[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

But if you keep expanding the definition of who is not responsible for their own problems to include folks that are out of work for 6+ months, 8+ months, 12+ months, etc., then you have to admit that a lot of commonalities are going to emerge between these cases which are somehow different. Do you think there should be no cutoff? That there should be a guaranteed minimum income which should continue indefinitely?

Kevin, what you don't seem to understand is that you are arguing from a false premise, and it is that false premise -- the blanket assertion that all unemployment is essentially the fault of the unemployed -- that I am challenging.

Where have I ever said that there should be no cut-off or advocated indefinite guaranteed mimimums? I haven't suggested either. I've merely said that dismissing the entire problem with "well, it's their own fault" is a cop-out. One rarely gets to the right solution if one doesn't at least attempt to understand the problem.

Maybe it is simplistic. But this nation is running on credit. Expanding expenditures in these currently proposed manners without expanding income is going to impact a lot of us down the line. When your nation's number one export is debt, maybe simplistic thinking is what is needed if this less simplistic thinking of yours has led to the current situation.

Simplistic thinking is never needed. Real problems require real thinking.

But if you're really concerned about the overall economy, maybe we should add "corporate welfare" to the discussion. Oh, wait, that's a complicated issue ill-served by simplistic sound bytes, too.

Clearly, simplistically, you think society's role should be bigger, I think it should be a lot smaller. My way we can afford. Your way sinks us into a deeper and deeper hole.

Clearly, you are assuming facts not in evidence, as I've never said society's role should be bigger, unless you mean bigger than nothing. I don't know what "my way" is, so I'd appreciate it if you'd let me know.

Frankly, I readily admit I don't know what the right answer is. But I do know that ignoring or dismissing the problem isn't the right answer. I know that refusing at least an attempt to understand the problem isn't the answer. And I know that every option, including doing little or nothing, can have unintended consequences, and that sometimes those unintended consequences turn out to be bigger problems than the original problem. Which is why critical thinking skills, not simplistic explanations, are called for.

And to be honest, it's why when I hear someone offer a response of essentially qu'ils mangent de la brioche, I assume they don't have any real clue what they're talking about or insights worth paying attention to.