• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's 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!

What about the stupid?

Are you saying that part of the good old days wasn't on the backs of people who made substantially less than their white counterparts?

When people talk about the good old days, it is from a perspective that is not shared by all.


I'm just saying you interjected race into a conversation that wasn't about race. I can't speak for anyone else, but the only "good old days" I've been talking about was the 80s, and the 80s were when things really opened up for black folks in the business world, so I don't think this is really that relevant.


If you're blue-collar and bottom-half, we're all in the same boat, getting screwed by outsourcing and cheap immigrant/illegal labor.
 
I am not saying that wages should be based on an individual worker's needs. Rather I advocate setting the minimum wage to a level that a person working full time can meet their basic needs in that region.

Hm, ok, what about a part-time employee? Do they too need to be paid as though they are responsible for all their own basic living expenses, even though in reality they aren't?

I don't believe that a person working in a coal mine for pennies a day is making a free choice, they are just making the best choice out of a few bad options.

If someone works in a coal mine for pennies a day, willingly, I believe that person is literally mentally retarded, and should not be able to contract validly with others at all. How's that?

No one is rational to work for pennies a day. We don't need to outlaw pennies-a-day wages, because no rational adult would work for a wage that doesn't even buy them anything.
 
Last edited:
Can't address all your questions (there's like a dozen) so I'll go with unionization. Unions are breaking company's and not letting them compete in a global market not to mention what they are doing to state and county budgets. They do more harm than good, cost more jobs than they create and end up lowering peoples wages when they lose their good factory job and have to go to work flipping burgers.

A good union can work as a good negotiation representative for the workers and can also be a dependable and reasonable discussion partner for the companies.

Unions can address and organize workers if the directors of the companies give themselves huge pay rises and stock options but at the same time want to fire hundreds of people because they 100 million in profit they make could be 102 million if they fired 800 people and then rehired them or others and give them lower wages.

Now unions who are just interested in striking will not often achieve things but if all negotiations fail then unions have to be able to strike to protect the workers at a factory or company. It isn't unions that are breaking companies, it is greed that usually breaks companies. Companies get top heavy with directors who make millions because they fluff the figures and make everything look real profitable while the company actually is heading down hill. But as long as they get the millions those company directors could care less. Usually it is the worker who really cares for his/her company because it provides them with a job and a salary. True loyalty is not found at the top at the money grabbers but at the bottom with the real heart of most companies, it's workers.
 

AlabamaPaul: "So, if you're a teenager living at home, what is your living wage?"


I am not advocating that employers be required to pay wages to a worker based on that worker's particular needs. Rather, I think the minimum wage for a region should be enough to afford the basics such as a rented room and food to eat plus clothing and bus fare.

I understand that but based on what kind of worker?
 
A good union can work as a good negotiation representative for the workers and can also be a dependable and reasonable discussion partner for the companies.

Unions can address and organize workers if the directors of the companies give themselves huge pay rises and stock options but at the same time want to fire hundreds of people because they 100 million in profit they make could be 102 million if they fired 800 people and then rehired them or others and give them lower wages.

Now unions who are just interested in striking will not often achieve things but if all negotiations fail then unions have to be able to strike to protect the workers at a factory or company. It isn't unions that are breaking companies, it is greed that usually breaks companies. Companies get top heavy with directors who make millions because they fluff the figures and make everything look real profitable while the company actually is heading down hill. But as long as they get the millions those company directors could care less. Usually it is the worker who really cares for his/her company because it provides them with a job and a salary. True loyalty is not found at the top at the money grabbers but at the bottom with the real heart of most companies, it's workers.

Maybe in the Netharlands unions act like that but not here in the US.
 
Can we talk?
Going back to the beginning, the Founders supported a safety net of funds to help those who could not help themselves. However, that support did not equate to making entitlements as a way of life. Nor did it mean for others to go out and find or often create victims as an excuse to propose new entitlements (hello free birth control). It did not mean 90 weeks of unemployment. It did mean to help the totally disabled but today the threshold to be considered disabled has been greatly lowered. People of this country have good hearts and don't want to see others do without but they are seeing the abuse of all these entitlements. I see it when I go to the grocery store. I pick up a pound of ground sirloin to make a pot of chili and a moderately price bottle of wine. The gal in front of me is checking out and has shrimp, two giant sized T-bones and a very nice bottle of wine and a six pack of micro brewed beer. She pays for the two steaks and shrimp which came to over 70 some bucks with her food stamp card. She paid for the very nice bottle of wine and the beer with cash. I paid for my ground sirloin and moderately priced bottle of wine with cash. How many of you know of folks who are collecting disability yet can work out at the YMCA weight room, mow their lawn, paint their houses etc? How many of you know folks who collect from the government yet still work and not claim it? How many of you know of single moms who shack up with a guy, both working and contributing to the household budget while she collects "entitlements" from the government including her free contraceptives? The abuse of the system is running rampant. The lack of virtue in our society is the culprit. And while the left likes to point to anyone who has been successful no matter that it was through hard work as greedy because they have more, they never point out how greedy government has become demanding more ways for those who actually still work to pay more than their fair share to cover the cost of the entitlements of those who don't or down right cheat and abuse the system. There should be money there for those who really need help on a limited basis. And personal responsibility needs to desperately return to the scene. As far as instilling virtue and an ounce of wisdom into society. Good luck on that one.
 
Can we talk?
Going back to the beginning, the Founders supported a safety net of funds to help those who could not help themselves.

Really? I do not believe you. Can you show me examples of the Congress allocating funds to take from one individual in order to give that money to another individual?

James Madison > Quotes > Quotable Quote
James Madison
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”


― James Madison
 
Can we talk?
Going back to the beginning, the Founders supported a safety net of funds to help those who could not help themselves. However, that support did not equate to making entitlements as a way of life. Nor did it mean for others to go out and find or often create victims as an excuse to propose new entitlements (hello free birth control). It did not mean 90 weeks of unemployment. It did mean to help the totally disabled but today the threshold to be considered disabled has been greatly lowered. People of this country have good hearts and don't want to see others do without but they are seeing the abuse of all these entitlements. I see it when I go to the grocery store. I pick up a pound of ground sirloin to make a pot of chili and a moderately price bottle of wine. The gal in front of me is checking out and has shrimp, two giant sized T-bones and a very nice bottle of wine and a six pack of micro brewed beer. She pays for the two steaks and shrimp which came to over 70 some bucks with her food stamp card. She paid for the very nice bottle of wine and the beer with cash. I paid for my ground sirloin and moderately priced bottle of wine with cash. How many of you know of folks who are collecting disability yet can work out at the YMCA weight room, mow their lawn, paint their houses etc? How many of you know folks who collect from the government yet still work and not claim it? How many of you know of single moms who shack up with a guy, both working and contributing to the household budget while she collects "entitlements" from the government including her free contraceptives? The abuse of the system is running rampant. The lack of virtue in our society is the culprit. And while the left likes to point to anyone who has been successful no matter that it was through hard work as greedy because they have more, they never point out how greedy government has become demanding more ways for those who actually still work to pay more than their fair share to cover the cost of the entitlements of those who don't or down right cheat and abuse the system. There should be money there for those who really need help on a limited basis. And personal responsibility needs to desperately return to the scene. As far as instilling virtue and an ounce of wisdom into society. Good luck on that one.

Care to clue us in on these federal income redistribution laws that go "way back"?
 
Their logic isn't faulty either. When the government provides you everything you need and you are only interested in having fun there is no reason to work. Just go out and have fun and get whatever you need through government programs. The logic is not only sound, but damn near perfect.

That situation is far too prevalent. I know from personal experience a once thriving town that has seen most of its economic base disappear. Real unemployment is near 25%.

Over the past 3 years, at least 3 medium sized businesses have located there. All have left due to the inability of staffing with employees willing to work. Most prefer living responsibility free on the government handout.

The kicker came this past year when a rather large media business was looking for a location. 300 direct jobs along with the jobs created indirectly.

The town turned the business down because they did not like his politics.

I believe that large troubled cities like Detroit have the same problem on a much larger scale. What business would want to set up in a location with so many obstacles to overcome?
 
Really? I do not believe you. Can you show me examples of the Congress allocating funds to take from one individual in order to give that money to another individual?

James Madison > Quotes > Quotable Quote
James Madison
“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”


― James Madison

Well let me attempt to explain. The Founders were influenced by several political philosophers. One was by the Name of John Locke. Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence quotes Locke in the words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". According to Locke, the law of nature teaches not only self-preservation but also preservation of others, when one’s own preservation comes into competition. In other words, society is organized for the security of its members as well as their liberty and property. A society that fails to respond to those in need jeopardizes its own preservation.

Yes the Founders had very strong warnings against welfare but they did see the necessity for a limited safety net. Most of this in the beginning was addressed at the state level and the majority of it came from charity. That is why the Founders also wrote so much about the necessity for the people be of good moral character if a government that is governed By the People was to succeed. It is why in the Northwest Ordinance you will see the encouragement of our early leaders expressing the importance of schools and places of worship be built in each new settlement to combat ignorance and encourage virtue.
 
Last edited:
Well let me attempt to explain. The Founders were influenced by several political philosophers. One was by the Name of John Locke. Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence quotes Locke in the words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". According to Locke, the law of nature teaches not only self-preservation but also preservation of others, when one’s own preservation comes into competition. In other words, society is organized for the security of its members as well as their liberty and property. A society that fails to respond to those in need jeopardizes its own preservation.

Yes the Founders had very strong warnings against welfare but they did see the necessity for a limited safety net. Most of this in the beginning was addressed at the state level but the majority of it came from charity. That is why the Founders also wrote so much about the necessity for the people be of good moral character if a government that is governed By the People was to succeed. It is why in the Northwest Ordinance you will see the encouragement of our early leaders expressing the importance of schools and places of worship be built in each new settlement to combat ignorance and encourage virtue.
You should have just said no.

It is not in the Constitution. There is no basis for wealth redistribution.
 
You should have just said no.

It is not in the Constitution. There is no basis for wealth redistribution.

There is no mention of God in the Constitution either but that doesn't mean the Founders were atheists.
 
There is no mention of God in the Constitution either but that doesn't mean the Founders were atheists.

This doesn't strengthen your position.

Well let me attempt to explain. The Founders were influenced by several political philosophers. One was by the Name of John Locke. Thomas Jefferson who penned the Declaration of Independence quotes Locke in the words "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God". According to Locke, the law of nature teaches not only self-preservation but also preservation of others, when one’s own preservation comes into competition. In other words, society is organized for the security of its members as well as their liberty and property. A society that fails to respond to those in need jeopardizes its own preservation.

This is loosely tied together. Locke influenced the founders, Locke thought this, therefore this is what we should infer about the founding documents? For every quote like your last sentence there, I can find at least one gem from a founder warning explicitly against what you are saying.

Yes the Founders had very strong warnings against welfare but they did see the necessity for a limited safety net.

Self-contradictory and further we already have significantly more than a "limited safety net."
 
If someone is legitimately physically or mentally disabled such that they cannot get an education or cannot work, then I'm fine with society helping them out via Social Security or other government programs. I do not grant that to people who are just stupid or lazy. Everyone ought to be held to a single standard, that of personal responsibility and individual accountability.
 
There is no mention of God in the Constitution either but that doesn't mean the Founders were atheists.

Most were deists, some were atheists, virtually all were highly critical of Christianity and the Church of England.
 
This doesn't strengthen your position.



This is loosely tied together. Locke influenced the founders, Locke thought this, therefore this is what we should infer about the founding documents? For every quote like your last sentence there, I can find at least one gem from a founder warning explicitly against what you are saying.



Self-contradictory and further we already have significantly more than a "limited safety net."

Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson enough that he quoted him in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately most today do not recognize the significance of the words. But they did back then.

I do not see where I am being "self contradictory" but here is something for you to ponder.

Do you recall the history of the poorhouse? Poorhouses sprung up all over the place early in our history. The borders of counties allowed those within there borders who were destitute to become residents. These were institutions that ran on charity and state assistance. When this country was only 70 years young the Federal government started sending assistance to the states to help operate the poorhouses. Let's see.....1787 plus 70 years would make it 1857 when a Republican president by the name of Ulysses S. Grant was in office. So I guess history records it was a Republican president that allowed assistance from the Federal government to the states to set up what amounts to the first Federal government housing. The people were provided with minimal assistance. Those who were able to work did by working the fields to grow/preserve the food for the residents. And those who were able cared for the disabled and elderly. It wasn't designed to be a place where one would be encouraged to spend all their days but only a temporary stay till one could find work and begin to provide for themselves once again.

Poorhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My original post addressed the abuse of the system by the lack of virtue present in the citizenry of this country the culprit for the out of control of waste/fraud in entitlements. It touched on how progressives have redefined what constitute as being a right and how they do not recognize personal responsibility.
 
Locke influenced Thomas Jefferson enough that he quoted him in the Declaration of Independence. Unfortunately most today do not recognize the significance of the words. But they did back then.

I do not see where I am being "self contradictory" but here is something for you to ponder.

Do you recall the history of the poorhouse? Poorhouses sprung up all over the place early in our history. The borders of counties allowed those within there borders who were destitute to become residents. These were institutions that ran on charity and state assistance. When this country was only 70 years young the Federal government started sending assistance to the states to help operate the poorhouses. Let's see.....1787 plus 70 years would make it 1857 when a Republican president by the name of Ulysses S. Grant was in office. So I guess history records it was a Republican president that allowed assistance from the Federal government to the states to set up what amounts to the first Federal government housing. The people were provided with minimal assistance. Those who were able to work did by working the fields to grow/preserve the food for the residents. And those who were able cared for the disabled and elderly. It wasn't designed to be a place where one would be encouraged to spend all their days but only a temporary stay till one could find work and begin to provide for themselves once again.

Poorhouse - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My original post addressed the abuse of the system by the lack of virtue present in the citizenry of this country the culprit for the out of control of waste/fraud in entitlements. It touched on how progressives have redefined what constitute as being a right and how they do not recognize personal responsibility.

:lamoIn 1857 Democrat James Buchanan was inaugurated POTUS. He served until 1861, when he was succeeded by the first Republican POTUS, Abraham Lincoln. U.S. Grant was at that time a shopkeeper in Galena, Illinois. In subsequent years he crushed the Confederacy, and was elected POTUS in 1868. Learn first. Then post.:peace
 
:lamoIn 1857 Democrat James Buchanan was inaugurated POTUS. He served until 1861, when he was succeeded by the first Republican POTUS, Abraham Lincoln. U.S. Grant was at that time a shopkeeper in Galena, Illinois. In subsequent years he crushed the Confederacy, and was elected POTUS in 1868. Learn first. Then post.:peace
Thank you Hays for pointing out my error and the need to not rely on memory. The jibe about learning first was unnecessary. I never stop learning. But other than to correct me do you have anything of significance to add to the discussion?
 
Thank you Hays for pointing out my error and the need to not rely on memory. The jibe about learning first was unnecessary. I never stop learning. But other than to correct me do you have anything of significance to add to the discussion?

I was probably harsher than I needed to be. My apologies.:3oops:

Your link does not seem to help your case.

Often the poorhouse was situated on the grounds of a poor farm on which able-bodied residents were required to work; such farms were common in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A poorhouse could even be part of the same economic complex as a prison farm and other penal or charitable public institutions. Poor farms were county- or town-run residences where paupers (mainly elderly and disabled people) were supported at public expense. The farms declined in use after the Social Security Act took effect in 1935, with most disappearing completely by about 1950.

Most were working farms that produced at least some of the produce, grain, and livestock they consumed. Residents were expected to provide labor to the extent that their health would allow, both in the fields and in providing housekeeping and care for other residents. Rules were strict and accommodations minimal.
Poor farms were the origin of the U.S. tradition of county governments (rather than cities, townships, or state or federal governments) providing social services for the needy within their borders; the federal government did not participate in social welfare for over 70 years following the 1854 veto of the Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane by Franklin Pierce. This tradition has continued and is in most cases codified in state law, although the financial costs of such care have been shifted in part to state and federal governments. Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller's teacher, was raised in such a facility during the 19th century before leaving it for the Perkins School for the Blind and afterwards to become Helen Keller's teacher and later lifelong companion. The novel The Miracle Worker, its 1957 TV play, 1959 Broadway play, and its 1962 film adaptation and 1979 and 2000 television adaptations included harsh descriptions of the conditions therein.:peace

[h=2][/h]
 
I was probably harsher than I needed to be. My apologies.:3oops:

Your link does not seem to help your case.

Often the poorhouse was situated on the grounds of a poor farm on which able-bodied residents were required to work; such farms were common in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries. A poorhouse could even be part of the same economic complex as a prison farm and other penal or charitable public institutions. Poor farms were county- or town-run residences where paupers (mainly elderly and disabled people) were supported at public expense. The farms declined in use after the Social Security Act took effect in 1935, with most disappearing completely by about 1950.

Most were working farms that produced at least some of the produce, grain, and livestock they consumed. Residents were expected to provide labor to the extent that their health would allow, both in the fields and in providing housekeeping and care for other residents. Rules were strict and accommodations minimal.
Poor farms were the origin of the U.S. tradition of county governments (rather than cities, townships, or state or federal governments) providing social services for the needy within their borders; the federal government did not participate in social welfare for over 70 years following the 1854 veto of the Bill for the Benefit of the Indigent Insane by Franklin Pierce. This tradition has continued and is in most cases codified in state law, although the financial costs of such care have been shifted in part to state and federal governments. Anne Sullivan, Helen Keller's teacher, was raised in such a facility during the 19th century before leaving it for the Perkins School for the Blind and afterwards to become Helen Keller's teacher and later lifelong companion. The novel The Miracle Worker, its 1957 TV play, 1959 Broadway play, and its 1962 film adaptation and 1979 and 2000 television adaptations included harsh descriptions of the conditions therein.:peace

[h=2][/h]

Apology accepted. IMHO I think raising the issue of the poorhouse significant. It is something most have forgotten about. And 70 years after the founding of this county to have federal assistance being sent to the states puts things more into prospective of what should be considered a spread the wealth scheme or a humane act. You see like so many times in history an economic crisis can lead to actions by the government that wouldn't necessarily be the norm.

Panic of 1857 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Up till 1857 the Federal government was not involved in the funding of poorhouses.
 
Apology accepted. IMHO I think raising the issue of the poorhouse significant. It is something most have forgotten about. And 70 years after the founding of this county to have federal assistance being sent to the states puts things more into prospective of what should be considered a spread the wealth scheme or a humane act. You see like so many times in history an economic crisis can lead to actions by the government that wouldn't necessarily be the norm.

Panic of 1857 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Up till 1857 the Federal government was not involved in the funding of poorhouses.

Sorry, but there's nothing in your "Panic of 1857" link to support your claim. Meanwhile, the previous link contains a statement that there was no federal role in poorhouses for 70 years after 1854. I believe you are confused.:peace
 
confused? it's possible....
 
Last edited:
I never stated 70 years after 1854. I stated 70 years after 1787 the year the Constitution was ratified.

From the wiki article I posted


So who is confused?

You are. There is no mention anywhere of 70 years after 1787. There is mention of 70 years after 1854.:peace
 
There is no mention of God in the Constitution either but that doesn't mean the Founders were atheists.
My first thought was that you are either drunk or drugged.

Then I realized it doesn't have to make sense.

Are you beginning to make the claim that we should have a United States Church?
 
Back
Top Bottom