TSA strip searching children

[Calabrio]

I will ask you again, foxpaws.
Using your "logic," there isn't a single decision in my life that you can not eventually make an economic argument for your intervention in. This is made even worse by your perpetual support of more government intervention, such as the Obamacare fiasco.

From eating Oreos to owning a gun to riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, or just sitting too close to the TV- your justification gives you permission to regulate EVERY decision an individual makes.

Do you disagree with this?
Where is the line drawn?

What decisions are you NOT allowed to dictate for me using this logic?
And, just a side point, where exactly does the government get this authority you speak of in the constitution.
Don't you think that granted the government such power will give some political leadership, if not today, someday, from banning an activity that you might support right now using the very same logic. You protest that you support 2nd amendment rights, but using your logic, can't the government make it illegal or prohibitively burdensome to own a firearm or drive a convertible?

If you honestly believe what your saying, why don't you support it locally and NOT federally? Why don't you work to make Denver the "utopian paradise" that you so desire and leave the rest of the country alone?

Because, if you experiment with these policies locally, I have the ability to oppose them or move. That ceases to be an option when it's thrust upon the entire country, contrary to the powers expressed in the constitution, and against the wishes of the population.

 

[foxpaws]

Actually, the magnitude of the problem has been GREATLY overexaggerated to promote a political agenda. Only through an exceedingly flawed stats analysis can one conclude, even today that poverty is a problem so large that private charity has no hope of coping with it and necessitating intervention at the level of the federal government.

This is something that has been discussed numerous times on this forum, BTW.

Yes it has, and while I have shown that private charities have stated they couldn't keep up with the problem - you showed, well, nothing...

Proof? As a percentage of what? The way you state that is awful vague.

Latest study - which very clearly states - that those closest to the problems give the most - the poor give a larger percentage of their income (with no tax benefits I may add - they don't usually itemize).

Yet your argument opperationally assumes the exact opposite. If the free market is more efficient then government directed markets then all this talk about how "unfair" or "unjust" it is to make someone pay for another's "stupidity" is purely academic; whining about nothing.

If government were to intervene, it would only make the "injustice" even worse (as history has shown).

The ONLY way your argument has ANY validity is if it assumes that government direction is more efficient then the markets.

Your claim that "government cannot be more efficient then free markets" contradicts and undermines your argument.

No it doesn't shag - it is just that private charity isn't able to take on the the task of caring for the poor and needy -

So...the German people WANTED the Holocaust?

They certainly didn't stop it - did they? And certainly some did want it... And the people voted in those who promised great things for the German people, and those same politicians stated that those 'responsible' (their need for a scrape goat) for the problems Germany was facing (the Jews) would pay...

Have you ever thought about the possibility of politicians lying to people? Maybe you should look beyond the basic theoretical mechanics to see reality.

All the time - but in the case of health care - as advertised shag - want to check out the platform - in the preamble the Dems state that affordable health care is a Right... got that - no hiding.

You are going well beyond that to inferring that more government action is called for.

Don't try and redefine your argument now.

I am not redefining anything shag - that has been my argument all along - there is no way to remove government from the needy equation. So, our taxes support irresponsible behavior - at what cost to everyone? Does society have the 'right' to not support irresponsible behavior if society is paying for the results of that behavior?

So you redefine "encroach" to be any infringement on your "choices"; on your autonomy. Even if that "infringement" is so slight as to not be an infringement on your actual RIGHTS (another concept you conveniently ignore).

So, you take the concept of one's rights ending where another's begins, switch the wording to more vague and ill defined terms and then redefine them as necessary to support the exact OPPOSITE of what they mean.

The standard you have given is not a standard at all. It is just as vague as if you have not answered the question.

We live in a world of scarce resources and one person using those resources is ALWAYS going to effect how others use those resources. Therefore, the justification you have given is a justification for tyranny.

Yes it is shag - so do we allow our government to support those who need excess resources because of personal irresponsibility? It is one thing when you pay for your own irresponsibility - but when I pay for it - it becomes a whole different thing.

Not choices - my rights shag. You smoke, you need public assistance, I pay. Period shag. Your lack of responsibility creates hardship on my part.

No, I just realize what an absurdly broad and all-encompassing standard that is as you are using it.

To look to move beyond the very limitations of reality (scarce resources) and the consequences of those limitation is to look to change nature itself. It is the fatal flaw of hubris in thought that turns Utopian ideals into dystopian reality.

Again, it is nothing short of a justification for tyranny.

Not tyranny - When I don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity, I call that fighting against tyranny. Shag - government will pay - so, when do you say 'enough'? We put in very strict restrictions to curb welfare - why shouldn't we put in strict restrictions to curb the insanity of the raising costs of medicaid?

No they don't.

But no one really expects you to understand and honestly represent the founding documents, the ideas behind them or the people who wrote them.

Yes they do - you have removed my means to pursue happiness as I see fit.

 

[foxpaws]

I will ask you again, foxpaws.
Using your "logic," there isn't a single decision in my life that you can not eventually make an economic argument for your intervention in. This is made even worse by your perpetual support of more government intervention, such as the Obamacare fiasco.

From eating Oreos to owning a gun to riding a motorcycle, with or without a helmet, or just sitting too close to the TV- your justification gives you permission to regulate EVERY decision an individual makes.
Do you disagree with this?
Where is the line drawn?

Nope, I am not disagreeing with this - but where is that line drawn Cal? we draw lines all the time - take cocaine - we don't allow the public unlimited access to coke, because we have determined as a society we don't want to pay the costs involved supporting this. We have removed your right to smoke crack - Is that a 'justifiable' line?

What decisions are you NOT allowed to dictate for me using this logic?
And, just a side point, where exactly does the government get this authority you speak of in the constitution.
Don't you think that granted the government such power will give some political leadership, if not today, someday, from banning an activity that you might support right now using the very same logic. You protest that you support 2nd amendment rights, but using your logic, can't the government make it illegal or prohibitively burdensome to own a firearm or drive a convertible?

Yes it can - but once again - we draw lines where society determines. We at some point decided that large artillery would be a line that we wouldn't cross - because of the cost or perhaps threat to society. There very well could be a time that convertibles might be made 'illegal'. I would fight it - however, if society determines the cost is too great - what makes driving a convertible different than shooting up every night? Do you go with 'level of cost outlay'? If it is found that driving convertibles is costing each member of society $400 per year in added medical costs - would we decide that is too big of a cost? Would you support a ban on convertibles if it would save you $400 a year?

If you honestly believe what your saying, why don't you support it locally and NOT federally? Why don't you work to make Denver the "utopian paradise" that you so desire and leave the rest of the country alone?

Because, if you experiment with these policies locally, I have the ability to oppose them or move. That ceases to be an option when it's thrust upon the entire country, contrary to the powers expressed in the constitution, and against the wishes of the population.

They do try it locally - I believe NYC was looking at banning table salt - California has a whole bunch of laws that only effect people at a state level (their smog control laws for instance - which were just not only reaffirmed, but strengthened this past election).

What often happens Cal is that local laws change - and then it is picked up at a federal level if it is found to make a difference.

And actually - I live quite close to Boulder - which does this sort of 'modification' - they were one of the first in the nation to ban public smoking for instance. However - it is legal to garden topless in Boulder -

 

[shagdrum]

No it doesn't shag.

that is all you have to offer? I show WHY and HOW your argument assumes that government can run things more efficiently then free markets and all you offer is "no it doesn't"?!

Are you simply not even trying? Is economic reality so inconvenience to your argument that you are simply choosing to ignore it?

If that is the case, there is no reason any objective person should take your argument seriously. It is nothing but moralizing and posturing in a manner that ignores reality.

 

[fossten]

Nope, I am not disagreeing with this - but where is that line drawn Cal? we draw lines all the time - take cocaine - we don't allow the public unlimited access to coke, because we have determined as a society we don't want to pay the costs involved supporting this. We have removed your right to smoke crack - Is that a 'justifiable' line?

There you go again, jumping from topic to topic, throwing stuff against the wall hoping it will stick.

You're the red herring champ.

Yes it can - but once again - we draw lines where society determines. We at some point decided that large artillery would be a line that we wouldn't cross - because of the cost or perhaps threat to society. There very well could be a time that convertibles might be made 'illegal'. I would fight it - however, if society determines the cost is too great - what makes driving a convertible different than shooting up every night? Do you go with 'level of cost outlay'? If it is found that driving convertibles is costing each member of society $400 per year in added medical costs - would we decide that is too big of a cost? Would you support a ban on convertibles if it would save you $400 a year?

Once again you use absurdity to support an illogical claim. Nothing would 'cost' anything if the government hadn't already interfered.

They do try it locally - I believe NYC was looking at banning table salt - California has a whole bunch of laws that only effect people at a state level (their smog control laws for instance - which were just not only reaffirmed, but strengthened this past election).

And people can move or remove tyranny on a local level as well. You're deliberately dodging Cal's point, which is that the FED shouldn't be doing this. Remove the FED tyranny, and then you can work on the local tyrannies as well.

What often happens Cal is that local laws change - and then it is picked up at a federal level if it is found to make a difference.

Yeah that MassCare made a real difference all right.

And actually - I live quite close to Boulder - which does this sort of 'modification' - they were one of the first in the nation to ban public smoking for instance. However - it is legal to garden topless in Boulder -

Another 'repair' attempt by foxpaws designed to distract from the FACT that she is unable or unwilling to confront anybody's argument.

Not tyranny - When I don't want to pay for someone else's stupidity, I call that fighting against tyranny. Shag - government will pay - so, when do you say 'enough'?

There she goes again, redefining terms to suit her absurd claim. Fox, you can't have it both ways - if government pays, that means taxpayers. Government doesn't pay for anything.

So, you're willing to steal from others because you don't want to pay for it yourself. Got it.

 

[foxpaws]

that is all you have to offer? I show WHY and HOW your argument assumes that government can run things more efficiently then free markets and all you offer is "no it doesn't"?!

Are you simply not even trying? Is economic reality so inconvenience to your argument that you are simply choosing to ignore it?

If that is the case, there is no reason any objective person should take your argument seriously. It is nothing but moralizing and posturing in a manner that ignores reality.

I have said no such thing shag - I don't think government can run things better than private industry - but in the case of charity I have shown how it is going to be government that is the source of the money. (Got the quote where I said that government is going to do a better job?) Private charities cannot raise the funds necessary. Now - hand those funds over to private charities - that works - we see that all the time. The charity I work for gets government funds and I am pretty sure we do a great job with those funds, in fact, without those funds, we would probably have to shut down.

Should government run things like medicaid - can local charities take government money and do that same job - perhaps. I would be for looking at that on a small case basis and see how it works - if it works well, use it for a model to change how medicaid funds are used.

There are lots of things that I think should be taken to local levels when it makes sense - I wouldn't be sad to see the Dept of Education become just a very small oversight group, education needs are best served in the community.

However, weren't we discussing that it is my money (in the form of my taxes) - and where do we draw the line when it comes to how that money should be spent?

What is different shag from drawing the line at meth and drawing the line at a soup that contains 3xs your daily requirement of salt. Both will kill you given time, both will cost society. Because society will continue to pay taxes that support the organizations that deal with meth addicts and public funded hospitals that deal with the costs of dealing with hypertension.

 

[shagdrum]

I have said no such thing shag

I never said you did. I said your argument inherently and opperationally ASSUMES that it did.

How about responding to what I said, instead of misdirecting.

Oh, and as to your earlier attempt at misdirection...

Yes it has, and while I have shown that private charities have stated they couldn't keep up with the problem - you showed, well, nothing...

The issue was not weather or not private charities stated ANYTHING. The issue was weather or not the issue was so big that ONLY the federal government could deal with it. As to THAT issue, I DID provide something on this forum, as I alluded to earlier in this thread

The fact is that the whole notion of income disparity as an inherent problem that must be fixed by government is rooted in an exceedingly simplistic statistical analysis that does not take into account behavioral changes and/or individual changes over time.

Statistics are inherently static; they simply take a snapshot of the moment. When you look at income through this lens and simply define poverty as the bottom 20% of income earners, it is easy to conclude that poverty is a permanent problem that the free market obviously can not fix, necessitating government intervention. However, this analysis ignores a number of factors; mainly due to the fact that society is inherently dynamic.

The 20% in poverty in one moment are not necessarily the same 20% in poverty the next moment. A college student working a part time job or a recent graduate just starting out his career may be in poverty right now, but 5, 10, or 20 years down the line they are well out of poverty. Someone just starting their own business may be in poverty for a year or two until their business starts growing but is not permanently and intractably in poverty.

There is also the problem of defining poverty by income instead of wealth. A very wealthy individual, in order to ride out a rough economy or wait for favorable legislation on the horizon, may choose to put their money in much more secure investments and/or accounts and the minimal interest they get off of those would reduce their income to below poverty. A retiree may have next to no income but lives off the savings and assets they accrued over their lifetime. This individual is technically in poverty when it is defined as the bottom 20% of income earners.

All these are simply some inherent limitations to the typical statistical analysis of poverty...

Is confronting these limitations simply too dangerous for the exploitation theory, the notion of intractable capitalist wealth disparity and the idea of a rigid class structure that defines [the modern leftist] worldview? Would taking a closer look at reality instead of relying on statistical abstraction be too much of a challenge to egalitarian dogma...to bear?

From here:

Currently there are two models of the American economy, one static, and the other dynamic. The first portrays the United States as a caste system and misapplies the characteristics of a permanent income strata to those only temporarily moving through income brackets. The alternative view portrays a much more complex and interesting social reality in which the composition of income classes are in constant flux. According to this latter point of view, simplistic generalizations about actual persons and families (or "the rich" and "the poor") cannot be drawn from data on a conceptual artifice which does not exist as such in reality.

The empirical data support the view of the market economy as a dynamic and open society which provides opportunity to those who participate. There is no evidence of stagnation, with the turnover rate in the most stable quintile -- the top fifth -- exceeding 35 percent. The turnover rates in the bottom four quintiles were at least 60 percent over the period, with most of this reflecting upward progress. Analysis which assumes or suggests stable composition of family or household income quintiles rests on invalid assumptions. It makes no sense to draw sweeping conclusions such as "the income of the bottom 20 percent of families fell" in a 15-year period when most of the people originally in that category have long since improved their standard of living enough to have moved up from the bracket entirely.

* * *​

And as to this...

Latest study - which very clearly states - that those closest to the problems give the most - the poor give a larger percentage of their income (with no tax benefits I may add - they don't usually itemize).

Did that "study" take into account the wealth distribution inherent in income tax? Only by ignoring income tax (which those "closest to the problem" DO NOT PAY) can you claim that, as a percentage of income, those "closest to the problem" pay more in charity. Also, what about giving to religious organizations? It is VERY easy to define "income" and "charity" VERY narrowly to rig the study to fit an ideological notion.

 

[fossten]

Foxpaws is now using studies to make her case that government should steal from producing citizens.

Pathetic.

 

[foxpaws]

I never said you did. I said your argument inherently and opperationally ASSUMES that it did.

Maybe shag - you should quite assuming... it is a rather poor way to discuss anything

How about responding to what I said, instead of misdirecting.

So, how about asking a real question - that doesn't 'assume' an answer.

Oh, and as to your earlier attempt at misdirection...
The issue was not weather or not private charities stated ANYTHING. The issue was weather or not the issue was so big that ONLY the federal government could deal with it. As to THAT issue, I DID provide something on this forum, as I alluded to earlier in this thread

And I believe I provide something that very much stated that the issue is so big that the Feds are going to be the largest player in the pond...

Not only shag - but biggest - once again - you keep stating that I am talking in absolutes, and I haven't been.

So - where is this 'mystery' item that you 'alluded' to earlier -

If you continue to 'assume', 'allude', and claim that I said things I never said - well, I think you could just argue this with yourself - because with all this going on - anything I might say is just superfluous, isn't it shag - why actually discuss things I say when it is much easier to pretend I said things.

Did that "study" take into account the wealth distribution inherent in income tax? Only by ignoring income tax (which those "closest to the problem" DO NOT PAY) can you claim that, as a percentage of income, those "closest to the problem" pay more in charity. Also, what about giving to religious organizations? It is VERY easy to define "income" and "charity" VERY narrowly to rig the study to fit an ideological notion.

Yes, the charities included churches, and in the case of the rich it includes things such as alma maters.

 

[fossten]

I never said you did. I said your argument inherently and opperationally ASSUMES that it did.

Maybe shag - you should quite assuming... it is a rather poor way to discuss anything

Are you a total dumbass? He clearly said YOU'RE the one assuming. Maybe you should 'quite' while you're so far behind.

Do you not have a real answer to any of the arguments put out in this thread?

Guess not, which is why you keep blathering on about nothing.

Yes, the charities included churches, and in the case of the rich it includes things such as alma maters.

Please define 'the rich.' Kthxbai

 

[foxpaws]

Are you a total dumbass? He clearly said YOU'RE the one assuming. Maybe you should 'quite' while you're so far behind.

I'll think about 'weather' or not I should....

It sure sounds like Shag is assuming my 'argument' is stating something -

Do you not have a real answer to any of the arguments put out in this thread?

Guess not, which is why you keep blathering on about nothing.

Really - at least I haven't reverted to assumptions and alluding like shag

Please define 'the rich.' Kthxbai

Refer to the study I linked - they will define rich...

I think it is shag that is blithering - gosh the whole chart thing is rather silly...

 

[shagdrum]

Foxy, if what I say about your argument is somehow inaccurate; if I am creating a "strawman" as you are inferring, then feel free to show how your argument logically makes sense and has relevance without those assumptions I attribute to it.

The fact that you have not done so is rather telling. It seems you have not critically analyzed the argument you are making and are unwilling to allow any critical analysis of that argument.

Again,

The appeal of an ideal theory has several noteworthy features. One is that it permits its defenders to ignore facts that appear to be contrary to the theory. That in real life societies are not well-ordered and there is no strict compliance in them is simply written off as precisely those characteristic features of non-ideal conditions that the ideal theory is meant to eliminate. There is, thus, no evidence derivable from the history of a society, the conduct of human beings, or the prevailing political arrangements that could count against the ideal theory. Contrary facts are treated as evidence that the conditions of a society are non-ideal; and facts that conform to the ideal are cited as evidence that the society is progressing toward the ideal.
-John Kekes​

Ignoring the unsaid premises that are logically implied by the argument is simply one way to "ignore facts that appear to be contrary to the theory".

 

[BlackLS06]

I saw the video over and over and the boy was not "strip searched". Matter fact the kids father was the one who pulled the sweater.

We dont pat down bare skin, and we down require you to remove a sweater if you dont have a shirt under. Again something blown out of proportion by ignorant people.

 

[shagdrum]

Yes, the charities included churches, and in the case of the rich it includes things such as alma maters.

Where is the proof that it took into account income taxes, government wealth redistribution, job creation or bringing a higher standard of living to those who could otherwise not afford it? If it did account for those factors then, A) it could not reach the conclusion it reached, and B) it would not support your assertions as you are citing it because it could not logically be used as a justification for federal action due to a lack of any such action.

 

[shagdrum]

And I believe I provide something that very much stated that the issue is so big that the Feds are going to be the largest player in the pond...

Not only shag - but biggest - once again - you keep stating that I am talking in absolutes, and I haven't been.

It is times like this that I wonder if you are engaged in dishonesty or simply don't understand the argument you are making.

The fact that the Fed may be "the largest player in the pond" does NOT justify that, A)the Fed should be a player, or B) the Fed is the most effective means of dealing with the problem. Those are both some more assumptions that are inherent in your argument but that you refuse to even acknowledge let alone confront and justify.

The debate starts at those basic premises and if you are not willing to confront and discuss those premises honestly, then there is no chance for any honest and productive discourse with you.

Treating those premises as dogma that cannot even be acknowledged (let alone challenged) may be an effective way to get the discussion framed on terms favorable to your viewpoint, but it doesn't fly here. You HAVE to JUSTIFY those assumptions. Anything less is nothing but a dishonest attempt to subvert discussion.

I think it is shag that is blithering - gosh the whole chart thing is rather silly...

So, an honest assessment of the scale of poverty is irrelevant to a discussion of what are the best means to deal with the issue?

Foxy, your argument in this thread has been reduced to snarky condescension where the basic premises or your argument are not accepted without examination. How is productive discourse possible between two opposing views when one view is treated as being above examination?

 

[fossten]

Foxy, your argument in this thread has been reduced to snarky condescension

Thread winner.

 

[fossten]

Refer to the study I linked - they will define rich...

There you go again, citing a 'study' to define rich.

My definition differs from yours and from theirs. So we're at an impasse.

Definitions of rich (adj)


rich [ rich ]

1. wealthy: owning a lot of money or expensive property
2. worth much: worth a great deal of money
3. costly and fine: made from or consisting of things of the highest quality

Notice that the dictionary doesn't even mention income.

 

[foxpaws]

The fact that the Fed may be "the largest player in the pond" does NOT justify that, A)the Fed should be a player, or B) the Fed is the most effective means of dealing with the problem. Those are both some more assumptions that are inherent in your argument but that you refuse to even acknowledge let alone confront and justify.

The fed will be the only one who can collect enough funds to deal with the problems of the poor and the sick shag - we will not give enough money via charity to take care of the problems. Charities acknowledge that fact, even if you don't (check links). The feds are very effective at collecting money. As far as distributing the money effectively - I think that often private groups are much better at that - right now many private charities get state/federal money and because of their ties to the community, they have much higher success rates, along with having the ability to get more bang for the buck.

The debate starts at those basic premises and if you are not willing to confront and discuss those premises honestly, then there is no chance for any honest and productive discourse with you.

Shag - you are the one that isn't confronting anything other than wandering around in the whole 'she isn't honest, she isn't productive, she isn't playing by my rules' forest.

The bottom line is, we will not give enough money to charities to handle the needs of the poor and sick in the US. Taxes are the only way to deal with the problem. I went over why (because we are removed from the problem - 'awareness of need'), how we got here (because we have moved from an agrarian society to an industrial society, and the resulting 'isolation'). You seem to have nothing regarding any of these points -

Treating those premises as dogma that cannot even be acknowledged (let alone challenged) may be an effective way to get the discussion framed on terms favorable to your viewpoint, but it doesn't fly here. You HAVE to JUSTIFY those assumptions. Anything less is nothing but a dishonest attempt to subvert discussion.

Shag - I have justified those viewpoints - I have given you quotes from one of the largest charities in the world (the Catholic church) regarding the fact that they alone cannot take care of the need - that they depend on federal dollars. I have also shown you a study that shows how we have a big problem because we no longer have an awareness of need when it comes to the poor. And, we also have to deal with what is commonly being referred to the 'greediest generation'. Boomers don't give - they take. There is a great article in Non Profit World about this that I read a few years ago - however it is subscription only... if you belong to your library and your library has access to EBSCO - you can access it here...

You seem to be stuck in some sort of 'wish world' shag - but here, in the real world, where charities are trying harder and harder for fewer and fewer dollars, it is pretty obvious that we won't be giving more 'voluntarily'. Or do you have anything that indicates that we would give more, that there wouldn't be a charity gap.

 

[fossten]

The bottom line is, we will not give enough money to charities to handle the needs of the poor and sick in the US. Taxes are the only way to deal with the problem. I went over why (because we are removed from the problem - 'awareness of need'), how we got here (because we have moved from an agrarian society to an industrial society, and the resulting 'isolation'). You seem to have nothing regarding any of these points -

Taxes are the only way to deal with the problem? Really? How myopically stupid of you. Typical statist liberal: "THROW [other people's] MONEY AT THE PROBLEM!"

Aside from being totally wrong about this, you're a complete hypocrite as well, fox.

James Dale Davidson said it best:

"When you subsidize poverty and failure, you get more of both."

ELEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS has already been stolen from the producers in this country in the FAILED War on Poverty, and here you are decades later still pissing and moaning about the poor and sick. When do you idiots finally admit that wealth redistribution doesn't solve the problem?

The answer is simple:

As I've already said - YOU and your FELLOW TRAVELERS don't give a rat's hind end about the poor and sick in this country. You only want to control people and steal money from those who earn so you can give it to unions, fund job-killing and freedom-destroying agencies, and bribe senators for votes.

 

[shagdrum]

The fed will be the only one who can collect enough funds to deal with the problems of the poor and the sick shag - we will not give enough money via charity to take care of the problems.

Yet you cannot cite any evidence to prove it. All you can do is point to questionable studies that are irrelevant to the issue and to people who share your perception of the issue. Never mind weather or not your perceptions are backed up empirically. it is rather convenient to avoid the realm of empirical reasoning isn't it.

The fact is that for most of this county's history the Fed was not necessary to deal with the problem. Then the "Great Society" came along to "end poverty", making the perfect the enemy of the good in the process. How did that work out? Now we now have poverty rates pretty well fixed in place and we actually have more people who are dependent on the Federal government; a permanent underclass.

You ever look at the stats on poverty before the Great Society? Poverty was actually decreasing before the "War on Poverty" (1/2 of what it had been since 1950 and continually dropping since 1960). There was no "crisis" to justify the program except for the absurd utopian goal of "ending" poverty. "Conquest of poverty is well within our power" as the Council of Economic Advisors said in promoting the program.

There is also the initial claims that early government spending in the "War On Poverty" would lead to decreased spending later on and the claims that the War On Poverty would reduce dependency. As JFK put it, "We Must find ways of returning far more of our dependent people to independence". In both cases the trend has been the exact opposite.

The problem was never so big that only the federal government could take care of it (arguing that private citizens would never give enough on their own is essentially the same argument). The more money people have in their wallets, the more they give to help their community and to help those in need.

Another interesting note on the "Great Society" issue is the leftist misdirection in the face of its unquestionable failure; namely to reset the standard of judgment. The programs were initially created to reduce long term costs of welfare, to decrease dependency and to end poverty. Since the exact opposite has happened in all three of those cases, the issue has been reframed into one of simply looking at the good intentions of the program and not it's record.

This is a pattern in leftist promotion of the nanny state;

1. manufacture a crisis - typically through exaggeration, moralizing and shoddy, one-sided studies to support the claims
2. propose a "solution" - a "solution" that ignores trade-offs and almost always involves more government since government is always the only institution capable of dealing with the issue as presented by the left
3. redefine the standard of judgment - when the "solution" inevitably fails to do what it was supposed to do, the standard of judgment is typically redefined as one of good intentions and claiming that anything less then the big government program in place would make the issue worse; thus only expanding government is a reasonable response

Note that last point, which essentially sets it up as a "heads-I-win, tails-you-lose" situation. This is yet another way that ideology isolates itself from any feedback from reality. It is also something we have seen displayed in relation to more current issues, including Obamacare and explaining the recent elections.

When a problem doesn't get better after a "solution" is enacted, a more radical "solution" in the same direction is what is called for and the issues is reframed accordingly. Moving in the opposite direction is viewed as "regressive" and will only make the problem worse.

While Foxy isn't explicitly calling for a more extreme "solution" to the issue of poverty, it is implicit in how she presents the issue that the only way to improve the situation is to move farther down the "welfare state" path.

Once again...

The appeal of an ideal theory has several noteworthy features. One is that it permits its defenders to ignore facts that appear to be contrary to the theory. That in real life societies are not well-ordered and there is no strict compliance in them is simply written off as precisely those characteristic features of non-ideal conditions that the ideal theory is meant to eliminate. There is, thus, no evidence derivable from the history of a society, the conduct of human beings, or the prevailing political arrangements that could count against the ideal theory. Contrary facts are treated as evidence that the conditions of a society are non-ideal; and facts that conform to the ideal are cited as evidence that the society is progressing toward the ideal.
-John Kekes​

 

[shagdrum]

Shag - I have justified those viewpoints - I have given you quotes from one of the largest charities in the world (the Catholic church) regarding the fact that they alone cannot take care of the need - that they depend on federal dollars.

Appeal to authority is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative.​

You haven't justified anything. All you have done is cherry picked a statement that confirms your perceptions. You haven't offered any empirical reason to support your claim that the populace will never give enough on their own to help the poor. Of course, framing it in vague, emotionally appealing terms like you do is helpful because the claim is not, in and of itself, empirically disprovable either. Convenient, don't you think?

There is empirical evidence that suggests that the problem of poverty is magnified by Federal government attempts to intervene. Combine that with the ideas that the populace as a whole will give more (in various ways) when they have more money to do so, that a less regulated populace is a more prosperous populace and that the private sector is better able to more effectively utilize scarce resources then the government to effectively combat poverty and reduce dependency. When those ideas are merged, a legitimate alternative to liberal orthodoxy presents itself.

If you weren't so busy attempting to delegitimize and reframe things into a "heads-I-win, tail-you-lose" dynamic, a productive and educational conversation between the opposing worldviews might be possible.