SegwayChat
Home . Old Gallery

Go Back   SegwayChat > Other Topics > General Discussion

Notices

General Discussion Miscellaneous topics and for general social, non-Segway discussions.

Old 08-14-2011, 12:32 AM   #21
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Civicsman View Post
I agree with you, GBrandwood. In no way am I arguing that riots are a good thing. Nor am I arguing that the UK riots, specifically, are justified or that the people involved in them were anything but thugs. My point was that desperate people will do desperate things, and some times that results in a riot.



Again, you restate my position...incorrectly. I did not say one could not control most of our "destiny". I agree with that, but there is a part that even you agree is outside of control, but which you choose to minimize because it is not consistent with your "I am the master of all I survey" perspective. This perspective survives because you have not been a victim of events outside your control.

I can only say that we differ in thinking. I know for a fact that bad things can happen to good people, no matter how smart they think they are or how good they think their planning is. Your good fortune and the associated, "I'm pretty darned good at controlling my environment, and lesser folks deserve what they get" may continue though your life. However, if "destiny" serves you a curve ball, you can only hope that there are compassionate people around to help scrape you off the ground, as there certainly won't be any people with the "he failed to master his own destiny" helping when you need it most.
Civicsman,

Your pontification on that which you have no idea about continues to amaze me. You know absolutely nothing about my life, and therefore any trials or tribulations I have been thru, and furthermore how good or bad my fortune has been.

Simply because I do not hold others accountable to help me thru my downfalls does not mean I am not compassionate or that I feel others with problems are lesser folks. That is very much YOU speaking, not me.

I have never said that bad things cannot happen to good people, but that has nothing to do with anything I have said. Control of your destiny does not mean you never deal with adversity, but rather how you deal with it.

Gareth made a great point, that those riots being organized by those with portable twitter/BBerry/Facebook accounts makes them more affluent than his concept of how poor he would have to be to resort to desperate behavior.

I agree with that.

As far as your prediction of destiny serving me a curve ball and being dependent upon compassionate people scraping me up, I hope they do. I have been blessed with compassion of that sort in the past, and done my best to reciprocate. I do more than just reciprocate however. I try to affect change, and teach that compassion. And just for the record, I have not seen that much compassion from government employees as I have from other folks. And the government employees who did demonstrate it did so because of their good nature, not their job description.

All of this does nothing to support your earlier diatribe about deregulation causing all those people to loose their houses. I do appreciate your ability to twist that unsupported claim into a dire prediction for me however. Consistency is somewhat comforting.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 09:45 AM   #22
Civicsman
Senior Member
Civicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of light
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
The governments still collect a higher percentage of the GDP than at most any other time in our history...
WHERE do you get this stuff? Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid! When one starts with a belief that is fundamentally incorrect, everything that springs from that belief is likely to be deeply flawed. Stated another way, GIGO.

The total tax burden levied by the US government is now lower than it has been since 1950!
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfa....cfm?Docid=205

Maybe you can claim that Massachusetts makes up for the lowest federal taxation rate in 50 years? Nevertheless, if "we're broke" (we are NOT), the reason would be because of the inadequate rate of taxation for the services we receive.

Deregulation of the financial industry may not have "caused" people to lose their homes, but it enabled it. A simple analogy might be a flood. The failure to build a flood control dam does not "cause" a flood, but not having a dam certainly allows it to happen. Deregulation allowed the financial institutions to run amok with "investments" that were crap, but completely legal. Without oversight, some companies will always gravitate towards unethical behavior.

As for whether I know "absolutely nothing" about your life, I could say that you also know nothing about mine. Yet, somehow, you keep drawing conclusions about my beliefs. How is this possible?

Clearly, I get my perspective about you the same way you get your perspective about me...by what we write. True, I don't know a lot about the details of your life, aside from the fact that you taught skydiving, which you find the opportunity to mention more often than one could possibly imagine, but after thousands of posts espousing your personal perspectives, it is disingenuous to claim readers here know nothing about you. One is a product of one's environment, and I am pretty comfortable with my understanding of the type of person you are.
Civicsman is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 01:43 PM   #23
PeteInLongBeach
Member
PeteInLongBeach has a spectacular aura aboutPeteInLongBeach has a spectacular aura about
 
PeteInLongBeach's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Long Beach, CA
Posts: 1,127
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolacoy View Post
Lots of good points that I agree with, but who are you replying to. If it is some liberal, it's like talking to a stump.
Insults do not add substance to a dialogue, only discord....
PeteInLongBeach is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 01:48 PM   #24
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Civicsman,

I make my own good fortune. You did not acknowledge that. Some time I fail in my ability to make that fortune good.

I should not make presentations to others that your life has included or not included certain things that you have not admitted to. I try not to. Sometime I do make presumptions about your life or experiences based on your conclusions, and how you present them here.

If I post those presumptions as anything other than my opinions or guesses, I would be just as wrong as when you do the same about my life.

As I might have done this, I accept any guilt that is appropriate. It is wrong to do this.

So is sniping at others on this forum. I shall try not to do it as much. There is much about your postings that I do not agree. There is much about your postings that I feel are presented as facts that are not. So be it. Our disagreement is hardly news to any regular reader.

Unlike your wish for me to be in the need to be scraped up from the pavement by the compassion of others, I wish upon you the opportunity to be ignorant of ever being there. I do not wish for you to see that which I have seen. I do not wish it upon anyone.

Have a nice day. Keep your balloons flying, and lets both hope they are never popped. Keep gliding, keep smiling.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 08:59 PM   #25
Civicsman
Senior Member
Civicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of lightCivicsman is a glorious beacon of light
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Freedonia!
Posts: 1,703
5 yr Member
Default

Quote:
Unlike your wish for me to be in the need to be scraped up from the pavement by the compassion of others,...
I neither wrote nor implied any such thing. Here is my statement.

Quote:
However, if "destiny" serves you a curve ball, you can only hope that there are compassionate people around to help scrape you off the ground, as there certainly won't be any people with the "he failed to master his own destiny" helping when you need it most.
Quite clearly, there is no "wish for [you] to be in the need to be scraped up...". Unless you think I have control of your destiny, your perspective is colored by a fact that does not exist.

Stated another way, I simply said that stuff happens. I agree that good fortune favors the prepared, but bad stuff can still happen to anyone, whether they "make their own good fortune" or not. I support a progressive, compassionate society that acknowledges this, and provides support for those in need. Others may feel differently.
Civicsman is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 09:37 PM   #26
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Civicsman View Post
I neither wrote nor implied any such thing. Here is my statement.



Quite clearly, there is no "wish for [you] to be in the need to be scraped up...". Unless you think I have control of your destiny, your perspective is colored by a fact that does not exist.

Stated another way, I simply said that stuff happens. I agree that good fortune favors the prepared, but bad stuff can still happen to anyone, whether they "make their own good fortune" or not. I support a progressive, compassionate society that acknowledges this, and provides support for those in need. Others may feel differently.
Each person will define "provides support" differently. Surely you and I do.

I believe that in the long run, giving people money instead of giving them the opportunity to earn that money is not a service at all, but something that robs them of their dignity.

There has been a lot of social engineering done by people who subsidize other than 'Mom, Dad, Kids' family units, or all kinds of other variations from common living conditions as they were for many generations. The cost of this is twofold, one in that my tax dollars pay for it, and two in the loss of production and work ethic that comes from the social impact of people being paid to not be productive, rather than being paid or rewarded for being productive.

Many of the lessons of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps' and self independence have been replace with the mantra that the society (meaning my tax dollars) have to support people, because they are not able to do it themselves. The concept that bad things happen to good people is not new, but the responsibility to prepare for it, and grow stronger by living thru it are becoming things of the past, replaced by big brother will place a net under everyone because no one is able to survive without that net...

Telling people that there is no problem with being on the public dole is not a service in my mind. Telling people that not everyone should pull their weight is not a service in my mind.

I support a compassionate society that acknowledges this, and provides support for those in need. Others may feel differently.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.
KSagal is offline  
Old 08-14-2011, 10:17 PM   #27
Bob.Kerns
Advanced Member
Bob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of light
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 3,783
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSagal View Post
There has been a lot of social engineering done by people who subsidize other than 'Mom, Dad, Kids' family units, or all kinds of other variations from common living conditions as they were for many generations. The cost of this is twofold, one in that my tax dollars pay for it, and two in the loss of production and work ethic that comes from the social impact of people being paid to not be productive, rather than being paid or rewarded for being productive.
You mean, like foster parents?

Your thinking appears to be muddled here. Not wrong, just muddled, as in mixing together separate issues.

Yes, there's lots of social engineering, both by people I don't want having their hands on my wallet, and people I don't want having hands on my life.

But I don't know of ANY subsidies -- not one -- that targets "untraditional family units" or anything I can interpret to fit your description, other than foster care.

Let's see, the EIC is based on children; it's not subsidizing any sort of living arrangement; it's neutral. The tax code itself provides a major savings for traditional married couples -- kids or no -- that is not available to anyone else. Unemployment is based on -- employment, and not living situation. WIC is based again on children, and pregnant women, and isn't subsidizing any particular living situation.

I get that you don't like the way some people live. But it sounds like you want to engage on some social engineering yourself, and deny them benefits that you'd grant them if they lived the way you want them to.

If you ever need assistance, do YOU want the government digging into your living arrangements? Maybe you move in with your wife's sister -- do you want them asking whether that's consistent with some notion of "family values"? No, I think you SHOULD be insulted by any such line of questioning.

You're engaged in social engineering when you talk about incentives. You can't escape it -- any choice we make has social consequences. I happen to agree. The WPA was both highly effective AND provided a major investment in infrastructure that still benefits us 80 years later.

While, certain rather economically-challenged pundits aside, the TARP stimulus program did have an economic multiplier and benefit, it still was ill-conceived. Extending unemployment benefits may be better than having people be too broke to stay in their homes, but most people on unemployment would rather have productive work.

But if you dump someone into a WPA-style situation, it also means they're not out there looking for work on their own. It doesn't completely escape being a trap -- but it does make it easier for the guy who is competing for that same job. It's better than sitting on unemployment for jobs that just don't exist.

AND, we, the taxpayers, actually get something for our money.

But 1) any discussion of incentives or not is social engineering, and 2) none of this has anything to do with the nature of whatever type of family unit you don't happen to like.

Just to be clear -- I prefer two-parent households to one-parent households, assuming reasonable quality of parents. But I'm not about to suggest economically penalizing single-parent households. That both makes it worse, not better, and violates any standard of basic fairness.

Consider an 18-year-old mother with two kids by two different fathers, and living with a man not the father of either. Whether I like it or not is one thing -- whether it's the government's business is quite another.

Of course, government shouldn't be creating that situation. It might have something to do with our insane prison population.

Oh, wait, I forgot about THAT bit of non-traditional subsidy. Dad in prison, all expenses paid. Right.
__________________
Bob Kerns:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obviously, we can't have infinite voltage, or the universe would tear itself to shreds, and we wouldn't be discussing Segways.
Bob.Kerns is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 06:20 AM   #28
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Nice rant Bob, I did not mean to hit a nerve.

If a woman is 18, has two kids by two different men, as you suggested, and gets pregnant by another, she will get more money. To suggest this is never considered by that girl is just putting your head in the sand.

How you made the leap to foster care, I do not know. Lots of couples (one man, one woman) foster children.

Lots of single parent households provide for and create good young adults. But most single parents will admit it would be much easier, and better for the child if there were two loving parents instead of one.

And lets stop repeating the lies about single parenthood. That simple does not exist, never has. (I happen to be Jewish, but another religion states that there was once a single parent named Mary, and I will not dispute that here, but she will be the only exception I will acknowledge)

Any single parent household has only a few possible creation opportunities. One of the parents may have died. That does happen, but statistically not that often. Usually, one of the parents simply does not act responsibly, and is not in the home, is not fulfilling their responsibilities to the life they created. It is no wonder that when one parent is allowed this level of responsibility, that more and more other forms of irresponsibility is fostered, and nurtured, and paid for with tax dollars.

Some single parent households have both parents being irresponsible. An 18 year old woman (girl) with two children as you presented, with multiple fathers for the children is hardly a shining example of responsible behavior on any level. And lets not forget that the only way that a can exist includes at least one statutory rape, perhaps two. But, why hold anyone responsible for that either, right?

I believe that a simple nuclear family of a mom, dad, and stable household is the best place to raise kids. It is not the only possibility, but it is the best likelihood for a safe, healthy place to raise them. Why is it such a bad thing to suggest it should be what is encouraged by society?

It is a common axiom that is true. If you want more of a particular behavior, subsidize it. If you want less, penalize it (tax it). Go ahead, tell me that getting money for doing something is not an incentive.

I do believe that many people on unemployment would like to work. But I also know that many jobs are out there, that people would rather not do. If they get paid anyway, they will not do them. IF their money from the government runs out, they may be forced to work below their station. That stinks. But it is the way life works.

I have often had to work below my station. Have you?

I believe that taking a bad job, just to pay the bills, is often a better incentive to finding a better job than just being paid to sit and collect unemployment. It is harder, but better. Of course, that is my personal values.

I pay into unemployment, it is an insurance of sorts, and was not speaking of it anyway, even though you made me defend it. Long term, generational welfare still exists, and was what I was speaking of. That is what robs people of their dignity, and what I was referring to. But how long can you be on unemployment before it becomes welfare? I don't know. I do know people who have been on unemployment for years.

I believe the social values and morals of this country are less than they were in most ways. I am sorry if my saying so offends some, but that is still my opinion. And I am not at all sorry that it is my opinion, and with any luck, I will be able to demonstrate to my children how and why that is, so it will become their opinion as well. Each journey begins with one step, and we have a long way to go to improve our collective value systems.


Edit:

I just re-read your post. You wanted me to defend paying household expenses for households with dad in prison. I am not sure why, I don't have too much experience with this particular scenario. (I believe I have some relatives on my wife's side who spend some months in jail for drug offenses when young, but I am not too clear on the details)

I suspect that if dad is in jail, it is because he broke the law. That is what happens. Why should I pay for his family? She should move back with her mother, with the kids, and hang her head low for the bad choice she made in men to father her brood. I don't know where you want me to go with this.

If I break the law, and go to jail, my family will suffer. Believe it or not, that is a major incentive for me not to break the law. I just don't get how this fits into any response to my earlier post. Sorry that I do not understand.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.

Last edited by KSagal; 08-15-2011 at 06:30 AM..
KSagal is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 04:22 PM   #29
Bob.Kerns
Advanced Member
Bob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of lightBob.Kerns is a glorious beacon of light
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Marin County, CA
Posts: 3,783
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KSagal View Post
Nice rant Bob, I did not mean to hit a nerve.

If a woman is 18, has two kids by two different men, as you suggested, and gets pregnant by another, she will get more money. To suggest this is never considered by that girl is just putting your head in the sand.
She will get more money, which she will then spend on her kids.

I can't deny there are some really stupid 18-year-olds out there, but not enough to base social policy on in ways that penalize everybody else. Nor is this a matter in which I want government to meddle -- despite my distaste for such a lifestyle. If you want to tackle it as a civic or religious organization, more power to you! I might even donate my time to such an effort.

But note carefully, since you seen to have missed it. She is not getting this money because she is a single parent.

As for "no such thing as a single parent", that's a clever little semantic trick, but has no substance to it. You do know EXACTLY what it means, and I really doubt that you'd consider someone who beats his wife and kids to be a proper parent. Or who runs out on them. I suspect we'd even agree to regard them as not being properly human.

Of course, you mean it to hold the biological fathers economically responsible. We already have laws and procedures in effect for that. It's hard to see what more government could do, short of invoking police powers to investigate family matters. But I agree with the sentiment. Fiercely!

I do believe in personal responsibility. But I'm leary of basing social policy on distortions and generalizations, and I'm downright fearful of trying to solve social problems through use of government power -- especially police power, but also economic power.

In fact, that last seems to have been largely your point. Effecting social policy through the tax code or through grants and other direct payments always has unintended consequences. You'l get no argument from me whatsoever on that. Just watch out for politically-manipulated distortions of fact, over-generalization, and over-simplification. We need to work more from real data.

As for "dad in prison", you misread it. You were talking of government subsidies for non-traditional families, and I was pointing out that a lot of such families are created by putting dad in prison for, say, drug possession. And then we PAY FOR THE DAD's ROOM AND BOARD.

So that's clearly a specific subsidy AND cause.

You do realize we put 5x as many Americans in prison as any developed country?

So if you want to look for disruptive influences, look there.

Anyway, I refer you back to my opening remarks. I said your thinking was muddled, not wrong.

We do agree on the basic point that you have to look at incentives that things create, and the effects. Those are real issues --but they've been distorted and magnified by various craven politicians over the years, giving a popular impression of poverty and need that is somewhat at variance with the reality.

The reality is complex. So are the solutions. It's not enough to just make it painful to be poor. You also have to give people hope that they can change things, that there IS a future for them out there.

Based on the evidence, I'd say we're doing a pretty poor job of that in some communities, where a major fraction of young males end up in jail, and a life of crime. The stories I hear from people who AVOID doing that -- not excuses! -- make it clear that there's a lot more going on than simple laziness.

Unfortunately, as an outsider, it's not my problem to solve. I think we've adequately demonstrated that just throwing money at it is not the solution. I think we've also demonstrated that punishment is not the solution. Bigger jails won't fix it. Better schools might, but just putting money into the schools demonstrably does not make them better by itself.

I think I've had a small but positive influence on my own community, in a community which is filled with positive influences. I'd love to export that to other communities. But history does not give me an hope that changing our government policies will accomplish it. You'd be hard-pressed to find a government that has eliminated wealth and privilege, and that's a lot simpler task than eliminating the cycle of poverty.

Generational poverty existed long before our government came into being. In 235 years, we haven't solved it. Nor has capitalism ever solved it. Nor has socialism. I have to think the solution lies elsewhere. Most likely, the solution requires one-at-a-time efforts, and most likely, education holds the key.

Finally, my intent wasn't to make you defend anything, but to clarify. When you muddle up your points with disparate concerns, it's easy to attack, but also easy to miss what's valid. I think I succeeded; your response is certainly more clear
__________________
Bob Kerns:
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
,
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Obviously, we can't have infinite voltage, or the universe would tear itself to shreds, and we wouldn't be discussing Segways.
Bob.Kerns is offline  
Old 08-15-2011, 04:49 PM   #30
KSagal
Glides a lot, talks more...
KSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud ofKSagal has much to be proud of
 
KSagal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Pelham, NH, USA.
Posts: 10,356
5 yr Member HT/PT Owner SegwayFest Attendee
Default

Bob,

I have two considerations to your last post.

"But note carefully, since you seen to have missed it. She is not getting this money because she is a single parent."

This is simply not the case. If she lives with her boyfriend or the father of her child, she will get more money from the government than if she marries the same man. That is a fact, and a reality in many parts of our society.

That pays people to not get married, but rather to claim to be single parents.

Also note that there are no efforts placed on requiring the mother to provide the name of the father. If the government were to chase him down and make him pay (by among other things requiring it before she gets any more money 'for the children') the incentive would change. But some would say that is an invasion of her privacy to have to disclose the father of her children.

Secondly,

"Generational poverty existed long before our government came into being. In 235 years, we haven't solved it. Nor has capitalism ever solved it. "

Whereas the first part of this statement is accurate, the second is woefully incomplete. The United States has been very capitalistic, and has made more upwardly mobile classes of people more of a reality than any other enterprise on the planet. Capitalism, and a proper republic, where the power remains in the hands of the greater populous, is the best bet for salvation from this problem.

In the last several generations, where the United States has become far more socialistic, this upward mobility has diminished significantly. The war on poverty has been utterly lost. Of course, we have a class of poor people who live better than most others in any class on the planet, but they still feel themselves poor and in need of government handouts, because the government wants them to. (and pays them to be dependent)

So, capitalism gives tools to the industrious poor to become not poor more so than any other policy I am aware of. If you have a better one, please inform me of it. To the lazy of all classes, it offers little.

Interestingly, no socialistic government has ever solved this problem either, but you seem less adverse to it. You would be hard put to show an example of a socialistic government that has produced more wealth for more people then American Capitalism has. Furthermore, every socialistic (or communistic) government I have ever heard of has also had a thriving black market to provide services that the government simply does not provide. This black market exists everywhere, but thrives far less in a capitalistic republic than elsewhere.
__________________
Karl Ian Sagal

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 5 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


"Well done is better than well said." (Ben Franklin)
Bene factum melior bene dictum

Proud past President of SEG America and member of the First Premier Segway Enthusiasts Group and subsequent ones as well.

Last edited by KSagal; 08-15-2011 at 04:55 PM..
KSagal is offline  
Closed Thread

Tags
riot uk


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:27 AM.
Copyright © 2002-2023 SegwayChat.org.
All rights reserved. Not affiliated with Segway Inc.

FreshBlue vBulletin skin by
VayaDesign
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SegwayChat Archive