27-08-2004 05:06									#91
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Sava mmmmmm I think you are taking that to an extreme. Democrats want stable, productive social services. But yes, they do believe in progressive taxation. Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history. Personally, I think Teddy Roosevelt and his cousin FDR (as two of the most prominent progressive thinkers in American history) had the right idea.

It's all a matter of degrees, and how the money is spent.
The welfare system in America right now sucks. It's just throwing bad money after bad. I would rather see the system overhauled and the money be used more effectively to HELP people, and not just continue the welfare state that has been created. While I will admit the Repubs haven't come up with a solution, the Dems solution is to just tax more, and spend more money.
To me... that solution just sucks more. It doesn't solve the problem, and just costs me more money.

	27-08-2004 05:16									#92
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Read "The Millionare Nextdoor"

One of things they mention is about "weaking the weak".

They say that one problem parents have is that they continue to "help" the child who has the worse spending habits, and thus gets themselves into debt time and time again. Their inability to handel money is never addressed, and thus they end up being worse off than their parents.

Thus is the case with welfare. We do not teach them to be responsible for themselves, and why should they?!

The only solution that came close to what I would like to see is Pete Wilsons ban on second generation welfare recipients. The only problem with that is that kids learn by example, and if their parents are losers what is to get the kid not to be.

As a republican I am for social welfare, but not unless it means social reform, and that is not something the current system promotes or even supplies. Democratic resolutions to social welfare is pathetic, and IMO is only to keep the child suckeling upon their *** for votes.

	27-08-2004 05:58									#93
	Support Apolyton

The purpose of welfare is not primarily redistributive. Most welfare programs are compulsory insurance schemes instituted by the state because the market won't provide them.

You can say what you like, but developed countries with more extensive welfare states do not have the ridiculous social problems that the United States has.

Someone once said that the US was an experiment to see how much waste and inefficiency people could tolerate in the name of personal liberty.

	27-08-2004 06:20									#94
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Agathon You can say what you like, but developed countries with more extensive welfare states do not have the ridiculous social problems that the United States has.

Like what?

	27-08-2004 06:21									#95
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Thus is the case with welfare. We do not teach them to be responsible for themselves, and why should they?!

Sorry, but you are just so completely wrong that it's not funny.

I grew up in a society with an extensive welfare state. Substantial benefits were available to the unemployed, the sick and the injured. But it happened to be the case that there was virtually full employment (and I don't mean burger flipping jobs, but decent work). People wanted good jobs, and almost everyone (apart from a few hippies) was prepared to work.

Increases in welfare recipients started because unemployment rose and because good jobs with decent conditions and pay were replaced by terrible jobs that were badly paid.

There's no simple correlation between the availability of welfare benefits and a lack of desire to work. Most people, if given the chance of a decent job, would work, because spending all day at home on welfare is crushingly boring and socially limiting.

	27-08-2004 06:23									#96
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Like what?

Violence, poverty, lack of decent education.

Come walk around downtown Toronto in the middle of the night and you'll see what I mean. It's by far the safest city I've ever lived in.

	27-08-2004 06:39									#97
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Progressive taxation isn't some commie pipe dream. It is an American value that arose during the "progressive" era in American history

The two terms derive from the same base, but the term "progressive taxation" is not derived from the political term "progressive", nor is the situation reversed.

Progressive taxation is called such because you progressively tax more and more of somebody's income at higher and higher levels. Progressives call themselves this because they want to "progress" i.e. move society in a direction they see as forward.

	27-08-2004 06:44									#98
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: THIS IS ABOUT A RISE IN POVERTY. ADD TO THAT THAT ACCORDING TO THE AMDINISTRATION THE RECESSION ENDED IN 2001 AND SINCE 2002 THE ECONOMY "HAS TURNED A CORNER" THANKS TO HIS TAX CUTS. The economy has 'turned a corner'. Look at GDP growth rates. Poverty numbers are irrelevant.

No. What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing? A healthy growing economy should never lead to an increase in poverty unless the economy isn't doing it's job. Economic growth is a means to an end not an end in and of itself. At the very least we should try to determine why the poverty is increasing and see if any policies may be aggravating that cause.

	27-08-2004 06:45									#99
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Americans need to answer the question of why they fail to be top of the UN Human Development index year after year, despite being by far the richest country in the world. Canada has consistently beaten the US despite being nowhere near as rich.

All the top countries have extensive welfare programs as part of a mixed economy. They win because their economies are better adapted to serving the various needs of their citizens. They do more with less - they are more efficient.

	27-08-2004 06:46									#100
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui Japher, interesting numbers. It seems then, according to the stats, that the poverty level in '03 was lower than in 1998 (when it was considered a 'boom') and rising povery levels are still much much less than they were in 1993.

This on the otherhand I can see as relevant!

	27-08-2004 06:46									#101
	Remove this text

Geronimo is right.

The UNHDI was created to judge performance in meeting real goals instead of focusing blindly on GDP.

	27-08-2004 06:47									#102
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

"
Eighty-four of the last ninety-four economic contractions have happened during Repug administrations. It's a wonder anyone thinks Repugs are better for the economy. "

There have been more Republican Administrations then Democratic Administraitons lately, and the last period of Democratic rule had a technology boom.

	27-08-2004 06:51									#103
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Hmmm. 16 out of the last 24 years or 24 out of the last 36 is as good as you can do for Republicans.

That's still only 66.7%

84/94 is about 89.5%

So Republicans are still more than 4 times as likely to have a downturn in their 4 years as Democrats are...

	27-08-2004 06:53									#104
	Increase Your PM Length

Coming soon to a country near you: the complete and final discrediting of the idea that conservatives know anything about how to organize an economy.

	27-08-2004 07:13									#105
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by KrazyHorse Hmmm. 16 out of the last 24 years or 24 out of the last 36 is as good as you can do for Republicans. That's still only 66.7% 84/94 is about 89.5% So Republicans are still more than 4 times as likely to have a downturn in their 4 years as Democrats are...

And as I said, there were circumstances during those 8 years that would make a recessin, no matter who is president, unlikely.

	27-08-2004 07:14									#106
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Violence, poverty, lack of decent education. Come walk around downtown Toronto in the middle of the night and you'll see what I mean. It's by far the safest city I've ever lived in.

Violence, poverty, and lack of decent education are all overblown by American media and politicians.

I have walked around downtown Seattle in the middle of the night, and very early morning plenty of times. Never had a problem, ever.

I have walked around the Oakland ghetto before as well... nothing.

Americans are actually very well educated, and people still send thier kids here to learn.

Poverty? Nobody in America has to starve, or be homeless. It is choice if they are in these situations. I worked at McDonalds full time for 13 months, and had a car, a place to call home, and the other half was purely spending money.

	27-08-2004 07:21									#107
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Agathon Coming soon to a country near you: the complete and final discrediting of the idea that conservatives know anything about how to organize an economy.

I daresay the dems don't know either. I agree that economic growth accompanied by growth in poverty is almost useless and deserves examination to see what is going wrong, but I don't agree that republican policies automatically lead to more poverty than the policies of democrats. The best way generally to reduce poverty seems to be economic expansion since this essentially makes the pie even bigger. When that doesn't seem to be working it's worth a closer look (which in this case seems to indicate it's a result of changes in poverty being a lagging economic indicator) but it will never mean that policies that will endanger economic growth will do a better job of elevating poverty.

	27-08-2004 07:23									#108
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing?

When poverty increases by small levels and economic growth is 'astronomically huge' then a Hell of a lot of good.

	27-08-2004 07:24									#109
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

i was doing some math about a monthly budget and i cant work for less than 13 dollars an hour working 40 a week to survive. of course a job like mcdonalds isnt going to pay that.

as for downtown seattle, its alright. still too many drug dealers around belltown and pioneer square for my liking.

	27-08-2004 07:24									#110
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: why in the hell would you use the phrase "turned the corner"? Look at GDP numbers and their growth.

Let me try this again, Why in the hell would you use that phrase, given that it was what Hoover used in a temporary uptick right before the great depression?

	27-08-2004 07:25									#111
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Americans are actually very well educated, and people still send thier kids here to learn.

No one is denying that the best US universities are very fine, but how many people can actually afford to go to comparable institutions. Where I come from an internationally accredited university education is available to everyone with the desire and the ability. I believe the same can be said for Australia.

	27-08-2004 07:28									#112
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

agathon, people can go, its just a matter of coming up with student loans to do it. the problem i see is you shouldnt force yourself to go into debt just to learn.

	27-08-2004 07:32									#113
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: What good is even astronomically huge economic growth if poverty is increasing? When poverty increases by small levels and economic growth is 'astronomically huge' then a Hell of a lot of good.

No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal. There is a point of diminishing returns on wealth. I'm going to derive a lot less satisfaction from the extra 100k that might get added on to my existing 100k income than the satisfaction I would lose losing 10k from a pissant 30k income. What the hell good is economic growth in the presence of increased human misery and a much smaller increase in our luxery?

I value economic growth because as a rule with few if any exceptions I perceive that it lifts everybodys boats much faster on average than could ever be done with a stagnant economy but it would be useless if it lifted boats of those already way the hell out of harms way while more people started drowning.

Here's another thought experiment to show that decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end.

Suppose god appeared and offered to cast a spell that would magically ensure that every year the economy would grow by 100% while fraction of people living in poverty would increase by one percent each year forever (asymtopically so that you might have 50% poverty then 50.5% not 50% then 51%) and rounding down the nearest person. Sure you'll never have a country that is completely in poverty but eventually you'd have just one person not living in poverty and all economic growth would accrue to that one person. At that point you wouldn't even have the growth in poverty anymore just the 100% annual economic growth. And yet I don't think anybody would find such an economy desirable. precisely because economic growth is merely a means to an end.

	27-08-2004 07:32									#114
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by NeOmega Poverty? Nobody in America has to starve, or be homeless. It is choice if they are in these situations.

Oh man, that's a great one! But have you heard the one about the 12-inch pianist?

	27-08-2004 08:00									#115
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal.

If the middle class and up are making insanely more money, so what if a few more people fall under the poverty line? Big deal.

quote: decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end.

The 'end' is to do what is best for the most people. Astronomical increases in economic growth while only a few more people go into poverty is best for most people, especially those in the middle class.

Let me come up with a contrary thought experiment to show that reducing poverty is 'merely a means to an end' of doing best for the most people.

Supposed God appeared and offered to cast a spell so that everyone would magically become equal in economic wealth, which would be just a few ticks above the 'poverty level' (so everyone makes $30,000 a year), but there would be NO economic growth whatsoever. The economy never grows and new technology doesn't come about because of the lack of growth in the economy (who could afford to invest in things or buy brand new products) I don't think anyone would find such an economy desirable, precisely because reducing poverty is merely a means to an end.

	27-08-2004 08:12									#116
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui quote: No that would suck. If the percentage of people living in misery is increasing while abstract quantities of 'wealth' are increasing even more big deal. If the middle class and up are making insanely more money, so what if a few more people fall under the poverty line? Big deal. quote: decreases in poverty are much closer to being the real ultimate end while economic growth is just another means to that end. The 'end' is to do what is best for the most people. Astronomical increases in economic growth while only a few more people go into poverty is best for most people, especially those in the middle class. Let me come up with a contrary thought experiment to show that reducing poverty is 'merely a means to an end' of doing best for the most people. Supposed God appeared and offered to cast a spell so that everyone would magically become equal in economic wealth, which would be just a few ticks above the 'poverty level' (so everyone makes $30,000 a year), but there would be NO economic growth whatsoever. The economy never grows and new technology doesn't come about because of the lack of growth in the economy (who could afford to invest in things or buy brand new products) I don't think anyone would find such an economy desirable, precisely because reducing poverty is merely a means to an end.

I would certainly take the magic spell in your example over the magic spell in my example.

However if your point is that a policy mindset that simply seeks to eliminate poverty without any regard to economic growth could lead to results far from ideal I agree.

I should also add that I accept temporary increases in poverty if a close examination suggests that economic growth was large enough to promise future reductions in poverty to offset it.

	27-08-2004 08:13									#117
	Suffering from ads?

And my point is also that a minor increase in poverty is not that bad when there is astronomical growth. More people benefit from that growth than lose out by being in poverty.

	27-08-2004 08:22									#118
	Remove this text

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui And my point is also that a minor increase in poverty is not that bad when there is astronomical growth. More people benefit from that growth than lose out by being in poverty.

Well, I think that trend would still suck if it was ongoing and longterm. If poverty were to increase year by year over a period of time longer than typical economic cycles i would no longer care how much the middle and upper classes bennefited. The only way I might find such a situation acceptable would be if the economic growth appeared to be driving increased rates of research that should reverse the trend at some point in the future.

Judging from your posts I think we may still disgree on the concept of diminishing returns on wealth. That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea?

	27-08-2004 08:25									#119
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

it is terrible though if it is continued

you end up with another noble class

Jon Miller

	27-08-2004 08:33									#120
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I think the problem is that you enjoy assigning strawmen. Where does anyone say that this term will continue and ongo until we have 70% under the poverty line? You are asserting strawmen because having 13 million under the poverty line instead of 12 million, while GDP rises by 3-4% is a good thing for the economy. If there were 50% or so under the poverty line, the GDP would fall. Like I said, the end is do the best for the most people.

I don't see how it is so hard to understand that 1 million people dropping under the poverty line while correspondinly 100 million people gain money is a good thing.

quote: That is to say if a middle or upper class income is doubled it will pretty much always lead to a lesser increase in real standard of living than if an impoverished persons income is doubled even though by definition this would be a lesser absolute economic increase in every case. Do we disagree on this idea?

Yes, because all economic growth is not consumption based. In fact the US has problems with savings and thus we require massive foriegn investment. Even if the people who make more don't spend it, they will invest it, resulting in economic growth through investment.

A lot of people seem to ignore that GDP is made out of Consumption, Investment, Government Spending, and Net Exports... NOT just Consumption.