• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Sowell: The Mindset of the Left: Part II

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013


The political left has long claimed the role of protector of "the poor." It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are "the poor"?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about "the poor" that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-ii.html

If a person now getting gov't assistance can get a job making $10,000 or more and lose their $15,000 gov't assistance, do you think they'd accept the employment?
Studies show that the Progressive agenda promotes envy and a sense of grievance, making further demands for "rights" to what others work hard to produce. The progressive agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty, but produces more poverty and produced more power and self-aggrandizement.
 

Redress

Liberal Fascist For Life!
Moderator
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 5, 2008
Messages
107,762
Reaction score
51,668
Location
Georgia
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013


The political left has long claimed the role of protector of "the poor." It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are "the poor"?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about "the poor" that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.

[Excerpt]


Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-ii.html

If a person now getting gov't assistance can get a job making $10,000 or more and lose their $15,000 gov't assistance, do you think they'd accept the employment?
Studies show that the Progressive agenda promotes envy and a sense of grievance, making further demands for "rights" to what others work hard to produce. The progressive agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty, but produces more poverty and produced more power and self-aggrandizement.


But at least it also promotes thinking for oneselves, which is anathema to the conservative agenda.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
So, helping the poor hurts them. Feel good nonsense for the "it's all about me" Right Wingnuts. What a crock of crap.
 

Goshin

Burned Out Ex-Mod
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
45,524
Reaction score
50,126
Location
Dixie
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013


The political left has long claimed the role of protector of "the poor." It is one of their central moral claims to political power. But how valid is this claim?
Leaders of the left in many countries have promoted policies that enable the poor to be more comfortable in their poverty. But that raises a fundamental question: Just who are "the poor"?
If you use a bureaucratic definition of poverty as including all individuals or families below some arbitrary income level set by the government, then it is easy to get the kinds of statistics about "the poor" that are thrown around in the media and in politics. But do those statistics have much relationship to reality?
"Poverty" once had some concrete meaning — not enough food to eat or not enough clothing or shelter to protect you from the elements, for example. Today it means whatever the government bureaucrats, who set up the statistical criteria, choose to make it mean. And they have every incentive to define poverty in a way that includes enough people to justify welfare state spending.
Most Americans with incomes below the official poverty level have air-conditioning, television, own a motor vehicle and, far from being hungry, are more likely than other Americans to be overweight. But an arbitrary definition of words and numbers gives them access to the taxpayers' money.

[Excerpt]

Read more:
http://www.creators.com/print/conservative/thomas-sowell/the-mindset-of-the-left-part-ii.html

If a person now getting gov't assistance can get a job making $10,000 or more and lose their $15,000 gov't assistance, do you think they'd accept the employment?
Studies show that the Progressive agenda promotes envy and a sense of grievance, making further demands for "rights" to what others work hard to produce. The progressive agenda has seldom lifted the poor out of poverty, but produces more poverty and produced more power and self-aggrandizement.


As much respect as I have for Thomas Sowell, I have to express a caution about painting "the poor" with a broad brush.


There are a lot of people who work full time but struggle to live what most Americans consider a "decent life". Many make do with housing that middle-class Americans would consider appallingly inadequate. Many make do without air conditioning and struggle to keep the house warm enough to avoid frozen pipes in the winter.

In most non-urban locales, a vehicle is not a luxury, it is a necessity... many working-poor families have old high-mileage vehicles that break down a lot and require much maintenance and repair, because they can't afford anything newer or better.

Heathcare costs are breaking many people's savings accounts and taking a huge bite out of their paychecks. I know a devoted husband whose wife has been too sick to work for over a decade.... between health insurance and her medical costs that aren't covered by it, nearly half his modest paycheck is gone every month before a single bill is paid.

I know a young woman with brains and ambition and potential... and children. She qualified for government assistance to go back to school covering her tuition and basic living expenses... but for some reason she was denied coverage for child-care expenses. She had to drop the idea of going back to school for her nursing degree because she had no one to watch her children and the program declined to cover child care, so she went back to working a menial job instead, leaving her considerable potential to go to waste.

We could do better than this.
 

radioman

feckless bon vivant
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 26, 2013
Messages
4,958
Reaction score
3,656
Location
lotusland
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
By Thomas Sowell
July 2, 2013
[/B][/I]
--------------------

Holy crap, it's only July 1st.
How could anyone KNOW what Sowell was gonna write the day BEFORE it's published?
I sense that something is not kosher here....I'm off to the conspiracy forum.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
Conservatives to America: "Poverty doesn't exist. Nothing is happening here people."

Delusional thinking is currently the sine qua non of conservatism.
 

TurtleDude

warrior of the wetlands
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
257,586
Reaction score
78,455
Location
Ohio
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
Conservatives to America: "Poverty doesn't exist. Nothing is happening here people."

Delusional thinking is currently the sine qua non of conservatism.

using strawmen to attack conservatives is your SOP
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
So, helping the poor hurts them. Feel good nonsense for the "it's all about me" Right Wingnuts. What a crock of crap.


the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it - Benjamin Franklin

Personally I think he had the right idea. I pulled myself up from my bootstraps without the help of Welfare or any gov't help. Why can't others
 

Heebie Jeebie

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
5,016
Reaction score
1,290
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
So, helping the poor hurts them. Feel good nonsense for the "it's all about me" Right Wingnuts. What a crock of crap.

Helping people remain poor is not really a good policy even though it may make you feel good.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Helping people remain poor is not really a good policy even though it may make you feel good.
Helping them remain poor? WTF? Providing assistance does not help someone remain poor. People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.

Do R Wingers ever listen to the stuff they say?
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,078
Reaction score
17,560
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Helping them remain poor? WTF? Providing assistance does not help someone remain poor. People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.

Do R Wingers ever listen to the stuff they say?
America's War On Poverty Has Been A Failure, But The Government Won't Stop Spending - Investors.com
 

iliveonramen

Pontificator
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 23, 2011
Messages
11,258
Reaction score
5,716
Location
On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it - Benjamin Franklin

Personally I think he had the right idea. I pulled myself up from my bootstraps without the help of Welfare or any gov't help. Why can't others

I'm sure you had a lot of help...
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist

People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.

Would you rather we let them starve and die on the streets?
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,078
Reaction score
17,560
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
People remain poor for various reasons, most of them personal like lack of brains, education, and/or opportunities. Also playing a part is illness, addiction, mental defect and being raised by terrible parents. All of these things can impede raising oneself out of poverty. But feeding them and providing them social programs is not one of them.

Would you rather we let them starve and die on the streets?
Yes, yes. I want them for FOOD. Seriously, if we can offer a vibrant and growing economy with plenty of jobs, even the menial ones for some, we can help them help themselves out of poverty. Poverty will never be eliminated. We can help, and we must, but the power to avoid starvation, homelessness and the like rightfully should rest with the individual first. There must be a desire to improve and a clear path. Right now I see neither.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
Yes, yes. I want them for FOOD. Seriously, if we can offer a vibrant and growing economy with plenty of jobs, even the menial ones for some, we can help them help themselves out of poverty. Poverty will never be eliminated. We can help, and we must, but the power to avoid starvation, homelessness and the like rightfully should rest with the individual first. There must be a desire to improve and a clear path. Right now I see neither.
Biggest problem I see is incompetent parents raising kids who end up a bigger mess then the already messed up parents. Add to that the fact that most of these "at risk" children are being raised in single-parent households, and you can easily see the problem growing exponentially.

To solve poverty, we would have to yank "at risk" kids away from any and all terrible parents. However, pulling kids away from Mama is not exactly the American way.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,078
Reaction score
17,560
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Biggest problem I see is incompetent parents raising kids who end up a bigger mess then the already messed up parents. Add to that the fact that most of these "at risk" children are being raised in single-parent households, and you can easily see the problem growing exponentially.

To solve poverty, we would have to yank "at risk" kids away from any and all terrible parents. However, pulling kids away from Mama is not exactly the American way.
I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.
That's just platitudes. "I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father."

WTF?

Other than those words sounding good, they are worthless. It's obviously not reality. Thus, it's not a workable solution. If parents assumed responsibility when they had children--both mother and father---we would not be in this mess.
 

humbolt

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2013
Messages
26,078
Reaction score
17,560
Location
SW Virginia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
That's just platitudes. "I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father."

WTF?

Other than those words sounding good, they are worthless. It's obviously not reality. Thus, it's not a workable solution. If parents assumed responsibility when they had children--both mother and father---we would not be in this mess.
It's a bit more than platypuses, because if we don't encourage responsible parenting and enforce it when necessary, then we're stuck with the reality you claim - and you readily admit the superiority of just such a process in your final sentence. So, WTF? indeed. You're just looking for yet another easy way out of a problem you already know the solution to, while crying "it's just tooooo hard to do it the right way". Crap, even the inimitable Obama endorses parental responsibility - won't do much about it, but endorses it just the same.
 

calamity

Privileged
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 12, 2013
Messages
149,815
Reaction score
50,541
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Centrist
It's a bit more than platypuses, because if we don't encourage responsible parenting and enforce it when necessary, then we're stuck with the reality you claim - and you readily admit the superiority of just such a process in your final sentence. So, WTF? indeed. You're just looking for yet another easy way out of a problem you already know the solution to, while crying "it's just tooooo hard to do it the right way". Crap, even the inimitable Obama endorses parental responsibility - won't do much about it, but endorses it just the same.

You're missing my point. How do you enforce parental responsibility? If you have a mother with IQ is 90-100, who watches television all day, works at McD's half the night because R Wingers cut off her food stamps, welfare checks and subsidized housing, who is going to raise the kid---whose IQ is also probably around 100? And, even if you have a father in the home, what's to say he's any better? In fact, statistics say he will be worse: less responsible, violent and in trouble with the law.
 

rocket88

Mod Conspiracy Theorist
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 7, 2011
Messages
44,374
Reaction score
19,955
Location
A very blue state
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
I love these threads where someone tells the other side what they think. "This Is What Liberals Think" by A. Conservative.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
using strawmen to attack conservatives is your SOP

Wehr's "arguments" are made of straw.

By the way, nice attempt at the reversomeme. The only strawman here is in the OP.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
I'm not for the state assuming parental responsibilities. I'm all for parents assuming the responsibility they chose when they had children - both mother and father. My point in this is that a dynamic and growing economy is the first concrete step to be taken. The cost of the war on poverty in total exceeds our current annual GDP, and poverty is a mere few percentage points below what it was when the war was started. That's not victory. That's a bad joke - not only on those who are poor, but also on those who have paid for the effort. The economics is far easier to treat than the social problems, which will require generations now to repair.

Translated: if parents are irresponsible or poor, you're for letting their children suffer.

This is part of the punitive nature of the conservative personality. In the end, conservatives always want to blame somebody and make sure somebody suffers (except Bush of course -- you're not allowed to hold conservatives responsible for their failed policies)
 

Wehrwolfen

Banned
Joined
May 11, 2013
Messages
2,329
Reaction score
402
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Translated: if parents are irresponsible or poor, you're for letting their children suffer.

This is part of the punitive nature of the conservative personality. In the end, conservatives always want to blame somebody and make sure somebody suffers (except Bush of course -- you're not allowed to hold conservatives responsible for their failed policies)

So how much of your wealth do you share with the poor? Or are you always only on the receiving end?
 

Paratrooper

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 13, 2012
Messages
889
Reaction score
686
Location
Al
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
"Fifteen trillion dollars: That’s how much American taxpayers have forked over in the name of helping the poor since 1964. And what do we have to show for it? "

“the poverty rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now at the highest level in nearly a decade” — 15.1 percent and climbing."

"At the federal level alone there are now 126 separate anti-poverty programs administered by seven different cabinet agencies and six independent agencies."

"Federal welfare spending has risen 375 percent (in constant 2011 dollars) since 1965. Total welfare spending has climbed almost as much: Governments are now disbursing $908 billion a year to alleviate poverty, up from $256 billion (also in constant dollars) in 1965."

“The vast majority of current programs are focused on making poverty more comfortable — giving poor people more food, better shelter, health care, and so forth — rather than giving people the tools that will help them escape poverty."

Lets call it what it is: a carrot on a stick for buying votes.

Every time conservatives try to reign in the ludicrously out of control spending, they say "look don't vote for them they want you to starve!"

Yet people managed to survive long before these programs existed.
 

head of joaquin

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 19, 2012
Messages
12,029
Reaction score
3,530
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Progressive
So how much of your wealth do you share with the poor? Or are you always only on the receiving end?

God, I love your pointed questions! I give $10M to the poor every year. Don't you love the internet?
 
Top Bottom