60 minutes

[dogma]

That's a poor analogy. American farmers who work 10-16 hrs a day growing the food America eats, as well as so many countries in the world.

 

When you have a $750,000 combine for harvesting, a $13,000 planter, a $ 235,000 tractor or two,

 

and the price of a bushel of soybeans is 10.00, and a bushel of corn is 6.50, and

 

and drought hits before you can harvest your crops, or a flood hits...

 

you really think that is the same thing as poor people living off welfare in some project?

 

I know I'm always saying that liberals don't think, they "feel"...

 

but your angst about the entitlement problems has really led you astray.

 

The subsidies for farmers helps them stay being farmers, and helps offset a little of the costs of farming

 

so that American can have food on the table. Society gets a huge ass return on that investment.

 

With the welfare problem, society gets a seriously bad negative return on THAT investment.

 

Now, really, if it has a negative return, or zero return, don't spend it.

 

Well you know some get money to not plant.

How's that pay off?

Seriously, I don't have a problem with the farmer being the man.

But, our farm system is messed up if you consider how to economically feed the most people.

Our welfare does pay off in that the money goes directly back into the economy.

Even if they buy crack that money gets into the economy too.

[calfoxwc]

But the long term problems it has caused, speaking of the permanent welfare for those who just

 

expect it forever, but COULD get a job ... or at least LEARN a trade...

 

don't outweigh that money going back into the economy.

 

It's still a negative return, which ends up being a worsening negative return over time.

 

BTW, the farmer subsidy for NOT planting? Dumb, and happily taken advantage of,

 

on a lot of occasions. it's "intention' is to avoid the extremes of too many folks planting

 

the same lucrative crop, which would flood the market, and cause prices to plummet,

 

and there goes the ability of farmers to make a profit....

 

But I still don't like it.

 

Our farm system is messed up? How is that? What is more efficient - the state owning all land, and hiring workers to work on the land,

 

and the gov sells the product?

 

Then the gov can set the price. and whenever they need more money, which they always would...

 

Nope. I don't get what you mean.

[dogma]

But the long term problems it has caused, speaking of the permanent welfare for those who just

 

expect it forever, but COULD get a job ... or at least LEARN a trade...

 

don't outweigh that money going back into the economy.

 

It's still a negative return, which ends up being a worsening negative return over time.

 

BTW, the farmer subsidy for NOT planting? Dumb, and happily taken advantage of,

 

on a lot of occasions. it's "intention' is to avoid the extremes of too many folks planting

 

the same lucrative crop, which would flood the market, and cause prices to plummet,

 

and there goes the ability of farmers to make a profit....

 

But I still don't like it.

 

Our farm system is messed up? How is that? What is more efficient - the state owning all land, and hiring workers to work on the land,

 

and the gov sells the product?

 

Then the gov can set the price. and whenever they need more money, which they always would...

 

Nope. I don't get what you mean.

Who said anything about the government owning anything?

Apparently there's a perception that giving money to farmers doesn't create a government dependency in the way that welfare does.

And I guess money given to farms isn't the same as bailout money and we're not actually saying the government owns farms in the same way we hear the government has taken over GM.

I don't like having a society where people have learned to be helpless either. My only point is they're not the ONLY ones on the government dole.

Maybe in the way we pay farmers not to plant we should pay people not to have babies. And then pay them to illegally enter Canada. jk

Welfare has been reformed as much or more than some subsidies have been regulated.

 

Our disagreement comes in which investment pays off more in the end. I get it.

I distrust the "carping on welfare moms" point of view though because it's narrow and it's a myth.

Sure there are scoff laws in welfare, but there's a lot of welfare recipients who benefit and turn around to contribute.

There are plenty of white collar rip offs and one of them would cover thousands of welfare queens, but we still get the message that our major problem is the welfare people.

I just don't see the reality of welfare being the MAJOR drain on our economy.

 

[Westside Steve]

Well here's my take Heck.

I'm not sure if you think the Frum piece is some kind of revelation for me but I'd bet you'll not see any post from me that's way different.

Of course there is a socialism capitalism scale. and as society ages we slide incrementally left.

No one is advocating financial anarchy.

But I think it's a little simplistic to say the markets are more stable solely because of the welfare state.

There were way more important factors during the great depression.

(aside from the fact we do like to embellish crises)

As an agricultural society the dust bowl kicked the shit out of us.

Not to mention the fact that we were in a worldwide manufacturiong shift.

(Fueled BTW by technology and low wages)

 

Imagine this past recession coupled with a natural disaster like the drought.

Say the internet quit working for some reason.

We'd be SOL.

 

I just think that sooner or later we'll have to face the valid reasons I gave before about the US job scene.

If the days of 4.5 average unemployment are in the past we'll need to accept the idea that number will be closer to 8 or 9% chronic unemployment.

And that will be an entitlement as in many post industrial European countries.

The good news is that soon enough the Chinese will want more and some other country will start building stuff.

Luckily it's a slow process. Well for us baby boomers anyway. <<GG>>

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

He's not saying markets are more stable solely because of the welfare state. He's saying that there's a valid economic theory behind things like unemployment benefits and food stamps, and that the rank and file on the right tend to ignore all of this and obsess about laziness and promoting dependency. Not to mention the other reasons to extend people help in economic downturns.

 

And since we have been having this "dependency" and "laziness" argument for weeks, I thought you might enjoy hearing from someone else. Because I think he's talking about you. That's what you always focus on, too.

 

Frum certainly isn't a revelation. However, he's one of the few remaining figures on the right who are willing to take on the sad state of modern-day movement conservatism. He's also one of the few remaining figures who would qualify as the type of moderate Republican of yesteryear. They're a dying breed - those who have conservative economic or even social ideas, but who argue them from a place that's grounded in reality and data, not ideology and pique.

 

I wish there were many more like him. There aren't.

 

Have a good Thanksgiving.

[Westside Steve]

He's not saying markets are more stable solely because of the welfare state. He's saying that there's a valid economic theory behind things like unemployment benefits and food stamps, and that the rank and file on the right tend to ignore all of this and obsess about laziness and promoting dependency. Not to mention the other reasons to extend people help in economic downturns.

 

And since we have been having this "dependency" and "laziness" argument for weeks, I thought you might enjoy hearing from someone else. Because I think he's talking about you. That's what you always focus on, too.

 

Frum certainly isn't a revelation. However, he's one of the few remaining figures on the right who are willing to take on the sad state of modern-day movement conservatism. He's also one of the few remaining figures who would qualify as the type of moderate Republican of yesteryear. They're a dying breed - those who have conservative economic or even social ideas, but who argue them from a place that's grounded in reality and data, not ideology and pique.

 

I wish there were many more like him. There aren't.

 

Have a good Thanksgiving.

 

 

Actully Heck I think you've tried to frame it as a laziness issue

Loke many did with the war funding I just point out the dough has to come from somewhere.

What I've tried to say is that in the example you gave (San Jose) 500 bucks a week isn't going to cut it.

In East Canton Ohio it's not bad.

 

But rather than continue to bludgeon me with the scrooge club can we agree on a certain unemployment number in which the benefits end?

When it reaches 6%? 7% ?

 

You doing dinner at your house this year?

 

WSS

[heckofajobbrownie]

I'd think about ending the benefits when the job market picks up and when the economy is no longer in need of stimulus. Neither are true now, or are going to be true for a while.

 

Obviously the money has to come from somewhere. You didn't need to point that out. Then again, you're in favor of borrowing money to finance tax cuts for really rich people, but are against borrowing money to issue unemployment benefits to people who are struggling to make ends meet. And, as you (now) know, one idea is far more effective as stimulus than the other.

 

I think you let your distaste for what you think is "soaking the rich" and "class warfare" go from what it should be, which is an issue of personal taste, to what it is - how you determine what the policy should be. I'd rather do what's best for the economy and for struggling workers than something that isn't as effective, but reconfirms what I already think about people.

 

And I should have stayed home for Thanksgiving. It's been an extended relative nightmare. Hope yours was better.