ibenez wrote:

WASHINGTON — John Glover Roberts Jr., (search) has been confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

Hopefully he will upheld the constitution.

ibenez wrote:

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

Oh, so you're supporting judicial activism? None of what you are talking about is part of the role of the judiciary. I would actually hope he does what he's supposed to and maintain the Constitution as what it is, a living document.

Mike the Usurper wrote:

ibenez wrote:

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

Oh, so you're supporting judicial activism? None of what you are talking about is part of the role of the judiciary. I would actually hope he does what he's supposed to and maintain the Constitution as what it is, a living document.

Yes. I support changing things to be more conservative and not changing them to be more liberal.

ibenez wrote:

WASHINGTON — John Glover Roberts Jr., (search) has been confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

I rather prefer my supreme court to uphold the constitution. It's their one and only job, after all. I don't deny that a judge's personal belief system influences their interpretation of the constitution, but there's a strict limit on how far that can go. It's one of the foundations of our system, if I recall.

On a separate issue, I have to ask, in regards to the conservative plank which calls for a reduction in social programs, wether it's because you don't believe in providing a safety net for people, or wether you simply believe that the federal government shouldn't be the one providing it? There's a divide on that issue and I've seen both responses, but you seem vocal and committed enough to provide additional information for me. I've also always thought the definition of "social program" is very fuzzy for a lot of people. Is education a social program? Health care? Where's the line drawn?

k wrote:

ibenez wrote:

WASHINGTON — John Glover Roberts Jr., (search) has been confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

I rather prefer my supreme court to uphold the constitution. It's their one and only job, after all. I don't deny that a judge's personal belief system influences their interpretation of the constitution, but there's a strict limit on how far that can go. It's one of the foundations of our system, if I recall.

On a separate issue, I have to ask, in regards to the conservative plank which calls for a reduction in social programs, wether it's because you don't believe in providing a safety net for people, or wether you simply believe that the federal government shouldn't be the one providing it? There's a divide on that issue and I've seen both responses, but you seem vocal and committed enough to provide additional information for me. I've also always thought the definition of "social program" is very fuzzy for a lot of people. Is education a social program? Health care? Where's the line drawn?

Healthcare = no.
Education=yes.
Feeding poor people=no.
Housing poor people=no.

Basically, lower taxes and pay for it by getting rid of whatever they are paying for exception military, and basic education.

ibenez wrote:

k wrote:

ibenez wrote:

WASHINGTON — John Glover Roberts Jr., (search) has been confirmed as the 17th chief justice of the United States.

Excellent. Hopefully he will uphold true conservative values like, less taxes, less social programs, less government, higher morals.

Although, republicans today are like yesterdays democrats so I doubt it.

I rather prefer my supreme court to uphold the constitution. It's their one and only job, after all. I don't deny that a judge's personal belief system influences their interpretation of the constitution, but there's a strict limit on how far that can go. It's one of the foundations of our system, if I recall.

On a separate issue, I have to ask, in regards to the conservative plank which calls for a reduction in social programs, wether it's because you don't believe in providing a safety net for people, or wether you simply believe that the federal government shouldn't be the one providing it? There's a divide on that issue and I've seen both responses, but you seem vocal and committed enough to provide additional information for me. I've also always thought the definition of "social program" is very fuzzy for a lot of people. Is education a social program? Health care? Where's the line drawn?

Healthcare = no.
Education=yes.
Feeding poor people=no.
Housing poor people=no.

Basically, lower taxes and pay for it by getting rid of whatever they are paying for exception military, and basic education.

Why education? What separarates teaching poor people from making sure they have the basic food and shelter to make education function? Should we therefore repeal minimum wage and child labor laws as well? What about things that aren't social programs like anything dealing with agriculture? EPA rules on toxic chemicals? OSHA rules on workplace safety? Transportation? What about things that have clear constitutional mandate like copyright and patents? What about the post office? Why is it ok to bail out S&L's, and airlines but not provide those same things to individuals? If it's New Orleans fault for getting hit by a hurricane and screwing up their disaster preparedness, does it also follow that it's New York's fault for being attacked by terrorists on 9-11?

And what on god's green earth (mostly blue but that's a different point) does this have to do with Roberts? He's not writing the laws that would change any of this, and has stated his position as firmly established in precedent and so seems unlikely to change decisions that would go in this direction. If anything, based on what he has said, this is exactly the sort of thing he will NOT do. It would even seem most likely that if forced to rule on something like gay marriage he would either vote in favor of it, or in favor of disqualifying any governmental recognition of marriage in general under either the due process or freedom of religion clauses.

I'm still waiting to see if he's Earl Warren or not, but he's not his predecessor, that much is obvious.

(How does that work? If the state recognizes marriage, but only as performed in one church as opposed to another, or only some marriages in a single church, then they are taking discriminatory action based on religion, or specifically denigrating one. Oops. I'm just waiting to see how people like Thomas try to figure out a loophole around that one.)

ibenez wrote:

Healthcare = no.
Education=yes.
Feeding poor people=no.
Housing poor people=no.

Basically, lower taxes and pay for it by getting rid of whatever they are paying for exception military, and basic education.

Ok, so poor people are their own problem?

I am curious about the solution to this issue, because I don't think you can really argue that society bears the burden of it's underclass regardless of how the underclass got there. I'm being very careful here to be a-political. I have my own views about how much you can truly attribute to personal responsibility, but lets leave them out for now.

Assuming that, for whatever reason, there will always be some people who are poor, probably a sizable number, what do you do with them? Even starting from the premise that their situation is 100% their own fault, unless you're willing to simply kill them, society has to handle them somehow. Legions of poor simply living on the street doesn't seem like a good solution for pragmatic reasons if not humanitarian. Do the communities bear the burden? Church groups?

Or will you argue that we should just let them starve?

k wrote:

ibenez wrote:

Healthcare = no.
Education=yes.
Feeding poor people=no.
Housing poor people=no.

Basically, lower taxes and pay for it by getting rid of whatever they are paying for exception military, and basic education.

Ok, so poor people are their own problem?

I am curious about the solution to this issue, because I don't think you can really argue that society bears the burden of it's underclass regardless of how the underclass got there. I'm being very careful here to be a-political. I have my own views about how much you can truly attribute to personal responsibility, but lets leave them out for now.

Assuming that, for whatever reason, there will always be some people who are poor, probably a sizable number, what do you do with them? Even starting from the premise that their situation is 100% their own fault, unless you're willing to simply kill them, society has to handle them somehow. Legions of poor simply living on the street doesn't seem like a good solution for pragmatic reasons if not humanitarian. Do the communities bear the burden? Church groups?

Or will you argue that we should just let them starve?

Government should not play a role here, or a minimal role if anything at all. Yes actually, poor people ARE THEIR OWN PROBLEM.

I grew up poor, my family was poor - and what I saw around me was a pile of lazy shits who didn't do anything to fix their situation - and they were satisfied with depending on the government.

Do you understand that? Satisfied - Meaning the level of care the government currently supplies was good enough for most people to just sit there and live their live that way forever. Most people on food stamps, yes MOST would rather not be on food stamps, but the fact is - they'd too lazy to get off government help because it's too EASY

My family struggled for years, my mom being a single parent with 2 kids - and we broke into middle class on our own. This is how it needs to happen. Government IS the problem - I know this from first hand experience and if you've never been on food stamps or government housing (sec8), and grown up around those people - then I don't think you will understand.

Government should not play a role here, or a minimal role if anything at all. Yes actually, poor people ARE THEIR OWN PROBLEM.

I grew up poor, my family was poor - and what I saw around me was a pile of lazy shits who didn't do anything to fix their situation - and they were satisfied with depending on the government.

Do you understand that? Satisfied - Meaning the level of care the government currently supplies was good enough for most people to just sit there and live their live that way forever. Most people on food stamps, yes MOST would rather not be on food stamps, but the fact is - they'd too lazy to get off government help because it's too EASY

My family struggled for years, my mom being a single parent with 2 kids - and we broke into middle class on our own. This is how it needs to happen. Government IS the problem - I know this from first hand experience and if you've never been on food stamps or government housing (sec8), and grown up around those people - then I don't think you will understand.

I concur that motivating people is a primary problem, and don't necessarily advocate simply giving money away, exactly. It sounds like your family did manage to turn hard work and perseverence into a great deal more.

It begs the question though... you say you benefitted from food stamps and government subsidized housing, and they allowed your family to get past that stage. What would you have done without those things? Does the societal benefit from your family's uplift serve to offset the cost of one person who didn't use what they were given? 3? 10? One could view your success as proof that that the system is functional, at least sometimes.

Fundamentally there is a minimum level a person needs to survive. Of course, in this country we theoretically believe in more than mere subsistence, but that people should be free to pursue happiness in addition to simply Living. Social programs *should* ensure that they recieve that. I'm strongly in favor of accountability in the system to ensure funds aren't being wasted. If the point is to give people a hand up, but only 5% of people are using it effectively, then that's an argument for changing approaches, not necessarily (though possibly) removing the benefits.

It may be that the government is not the most efficient or effective means for providing this minimum level of support. I think there are lots of ways a society *can* work, but I'm much less sure about wether a lot of them *would* work. I still submit that it's society's responsibility to support everyone in it, because we don't live in a zero-sum universe. The money spent to raise the level of education and skill of the population more than pays for itself *eventually*. The primary problem I see is a lack of vision on the part of Americans to see that spending money on people is an investment in future viability. Like all investments, you need to carefully monitor it's performance, and make sure that the country is going to reap the eventual benefits. An "every man for himself" philosophy leads to a mediocre society unless everyone realizes that self interest and societal interests often coincide.

The argument that it isn't the job of government, specifically, to support an underclass is distinct from saying that society should not support them in any way. It's a matter of mechanism. I'm amenable to the former, but strongly reject the latter.

k wrote:

Government should not play a role here, or a minimal role if anything at all. Yes actually, poor people ARE THEIR OWN PROBLEM.

I grew up poor, my family was poor - and what I saw around me was a pile of lazy shits who didn't do anything to fix their situation - and they were satisfied with depending on the government.

Do you understand that? Satisfied - Meaning the level of care the government currently supplies was good enough for most people to just sit there and live their live that way forever. Most people on food stamps, yes MOST would rather not be on food stamps, but the fact is - they'd too lazy to get off government help because it's too EASY

My family struggled for years, my mom being a single parent with 2 kids - and we broke into middle class on our own. This is how it needs to happen. Government IS the problem - I know this from first hand experience and if you've never been on food stamps or government housing (sec8), and grown up around those people - then I don't think you will understand.

I concur that motivating people is a primary problem, and don't necessarily advocate simply giving money away, exactly. It sounds like your family did manage to turn hard work and perseverence into a great deal more.

It begs the question though... you say you benefitted from food stamps and government subsidized housing, and they allowed your family to get past that stage. What would you have done without those things? Does the societal benefit from your family's uplift serve to offset the cost of one person who didn't use what they were given? 3? 10? One could view your success as proof that that the system is functional, at least sometimes.

Fundamentally there is a minimum level a person needs to survive. Of course, in this country we theoretically believe in more than mere subsistence, but that people should be free to pursue happiness in addition to simply Living. Social programs *should* ensure that they recieve that. I'm strongly in favor of accountability in the system to ensure funds aren't being wasted. If the point is to give people a hand up, but only 5% of people are using it effectively, then that's an argument for changing approaches, not necessarily (though possibly) removing the benefits.

It may be that the government is not the most efficient or effective means for providing this minimum level of support. I think there are lots of ways a society *can* work, but I'm much less sure about wether a lot of them *would* work. I still submit that it's society's responsibility to support everyone in it, because we don't live in a zero-sum universe. The money spent to raise the level of education and skill of the population more than pays for itself *eventually*. The primary problem I see is a lack of vision on the part of Americans to see that spending money on people is an investment in futur... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

ibenez wrote:
What would we have done without food stamps you ask? We would have figured out how to survive. Food stamps actually made my family lazy in my opinion.

No the system is not functional.. we'll, sure it functions, but it's not effecient. The system provides a way for peopel to get lazy and dependant. Then it becomes a cycle.

It *IS* every man for himself - but you can get help fro mthe kindness of others, just not the damn government. Section8 housing my friend is full of woman who have babies just to get more money - I know some of them. They literally jsut have more kids because each kids yields more money. Food stamps does the same thing, you don't have to work to get food -why work?

The argument IS the job of the government - the government social programs such as food stamps and section8 need to be modified so that you can only recv them for a VERY Short time ( 1 month? ) and then never again. Call me cold, but socialism doesn't work. Don't take money from the rich and give it to the poor - don't take money from anyone.

I agree that the current system is inefficient. But I fail to see that as an argument against all social programs. I've long believed that the government subsidies for children should begin to drop, agressively, after the first. Things like additional foodstamps, and the tax credits available to low income families with children should decrease. It absolutely makes sense to limit the amount of additional burden a burdensome individual can generate.

I well know how the food stamp system is abused, and that's something that needs serious attention, as much as welfare and medicaid and on and on. Any functional social program really must act as a support structure which offers an incentive to reduce your reliance on it.

Cold or not, i believe you misunderstand the nature of the system in which we live. Your position presupposes that everyone's failure, and likewise everyone's success, is the result of their choices and personal actions, and ONLY their choices and actions. This is not borne out. There are many routes to wealth -- luck, inheritance, intense perseverence and personal skill is only one, and even it has limitations. The system that permits one to achieve wealth was built by people over time. The structure of society, which permits a person to become rich, came about as a result of the efforts of people you have never met. The cooperation *necessary* for the wealthy to become, and remain, so disproves the notion that success or failure in life can occur in a vacuum. It can't. A society in which there is no redistribution of wealth at all can't help but look a lot like the feudal system. The rich will retain their money, increase it, and pass it on. The poor will get poorer, live in dire conditions, and die young, no matter what their dreams are or how hard they work, with few exceptions. In the past, such systems gave us the dark ages, and quite a few bloody revolutions. Any system which doesn't prevent the unchecked acquisition of wealth cannot prevent exploitation and marginalization over time of those who have little.

Redistributing wealth is a mechanism for allowing people who have acquired a great deal of money to pay back the system which enabled them to acquire it. It's a mechanism to ensure that others get the opportunity to do the same, especially if they were born into less favorable conditions -- a situation neither person had any control over.

I do *NOT* argue that our current system achieves this goal efficiently. Only that it *ought* to.

As for the argument that socialism doesn't work, a number of european nations offer a counterpoint. Communism seems to have been a poor implementation, but plenty of countries have greater or lesser degrees of socialist or nationalist principles and continue to thrive.

k wrote:

ibenez wrote:
What would we have done without food stamps you ask? We would have figured out how to survive. Food stamps actually made my family lazy in my opinion.

No the system is not functional.. we'll, sure it functions, but it's not effecient. The system provides a way for peopel to get lazy and dependant. Then it becomes a cycle.

It *IS* every man for himself - but you can get help fro mthe kindness of others, just not the damn government. Section8 housing my friend is full of woman who have babies just to get more money - I know some of them. They literally jsut have more kids because each kids yields more money. Food stamps does the same thing, you don't have to work to get food -why work?

The argument IS the job of the government - the government social programs such as food stamps and section8 need to be modified so that you can only recv them for a VERY Short time ( 1 month? ) and then never again. Call me cold, but socialism doesn't work. Don't take money from the rich and give it to the poor - don't take money from anyone.

I agree that the current system is inefficient. But I fail to see that as an argument against all social programs. I've long believed that the government subsidies for children should begin to drop, agressively, after the first. Things like additional foodstamps, and the tax credits available to low income families with children should decrease. It absolutely makes sense to limit the amount of additional burden a burdensome individual can generate.

I well know how the food stamp system is abused, and that's something that needs serious attention, as much as welfare and medicaid and on and on. Any functional social program really must act as a support structure which offers an incentive to reduce your reliance on it.

Cold or not, i believe you misunderstand the nature of the system in which we live. Your position presupposes that everyone's failure, and likewise everyone's success, is the result of their choices and personal actions, and ONLY their choices and actions. This is not borne out. There are many routes to wealth -- luck, inheritance, intense perseverence and personal skill is only one, and even it has limitations. The system that permits one to achieve wealth was built by people over time. The structure of society, which permits a person to become rich, came about as a result of the efforts of people you have never met. The cooperation *necessary* for the wealthy to become, and remain, so disproves the notion that success or failure in life can occur in a vacuum. It can't. A society in which there is no redistribution of wealth at all can't help but look a lot like the feudal system. The rich will retain their money, increase it, and pass it on. The poor will get poorer, live in dire conditions, and die young, no matter what their dreams are or how hard they work, with few exceptions.... [ Read More (0.2k in body) ]

Yes that's exactly waht I believe. People make choices, those choices are what defines their success or failure. The rest is just life - and guess what - life ain't fair.

[ Wow, i sure wish i could take 100% credit for my position in life. If I was born a millionaire, that makes me implicitly successful... I sure made a great choice about where to be born.

Sorry, I think your position fails the test of logic.

As for life not being fair, isn't it sad to think we have no power to make it more so? I believe we do, and that it's ethically proper to do so. Truly meritocratic systems do not exist when the underlying system codifies inequalities in opportunity. -k]