriad benefits to the community and region from not having homeless people under your bridges and in your parks (reduced litter and crime being two notable secondary benefits).

You may not watch Fox, but you certainly know most of their talking points for how to deal with the poor. Most of the proposals (what few you've actually put up) don't actually provide the benefits you seem to think they will, and you've apparently done very little research into what programs actually work at not only reducing the problem in question but not adding further externalities while adding benefits beyond just the main issue.

Also, the various calls for "bootstrap" solutions are bullshit. Fifty years ago, the world was a different place, and people could legitimately pull themselves up by their own efforts. Well, at least the ones that weren't being oppressed for being the wrong color or gender, anyway... Even twenty years ago was a lot different.

But in this day and age, more jobs are being taken over by automation, and we're doing more with fewer people with each passing day. To think that our growing population can all find jobs in a market that is simultaneously shrinking is insane.

We, as a society, have to change our expectations to match the current reality and stop trying to deny that the world has moved on from what our parents grew up with and force reality to match our expectations. To do otherwise is a sign of insanity.

[mjr]

the issue is that the "strings" tend to get tighter and tighter- making it harder and harder to actually get help- that it becomes increasingly not worth it to even try ot get help.

To that end, care would need to be taken on what the strings are, and exactly how tight they should be.

Do you agree that "strings attached" is OK, as long as it's the right kind of strings (whatever those may be)?

Also, you need to be careful putting time limits on assistance programs- since what happens afterwards? do you simply cut the befits, or do you try to help them find a job?

Case by case basis. If it's a single mom who's putting forth effort to raise a young kid, sure, extend another year or whatever. If it's a person who's using the benefits while they complete a degree, or get some sort of new training, sure, extend them.

If it's someone who's not putting forth any kind of effort (i.e. mooching), then a discussion may need to be had at that point.

which is another point- if you find people a job, then you need to be careful about making sure it is an appropriate job (the issue si that if you expect someone to get a minimum wage job rtaher than look for abetter one, you're just going to trap them in poverty- since minimum wage jobs more-or-less mean you have no time to look for a new job, since you suualyl need at least two to be able to pay the bills and keep food on the table

Which is why I am in favor of training programs. Unfortunately, you can't necessarily make people take a training program. Unless, of course, you make it a condition of their benefits, and relatively easy to do.

oh yeah, that's smart. take away a program that allows many people to pay for food. fraud rates are low enough that at least 95% of the people you are letting starve probably legitimately needed it.

"Do away with" probably was a poor choice of words. What about "revamp"? Again, I don't have the answer, but I'm sure there's a better way than what we have.

the issue with this is two-food: 1. it means shops need to have separate systems for dealing with WIC transactions- including specially trained staff- and you have all the overhead of dealing with issuing the checks, not to mention processing them.

#1, not necessarily. You could have a "master" bank account tied to the ID of the person with the "check". You run it, it verifies that the purchase has been made, that "check" then becomes invalid.

#2. They issue cards as it is. So I don't know what the actual overhead difference there would be.

depends on what the program is that the money comes from. if it's unemployment benefit, then, to be frank, butt out of what people are spending it on. If it's meant so people can buy food, thne fine, add restrictions.

I disagree -- but slightly. If you're getting unemployment, you SHOULD be prudent with it.

as a side note, it REALLY irritates me when people feel justified in combing through what someone who is on benefits is spending, as if receiving benefits entitles random people to nitpick on what you buy

Again, I disagree -- slightly. Which is why I suggested the "check" system above. If you've got an EBT system and say, $300/month on it, and you're buying ribeye steaks, that's probably not a prudent use of the money. Especially since many on the EBT program try to stretch their dollar. That's why I added the "no smokes, booze" and such provision.

Actually, for some good information on this topic, take a look at the book "Roll Away The Stone"

I had to read it in a Philosophy class I took. I think it would be enlightening to everyone, and it better discusses some of the things I have trouble saying.

[mjr]

Also, the various calls for "bootstrap" solutions are bullshit.

So, are you telling me a person can't learn something on their own?

But in this day and age, more jobs are being taken over by automation, and we're doing more with fewer people with each passing day. To think that our growing population can all find jobs in a market that is simultaneously shrinking is insane.

We, as a society, have to change our expectations to match the current reality and stop trying to deny that the world has moved on from what our parents grew up with and force reality to match our expectations. To do otherwise is a sign of insanity.

So basically what you're saying here is that fewer and fewer people will actually be supporting more and more people? That's what it sounds like.

[Andara Bledin]

So, are you telling me a person can't learn something on their own?

Not even remotely.

I said that telling everybody "learn a trade" (aka the bootstrappy option) is bullshit because there aren't enough jobs for the workforce we already have and adding more people to it isn't going to automagically make more jobs spring into existence.

It might be an effective solution for a few people, but not most, and absolutely not all.

So basically what you're saying here is that fewer and fewer people will actually be supporting more and more people? That's what it sounds like.

Good, because that's what I'm saying.

Do the math - it's not a difficult equation.

The Population is increasing. The job market is shrinking.

Unless we make a massive move away from our outdated, anachronistic, and ultimately doomed to failure industrial age labor marketplace, there's going to be economic trouble ahead to make the recent recession look like a cake walk.

[Hyena Dandy]

So basically what you're saying here is that fewer and fewer people will actually be supporting more and more people? That's what it sounds like.

More things are becoming automated. There's fewer SPACE, and more people that need to fill it. Even if every job opening in America today were filled, we would be far from meeting full employment.

[mjr]

You're making it clear that you have us all figured out and won't be convinced, while holding anything we say in a state of perpetual contempt.

No offense meant here, but don't liberals do the same thing with Conservatives?

You address a number of separate issues above. You start by conceding the necessity of some form of welfare state. That's an interesting concession.

I don't necessarily see why it's interesting. I'm in favor of "safety nets" and caring for the young, old, and infirm. I may not necessarily be able to explain the mechanics behind it, but I still think there are better ways than "growing" the government, and so-called "entitlement programs" to do so.

You imply that these benefits are subject to perpetual availability with no strings attached. This is factually inaccurate. You claim that the solution is to do away with the progrm entirely. This is...well, throwing out the baby with the bathwater, actually. There's even a discussion of the economics of the program. So let's go over these elements one at a time.

"do away with it entirely" was poor wording on my part, and I think I addressed that.

The reason for this narrative was simple - enforcement could be used as a cost cutting tool.

I think the issue is misuse of the benefits as well, not just "undeserved" benefits. Again, the "safety net".

Enforcement is important, but the goal of enforcement should be to ensure the integrity of the program, not to save money.

Yes, and I don't have the answer to how to do this, but I believe one (integrity) can beget the other (saving money).

In 1996, President Clinton signed welfare reform into law. This law replaced Aid to Families with Dependent Children with TANF. It set a five-year limit on Federal benefits and established job requirements after two years. It also turned Federal benefits into block grants, allowing individual states the ability to create their own programs with their own requirements. The job requirements were called "Workfare."

I'd forgotten completely about TANF and "Workfare". Although, again, I must question how many of these programs have gone beyond just helping someone "stay afloat" and put the recipients on a path toward the middle class. Isn't that ultimately the goal?

There are two other points I'd like to raise. The first is that rigorous and unnecessary enforcement places the poor under a level of scrutiny that goes against conservative "small government" values.

To a point, I actually agree with you here. I'm sometimes a "natural consequences" type of person.

And yes, I understand that the counter-argument can be made, but it's interesting to me that there are some out there who will vilify the very individuals that they want more from (i.e. "the rich"). I hear all the time about the "greedy rich", and how they're so "greedy" that they don't want their taxes raised, etc., and at the same time saying "they should help us".

That's like (hypothetically) me calling you an a-hole, berating and insulting you, then saying, "Hey, you got $20?"

Think you'd give me the $20?

There were no strings on any of this money, no oversight, no guarantee of results. We do not have a Federal deficit because some mother in East St. Louis decided to buy fruit. We have it because conservative budget hawks are shoveling money as fast as they can back to their own districts, and then blaming the deficit on the poor.

I don't think anyone is blaming the deficit solely on the poor. I know I'm not.

What if we just paid for only what the Constitution (and it's backing documents) say we should pay for?

We might not have the best welfare system ever, but reforms should be humane and gradual, and ensure benefits keep going to those who need them.

I think the eventual goal would be to get people completely off benefits, except in outlier situations (i.e. temporary job loss, sickness, supplementary income for a medical leave, those kinds of things). Do I have the answer? No. But $15/hour ain't gonna do it.

What would ending EBT do, except inspire fraudsters to come up with more innovative ways of defrauding the government?

Like the millions and millions in Medicare waste and fraud? Very little of which seems to be prosecuted?

[mjr]

Unless we make a massive move away from our outdated, anachronistic, and ultimately doomed to failure industrial age labor marketplace, there's going to be economic trouble ahead to make the recent recession look like a cake walk.

Then let's do away with the Work Visa program.