Non aviation subject. This is well put!

[Jeff G]

Speaking of corporate welfare:

Now, when you think about it, corporate taxes are really double taxation. What are corporate taxes? Taxes on corporate profits. Who makes corporate profits? A corporation, which either plows the profits back into the business (thus growing the business and employing more people, who pay more in personal income taxes), pays the corporation's employees more (thus generating more personal income taxes), or distributes profits to shareholders as dividends (which is then taxed as capital gains). In other words, every dollar of "corporate profits" is distributed to people who then pay taxes on it again.

So what is "corporate welfare"? Mostly tax breaks on corporate profits for politically deserving companies. IOW, politicians reduce the amount of double taxation for certain companies.

So here's a novel concept. Eliminate corporate taxation entirely. Corporations will still pay sales taxes and excise taxes on products they buy but will no longer be forced to give the government a cut when they have a good year. Instead, their employees will pay taxes on their personal income. This also eliminates political games regarding which companies are "worthy" of welfare.

Corporations are not nameless, faceless, money-generating, tax revenue-producing monoliths. They are made up of taxpayers. So why cripple successful companies with double-taxation to begin with?

Makes about as much sense as taxing the dead and reducing the estate to be left to descendents. But that's another story.

 

[waka]

No, sir, that is history

"history"? according to?..... hmmm, the National Review and similar spinmeister rags?

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

____________________________________________

Very good points mar. I sometimes fall into that trap.

 

[pipers]

... I take some solace in the knowledge that flawed liberal viewpoints are becoming exposed and are nearing the end of their lifespan. Just look to the recent mid term election results to see the result of Americans fed up with Democrats off in la la land.

I will try to make this my last reply on the subject, I promise. I just wanted to point out that the recent mid-term elections don't in any way indicate that America is fed up with democrats of in la la land and liberal thought. The problem with the Bush administration is that they are governing as if they won by a land slide. (What happened to being "a uniter, not a divider"?) The truth is, more people voted with either the green or democrat party in 2000 then did republican. I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party. New Hampshire and Flordia would have gone to Gore. In 2002, the republicans did win more of the "toss-up" elections (by out spending democrats 8-1 in some case I might add), but this doesn't indicate a dramatic change to the right. These were the races that were "to close to call." I honestly believe that this political diveristiy is a powerful thing. I would be scared to death to see what would happen if there were no checks and balances in our government. Thanks for your opinions. Vote.
Cheers.

PS...May I just ask one question? Where does unemployment fit in with all this? Because, I know for a fact that there are many who visit this site in that boat. If I remember correctly, it was the Dems that wanted to push through a bill that would extend unemplyment benefits (those affected by 9/11) through the holiday season, but the rep. didn't agree and went home with our resolving it. Suks.

 

[Rizer]

...and when your fearless leader Slick, signed it into law when did he do it? That's right, the friggin dead of night on a Fri, so he wouldn't get tarred and feathered by Tom Daschle and Dick Gephardt before the sting wore off. Ya might want to surf some microfiche at the library before ya claim that one for the Dems.

Here is a picture of Clinton signing the Welfare Reform Bill.

http://www.ssa.gov/history/welref.html

Hardly the dead of night. You must be confusing this with George W's signing of the Campaign Finance Reform Bill. Now that was in the dead of night.

Originally posted by Timebuilder
Actually, Mr Rizer, it was a republican congress that reformed the welfare system. What part did Mr. Clinton have?

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

He looked at some polls, determined that this idea had popular support, and went along with it to advance his legacy.

Timebuilder, you have got to stop listening to so much talk radio.

 

[Timebuilder]

It amuses me when folks use the word "history" in such a way that it's use somehow gives them sole rights to objectivity.

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

I'm not saying George didn't win (we don't need another argument) but, Ralph turned out to be a very useful tool to the republican party.

If you mean that he was a "spoiler" candidate, republicans are familiar with that. For them, it was Ross Perot, which lead to the election of Bill Clinton. I'm sure that neither Ross nor Ralph would describe themselves as "useful tools", though.

Welfare reform was a one of Clinton's 1992 campaign pledges. 1992...two years before anyone even knew who Newt Gingrich was...before Gingrich's absurd "Contract Against Ameri...errr Contract With America".

Clinton's acceptance of the republican idea of welfare reform for his 1992 campaign was a direct result of the kind of polling that I described. Instead of leadership, he sent up trial ballons, and played to those who follow the slant of Peter Jennings. Ten years after 1992, this method is no longer effective for the dems.

It was the Contract with America that helped sweep in the first republican congress in how many years? What an absurd idea: to think that a group of politicians would break the mold and actually DO the things that they promsed to do! How repugnant.

Talk radio? I was in talk radio, my friend. As a liberal democrat! I think this gives me a unique insight into this controversy. You know what talk radio is nowadays? It's people who never had a voice in the mainstream media, finding that America hasn't really lost its greatness, as ABC/NBC/CBS/CNN would have us all believe. It's the voice of America, bubbling to the surface. I hear conservative voices of every race and both genders speaking out against the mainstream tide of Paul Begalla and James Carville.

Do liberals wish that talk radio would go away? Sure. It interferes with their sense of control, and sublimates their agenda to the genuine desires of Americans.

Thanks for your comments.

 

[AV8OR]

Hey Rizer,

I'll tell ya what, why don't you and Ted K. and the rest take as much of your own money as you want give as much away as you want to help others. That's what I do. Better yet if you think the liberal democrat government way is the way to go, why don't you just have em take a little more out and let Ted and the boys pour more of it into that crap hole in Boston called the Big Dig. I can hardly wait for John Kerry to campaign on the success of that one. Listen here's my last opinion on the subject and I'm done. ....

There are greedy democrats and greedy republicans. I'm sure some of both are charitable with their personal funds. As far as Constitutionally mandated programs being payed for through taxes, that's great, but when Ted K, or George W., or whoever, takes our money, redistributes it, and then claims the benevolency as their own, that is just pure self promotion through the confiscation and redistribution of wealth. If that's not the legislation of someones morality or immorality, I don't know what is.

Adios

 

[Rizer]

Timebuilder-

I'm sure we will never agree but I did enjoy the exchange of ideas. But I do make it a rule never to argue with a former Liberal Democrat radio talk show host turned Conservative Republican Lear Jet pilot. I guess I am just odd that way.
Fly Safe.


AV8TOR-

I don't know what the heck you are talking about with the big hole in Boston and I pretty sure I don't want to know. Nothing you have written has made any sense, why should your last post be any different.

Ciao!

 

[Wolf King]

Rizer,

Didn't I see you on an MTV episode recently?..... Oh, yeah, now I remember.... you did Anna Nicole Smith's bedroom decor. You're Bobby Trendy, aren't you? C'mon, I'd be proud of those pink pillows!

 

[ShawnC]

Good point. I've never discussed politics in the cockpit and don't intend too. I'm not trying to get into a pissing match with anyone and the truth is that while we may have politics differences, we're all here becuase we love to fly. We some times forget that this is an aviation website and not a political one. Let's get back to aviation.

What do you mean, my flight instructor brought up politics all the time, right between slow flight, and steep turns...

Please with 500 hrs how many chances have you had to talk about anything in the cockpit other than flying.

As far as DEM vs GOP, I'll stay out of it I prefer to leave that for times when I can hit the other person over the head.

 

[waka]

When we talk about facts, not feelings that are not a part of today, then we are talking about them as history. Hey, that is amusing!

Heh heh, if I didn't buy into your claim to history, I certainly won't buy into your claim to "fact" (so-called).

Cliche's don't cut it.

Oh, and that would have more appropriately named "Contract ON America", most which flopped, (fortunately). Yes, this apt renaming is cliche but it's d@mn funny. Truth in humor I guess.

 

[Timebuilder]

Ha!

The very successful Contract should have had another name. I vote for "America's Contract Against Socialism" or "Contract on Liberals".

Of course, any promises to reduce America's dependence on a large central government and the reallocation of wealth would certainly be seen as a very bad thing by those who stand to lose power and control of millions of Americans. "I feel your pain." I think that the track record established by elected democrats and republicans has indeed created a "history" of documentation for how I have characterized the two approaches to American government. You can certainly say that it is a cliche if you like. How are cliches born? In this case, people are recognizing a long standing track record of behavior that easily identifies the two political philosophies. Are there exceptions? Certainly. There have been some conservative democrats, and even a few left leaning republicans. As time goes by, these exceptions are becoming fewer and farther between. This only makes this "history" more firmly supported.

Of course, you are also free to argue about the meaning of the word "history". First, work on the meaning of the word "is".


"Back to aviation?"


Many of the decisions that we make as a country will have a direct affect on our futures as avaitors. A lot of carriers were already taking on water before 9-11, and this event has made everything worse. Ask yourself how many times in the past year you saw a report on TV or in a newspaper that capiltalized on the "scary" aspect of flying in large cammercial aircraft. Do you wince a little every time an "airline passenger" is being interviewed in a terminal before boarding, telling all of America how they are "terrified to fly now" but they are only doing so to visit a sick child? How about the reports of ham-handed security men groping female passengers? Did American parents feel OK about putting their daughter on a plane after hearing those reports?

Someone mentioned the other day that we could see the nationalizing of our airlines. While this isn't a real possibility, I find it frightening that someone in front of a mic actually uttered those words. So, I urge you not to take a lazy or sarcastic view of politics in this day and age. As pilots we have so much to lose, and very much to gain.

If we don't pay attention, any jousts over PFT and RJDC will become pointless. At least these political posts are mildly humorous. My hope is that these discussions make you look into these and other matters for yourself.

 

[Purple Haze]

Hey look: A sinking ship - can I play?

Thru my overly simplistic eyes:

Corrupt: Both
Out of touch: Both
Pro-Management/Big Business: R
Pro-Labor/Union: D
Pro-CEO: R
Pro-Pilot: D
Pro-Education: Both (differing ideas)
Seems like the dems want ALL people (except white males) to have the opportunity to attend the university of their choice, regardless of their comparative academic ability.
Seems like the reps want everyone to have the same shot, based on SAT/ACT/GRE/GMT/GPA, academic ranking, etc.
Pro-Abortion: D
Anti-Abortion: R
Pro-Condoms for kids and instructions for use: D
Anti-Condoms for kids and instructions for use: R
Pro-Abstinence: R
Anti-Abstinence: D
Pro-Gay Rights: D
Anti-Gay Rights: R
Higher Taxes: D
Lower Taxes: R
Pretends the bottom 50% of wage earners pay the majority of taxes collected: D
Acknowledges the top 50% of wage earners pay over 96% of taxes collected: R
Pro-Social Security: Both
Pro- Medical Insurance: Both
Pro-Nationalized (socialized) healthcare: D
Anti-Nationalized (socialized) healthcare: R
Pro-Prescription Drug Plan: Both
Wants to spend too much: Both
Wastes money ridiculously: Both
Pro-Affirmative Action (Un-equal privelege): D
Anti-Affirmative Action (Level playing field): R
Pro-Military (During War): Both
Pro-Military (During Peacetime, which results in strong wartime military): R
Anti-Military (During Peacetime): D
Embraces different individual cultural groups as good for USA: D
Desires one "melting-pot" culture called "American:" R
"Tolerant" of all non-Christian faiths, including atheism: Both
"Tolerant" of Christianity: R
"Intolerant" of Christanity: D
Cares more about politics and personal power than doing their job with integrity: Both
Scary: Both

Flame on -- why didn't I stay out of this?

 

[Jeff G]

Re: Hey look: A sinking ship - can I play?

Flame on -- why didn't I stay out of this?

What's to flame? It's a little overly simplified, as you say, but mostly true. It's hard to argue with.

 

[SDF2BUF2MCO]

Purple, what is there to flame? In a nutshell, pretty much sums it up from a big picture political point of view. The only thing I would add is the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security (yet they claim they're for the Constitution) Democrats would do this too but the Republicans would throw a fit. Now GWB is in office it is some how OK. Doubt the Homeland Security will have much of an impact on the criminals and terrorists but it sure get those cursed law abiding citizens in line!
Said it before, politics is a professional wrestling match. It is a fixed and staged event. Both parties are a den of thieves who look at the average citizen as servants to be subject to the bidding of the government.

 

[Purple Haze]

...the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security

You are too generous...thanks.

Boy are you ever right about the "Stasi." I'm sure I would be even more disturbed than I am if "Big Bother" was now being implemented by the Gore administration.

Its all well and good now, but how will President Hillary's attorney general use this potentially highly intrusive power?

Ashcroft/Ridge may be scary -- but things could eventually be much worse.

Troubling.

 

[Timebuilder]

Purplehaze has a good list of what the general public thinks about the differences between the parties, circa 1978. A lot of that has changed. As the country has become more conservative, many democrats have moved from left to center. For instance, let's look at the whole "business/CEO" aspect. Where do the wealthy democrats who essentially "run" the democrat party have their money? Answer: the same big corporations that they publically complain about. They sit on those corporate boards. The biggest difference is that they want to use OTHER people's money to bring about the changes that they want, and will only use their OWN money to promote the causes.

The only thing I would add is the Republicans seem driven to trample our basic freedoms via Ashcroft and Ridge, aka Homeland Security (yet they claim they're for the Constitution) Democrats would do this too but the Republicans would throw a fit.

If you have a better and more effective suggestion for our security in the nation in a time of war, them PM with it. I will see that it gets into the right hands (no pun intended). As far as the constitution is concerned, the framers made allowances for the differences between peacetime and wartime. They probably never envisioned anything like the kind of terrorism that we see today, since they were honorable men who did not think in terms of blowing women and children to bits.

If you are talking about the detainees at gitmo, their status does not accord them the same rights as you and I, and our resident alien (ie: legal) friends.

As I said, those with a better and more effective idea are free to share it. If you do that in Iraq, you will be shot.

 

[Purple Haze]

Please Explain

...circa 1978. A lot of that has changed. As the country has become more conservative, many democrats have moved from left to center. For instance, let's look at the whole "business/CEO" aspect...

Timebuilder,
I agree with most of your post, but my opinions concerning the actions of the major political parties is based on what I have observed from each from the mid-70s until now. Prior to that I did not care (I just wanted a drivers license ). I concede on the big business issue, but clearly the Ds are more pro-labor than the Rs. I prefaced my remarks with "simplistic," which they are. Could you kindly point out, in equally simplistic terms, where I am incorrect?

I don't claim to have all the answers. I appreciate your objective reproof.

 

[Timebuilder]

I think the relationship of the democrat party to Big Labor goes back to when it was "small labor", during its beginnings. Because of the theme of "collective bargaining", a large number ol labor activists and supporters were socialists or communists. This doesn't paint the American labor movement in a bad light, but it does provide a basis for labor's association with the democrats.

As organized labor shrinks in the US, as it has since the seventies, there are fewer labor members to support the party. In place of this broad support from labor has emerged a patchwork of special interest groups, trying to form into a single agenda that can be supported by a majority of Americans. The democrat problem is this: most Americans don't agree with this agenda, and people like me who used to support it have found it to be lacking, and have moved to what they think is a position that is more closely linked to the values upon which the country was founded. For me, the viable political party for this position is firmly in the republican agenda: private property rights, parental rights (particularly father's rights), states rights, and constitutional rights, including the necessary steps we must take when attacked from within.

Particular observations from your list:

Corrupt: both. On a case by case individual basis? This would apply to ALL parties, since they are all made up of people. I see the re-empowerment of the individual American and the states where they reside as a noble cause, and one worthy of support.

Out of touch: both. I disagree. Does increasing public support for the republican agenda indicate that they are out of touch? I say: no.

Abortion: the dems are firmly in the grasp of NOW, which opines that a fetus is not a human. Aside from the fact that there is a far larger national women's group that gets short shrift in the major media (the definition of which is changing every day) the NOW people are very large supporters of the dems, and control that plank. Some republicans approach this question from a religious viewpoint (not to say that the NOW position does not have a "religious" fervor to it) but most Americans who are not "born again don't like the fact that many thousands of abortions are performed on a whim, and on developing babies which can, and sometime stubbornly do survive outside the womb. This question relvolves around a woman's responsibility in creating a life in herself as much as the question of her right to summarily end that life.

Condoms for kids: see "parent's rights", above.

Gay rights: there actually is a group of gays called the Log Cabin Republicans. I disagree that certain groups should be accorded "special" status by the government.

Taxes: actually, the top five percent of Americans pay the vast majority of the taxes the government receives! It floors me when I hear Tom Daschle complain about tax breaks for the rich, when they are only getting back a portion of what THEY have paid IN! When they get money back, jobs are created by investment of that money, carrying your retirement investments higher along with the market rise. When there is a "middle class" or "targeted" tax cut from a democrat, a few washing machines are purchased, and the economy stays where it is. Remember what happened when Reagan cut taxes across the board? The amount of tax money received by the government INCREASED.

I'm out of time for now, so I hope I have helped you in your understanding of this.

It took me over a quarter century to understand.

 

[Purple Haze]

Timebuilder,
Except for my flip "out of touch" assertion, it sounds like we agree. I must admit that I have not read your earlier posts on this volatile thread (I will try to get around to that ). I agree many dems are centrists -- so are many reps. When our elected officials start getting out too far either direction they represent the interests of small and sometimes militant groups.

I guess the only point I was trying to make with my first attempt at an honest and overly simple look at the big 2, is that you can find good and bad in each -- dependant upon your perspective.

Some of those issues mean more to me personally, and I vote accordingly. One of my pet peeves is non-voting Americans.

I know of no other nation that comes close to our freedom and personal empowerment. I wish we could rally as a nation of "Americans" without other divisive labels and get on with the business of being the best.

 

[ShawnC]

...President Hillary's ...

If that happens I'm moving to elsewhere, the last 8 years of Clinton was bad enough IMO.

Though I have to admit right now, the postioning isn't right for his to bid for the nomination, maybe that will change in the next 2 years, but right now, she doesn't seem to be attracting the spot light that others are.

 

[172driver]

Taxes: actually, the top five percent of Americans pay the vast majority of the taxes the government receives! It floors me when I hear Tom Daschle complain about tax breaks for the rich, when they are only getting back a portion of what THEY have paid IN! When they get money back, jobs are created by investment of that money, carrying your retirement investments higher along with the market rise. When there is a "middle class" or "targeted" tax cut from a democrat, a few washing machines are purchased, and the economy stays where it is. Remember what happened when Reagan cut taxes across the board? The amount of tax money received by the government INCREASED.


Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

I know...pilots couldn't care less about them. Pilots have worked so hard for their position in life, blah, blah. Why is it then that most of the pilots I see (I work with hundreds of them) come from upper to upper middle class backgrounds? Most of us had a stable childhood, money for college, transportation, work ethic, lots of love and support, etc. Yeah, we had to work hard but at least we were provided with the tools to do so.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids? Should they 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' as you guys keep spouting? Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans? Think the corporations they might have a chance to work for will pay them a wage they can live on? Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

 

[Purple Haze]

ShawnC,

...President Hillary...

Not 2004, but 2008 or 12. Where else is there to go?

 

[ShawnC]

ShawnC,

...President Hillary...

Not 2004, but 2008 or 12. Where else is there to go?

I know more than a couple that after the collapse of Pan Am went to South America. Myself as a computer programmer can make money anywhere, and am a pretty fast learner when it comes to languages.

 

[ShawnC]

Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

I told myself I was going to stay out of this, but I got dragged in my incorrect facts.

Well the reason that you didn't see if during Reagan's Presedency was because while Reagan was President he had to get it though a Democratics, you had controll. They wouldn't let him pass an immediate tax cut nor make the cuts come fast they forced on him a phased plan that took years to take effect.

So when the prime amounts of his tax cut came into to effect it was during the late stages of the Bush Sr, and early Clinton which helped create the Tech Boom of the 90's.

Clinton and Greenspan together killed it by raising the taxes and sharply rasing the intrest rates, making not as profitable to barrow money, and having less money avialable to be invested.

 

[DIRT]

172Driver

ShawnC you are absolutely correct. The US economy is so large that any changes take years to come to fruition, and by the time the economy really picked up Slick Willy rec'd all the credit meanwhile all he was doing was trying to do was bag all the interns (of course I don't fault him for that he just could have been a bit more selective but then again anything is better than Hillary).

172Driver you sound like a socialist. In a capitalist society in order for there to be haves there has to be have nots and if you don't have a marketable skill you are going to be a have not. I agree not all people have the same opportunity and it is our responsibility to help these people but I think for the most part we as a society do try and help these people but welfare and programs like it should be a stepping stone not a way of life like it is for some people.

 

[bulldog]

Aviation

Any of you boys seen an aviation website around here. Just hoping we can talk about something aviation related.

bulldog

 

[Timebuilder]

Oh really? Why did we run a multi-billion dollar deficit then? I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

In reality, 172, you are raising a VERY important point. Not only was there a recalcitrant democrat congress who finally bowed to public pressure on the tax cut issue, and the lag time discussed above for economic changes to come into full bloom, but the deficit spending had a very real cause. Some of it was justifed, as Carter had left our military hung out to dry, without the funding necessary to keep the services vital and up to date. Reagan helped to start to rebuild our military to the point where they were subsequently ready to fight the persian gulf war. There was a lot of other congressional spending that was far out of control, and the deficit ballooned. Some republicans went along, but the passage of those spending bills was firmly laid on the doorstep of the democrat controlled congress.

Thanks for asking about that. The reason for the large deficit is often ignored by the critics of the Reagan tax cuts.

I think Reagan showed very well that 'supply-side' does not work. The rich, who had their taxes cut, didn't invest or spend their surplus to help the masses. They saved it. Those who invested may have helped the retirement plans of the middle class but what about the lower to lower-middle class who could've used that little bit of extra money just to feed their families each month?

Actually, supply side DOES work. No matter what the largest taxpayers in our society do with their money (let's stress their money) the outcome is good for the middle class. If they save, that money is invested by banks. Businesses grow and employ more workers. New businesses are started, and people from welfare to work programs are hired and empowered. If they invest directly, stocks go up. If they spend their money, goods and services are sold to them. Maybe my company puts on another airplane, and two more crews are hired. Do you see? Money not taxed out of existance is free to be passed around our entire society, bringing security and stability wherever it goes!

If families had received only the "little bit of money" that you speak about, and it is spent, is it enough to open a new supermarket that employs 50 people who had been out of work? Or, on the other hand, does that "little bit" get spent on a few lottery tickets, or a night in Atlantic City? You have to remember that chestnut about the difference between giving a man a fish, and teaching him how to fish. When the top five percent of taxpayers get a tax reduction, a whole lot of people learn how to fish.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids? Should they 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps' as you guys keep spouting? Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans? Think the corporations they might have a chance to work for will pay them a wage they can live on? Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

Bring it on, my friend. You remind me of myself when I was a liberal. Let's take a look.

It is hard for many of us to relate to the kids who grew up with booze, crack, and daily abuse. These are the people who you propose taking welfare away from. Easy to blame their situation on the parents but what should we do for these kids?

Some of these problems are cultural. This means that members of these communities have to better police themselves against these domestic cancers. If solutions came from outside these communities, the first card played by the self-appointed "leaders" is the race card. They say that "the white man wants us under his thumb". Folks need to take back their communities, and not allow the open air drug markets, the gangs, the criminal lifestyle. Glorifying "gangstas" and bad attitudes is a symptom. Read what Walter Wiliams has to say about this. He grew up in the Richard Allen Homes in Philadelphia. I myself lived in some of Philly's most poor neighborhoods, so I have a personal insight into this. The problem with the kids is this: they are growing up idolizing dope dealers and murderers. One big problem, especially in the black communitiy, is the idea that if you live a clean, repectable, law-abiding life, study hard, and go on to college (based on your meritorious work) you are widely seen as "acting white" and are seen as an outcast, a pariah. This accusation suggests that to do the obverse is to be "acting black". A number of black writers have worked on this subject, if you doubt the perspective of a white man.

Think the corporate tax breaks are helping out their retirement plans?

I think that corporate tax breaks free up investment money and charitable giving to foundations that are working to help people escape these horrible conditions. A large part of this is the coming reality of "faith based initiatives" which will make better use of government money than the old "welfare" system. There is a large Christian component in the black community, and they stand ready to do an admirable job.

Should we let them starve to death? I don't like the welfare system either but what are the alternatives for those unprepared by their parents to survive in this world?

No. I don't think anyone is starving to death. There is a great deal of inertia to be overcome as we try and help these communities to slow and then reverse their moral decay. We quite effectively removed any sense of right and wrong from the classrooms where these children attend school, and now we wonder why they will shoot another child for a pair of sneakers. Almost every minority who is successful for some skill not related to music or athletics is a person who was raised by people of faith, and got where he or she is today by hard work. Or, as their detractors would say in their old neighborhoods today, they are successful because they acted white. That is racism of the worst kind, to sabotage the children who could become decent citizens.

The only satisfying movement to bring about this cultural change must come from within the poorest communities, and be assisted by the rest of us. Government checks on the first Monday will only slow the healing.

I hope that this helps you to have a better understanding.

 

[TXCAP4228]

Re: 172Driver

172Driver you sound like a socialist. In a capitalist society in order for there to be haves there has to be have nots and if you don't have a marketable skill you are going to be a have not. I agree not all people have the same opportunity and it is our responsibility to help these people but I think for the most part we as a society do try and help these people but welfare and programs like it should be a stepping stone not a way of life like it is for some people.

Dirt, I disagree that for capitalism to exist there must be haves and havenots in the traditional sense. While there will always be some who have less than others, that is a far cry from being a "havenot". Consider that most of the people in America who would be clasified as "havenots" by our more liberal bretheren have air conditioning, a microwave, a color TV (or two), a CD player, a refridgerator....

The point is made, I think, that compared to other nations or even to history, the "poor" in America don't go without in most cases - they simply have less than others. Add to this the fact that OPPORTUNITY is available to anyone who will avail themselves of it.

No one is forced to do without just so that some can have more than others.

 

[414Flyer]

It amazes me that Republicans have been railing against welfare forever but it took a Democratic President (Clinton) to actually reform the welfare system. Anyone remember workfare, not welfare. Ah...a selective memory is a wonderful thing.

You might check your own selective memory. Clinton would love for you to think it was his idea.

It was started by the 1994 Republicans in Congress.

Clinton refused to sign it for a while, until his pollsters told him it would be a political disaster not to.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Holy cow. Do you guys realize that in this thread, you've created a perfect metaphor for this nation's political system? Everyone's hollaring and pointing fingers...and nothing's changing.

One thing's for certain: our leaders should have spent more time trying to figure out what Al Queda was up to than they did on analyzing stains on Monica Lewinsky's clothing.