Welcome to PILOT SPIN!
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Which one of us do you believe let things slip over outside the SZ? Surely you can name someone. Also, which of us causes threads to get locked over there now?Eppy, 99 times out of a hundred, I agree with you. But occasionally, I think we see something differently.
One of the things folks are critical of is what, they perceive, to be a bias in the suspending or hand slapping that goes on.
If you don't care, why have you commented?
Now the real fun begins. In the senate the President will have rights, rights the dims can’t arbitrarily remove to their benefit. The Presidents legal team can begin discovery and issue depositions, subpoenas and interrogatories. And they will carry the weight of the law.I don't think so. I think they will open the hearings, talk for a few hours and then vote to acquit. They may stretch it out a little longer so they can all get their photo-ops for the people back home, but they are not going to do a thorough investigation.
Curious why you didn’t vote for Simon’s R opponent.Honestly, I don’t recall any warts on the GOP candidate at the time. I was pretty anti-establishment back then (see my vote for Ross Perot above), and was looking for a decent person. I actually met him on the street one morning in Chicago as I was walking from Union Station to my office. It was in front of the Civic Opera House. He didn’t have an entourage but had maybe one person with him. I just said “good morning Senator” as I waked past him, and he stopped to chat with me. It made an impression.
Mind you, bizarre Rs do show up on ballots occasionally. My theory is that the weirdest of them are libertarians trying to pass themselves off as Republicans.
(Need to insert here again that I like Jim)
There’s an interesting thought. It’s possible that a strengthened Republican Party, with the more appealing elements of libertarianism, might begin to catch on as being more true to our founding principles.
Again, though, we have to know the enemy. And the enemy (half the country) worships the ideal of a nanny state. I don’t see how we walk that back, until the starry-eyed nanny staters actually have to live under the nanny hammer and begin to envision something better.
They split the vote, and siphon off votes that typically go to the conservative. Kentucky Governor race is an example. The Libertarian candidate siphoned off enough votes to throw the election to the democrat.
That's an excellent article! I might pick a nit with what he says about Kuhn, I've read Kuhn and I can talk about his philosophy; well he does say Kuhn is responsible for elevating consensus over science and if that is true that's not what Kuhn meant, but it wouldn't be the first time a wise person's words were completely twisted and misused.
Ah yes, the single data point 3 days into the Presidency, lol. I think I'll reserve any judgment on his impact in the financial markets for a good year or more, once the volatility from having a new President has worn off. If he begins to institute import tariffs or screws up on the TransPac/NAFTA agreements, I have a feeling the DOW won't be painting nearly as rosy a picture.
My point was that if you have the option of being on welfare and not working, or working a minimum wage job for 40+ hours a week to be in the same (or worse) position financially when you add it all up, then why would anyone choose the latter?ok,in that context, I will agree with you.
1)Not really going to be able to play the self-respect card with people who have little concept of it in regards to working a minimum-wage job. I know that feeling of respect, but I don't think it's something you can "sell" to those on welfare.
2)Those on welfare don't care if it's a drag on society, nor do they likely have any concept of it's impact on the government. Most of them don't even make the link between working people's taxes paying for them to live for free.
3) I don't disagree on the concept, but convincing a welfare recipient to live on minimum wage without welfare assistance for the "work experience" is similar to convincing a lawyer to do pro bono work.
4) See answer #3 above.
5) Absolutely, that goes with any job. It's almost always easier to find a good job if you have one.
To summarize: you have to remember that, by telling welfare recipients that a minimum wage job is better than welfare, you are going to have to convince them it's better. I already know the benefits and satisfaction of doing honest labor and being self-sufficient/productive as I was raised to be so. Those who have spent a lifetime in poverty, aren't likely to agree with you that it's better to work a minimum wage job so that they can earn the intangible benefits of self respect, valuable job experience, learning work ethic, or ease of finding a better job later on, when they'd still be in the same spot they're currently in while having to work much harder for it.
I'm no liberal, and that phrase has nothing to do with being a liberal. It was a statement of fact about what would happen to low-income families if their welfare monies were suddenly reduced to the point that they can't afford food, rent, etc.
that everyone grew up in an environment that fostered their ability to succeed. In many of these lifetime welfare cases, these people have been surrounded by others who never escaped poverty, and know nothing other than welfare, drugs, and broken homes. It's not like you and I, where if we were forced with a life on welfare, or pursuing a better job, we would have have the wherewithal to achieve the latter. So, you provide them with a step-by-step plan that moves them along the road to getting themselves out of poverty.
I am just of the mentality that, with people in many of these situations, they just aren't motivated the same way you and I are. Since they can't see past the next paycheck, you can't make them realize it's better on the other side. As Becky mentioned, it's not a simple problem in the least, and it certainly won't be fixed with a simple answer or else it would have been implemented by now.
So why is a minimum wage job a better option than being on welfare? Either way you're poor and only have enough money to live paycheck to paycheck. So how do you walk back welfare benefits to a point so low that you can't possibly live on it (defeats the entire purpose of welfare), but not so low as to be seen as throwing people and their families onto the street?
It's just not a matter of "reducing benefits". If there are no decent jobs, or you have no employable skill set, you will just end up with people in more squalor than they were on welfare. If it gets reduced enough, people will resort to crime in order to make ends meet. If you aren't willing to admit that the only real way to get people off of welfare is to help lift them out of poverty,then there really isn't any more to discuss. Taking away sugary drinks from people doesn't make them want to get a job.
2 Likes
