Tom Delay: People Are Unemployed Because They Want To Be

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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, 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.

^^^ German Chocolate please?

[agzg]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

[I]qu'ils mangent de la brioche[/I

Yay!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

Tom Delay made that assertion. I did not. I simply stated that welfare has to end at some point. These continued extensions of benefits are to the detriment of society... and yes, if an otherwise healthy individual runs out the clock on their benefits, I do think they ought to bear the burden of that and I do think they have to be somewhat complicit in their situation.

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.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence as well, counsel. I have stated over and over that at some point, the burden needs to shift away from society and back onto the individual. At some point, their plight is not my fault, nor should it be my problem. It seems we're in agreement there.

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

I don't think simplistic or real thinking is happening right now in Washington. At least nothing that is focused on cost/utility as it should be (unless the desired outcome is political capital).

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.

In principal, I think that all transfers of wealth from public to private entities should be closely scrutinized. I think everyone outside Goldman-Sachs understands that in the long run, these sorts of relationships are arguably the precise reason for our current economic situation. (Fannie/Freddie anyone?)

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.

What I'm sure of is that the status quo is not only not working out very well, it's rewarding complacency and inefficiency. That don't cut it in my book.

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.

And those advocating for the status quo or for more governmental help when we're already way, way past being able to pay for that help are not advocating useful solutions even if those solutions are arguably workable in the short term. Selling out our future to make marginal improvements in the present is absolutely not a sound way of managing any crisis. Passing out more free money like this and not actually doing anything to reconfigure our systematic issues is only setting us up for a much more dramatic and much more serious failure than those in the past.

[KAPital PHINUst]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Tom Delay made that assertion. I did not. I simply stated that welfare has to end at some point. These continued extensions of benefits are to the detriment of society... and yes, if an otherwise healthy individual runs out the clock on their benefits, I do think they ought to bear the burden of that and I do think they have to be somewhat complicit in their situation.

I think you're assuming facts not in evidence as well, counsel. I have stated over and over that at some point, the burden needs to shift away from society and back onto the individual. At some point, their plight is not my fault, nor should it be my problem. It seems we're in agreement there.

I don't think simplistic or real thinking is happening right now in Washington. At least nothing that is focused on cost/utility as it should be (unless the desired outcome is political capital).

In principal, I think that all transfers of wealth from public to private entities should be closely scrutinized. I think everyone outside Goldman-Sachs understands that in the long run, these sorts of relationships are arguably the precise reason for our current economic situation. (Fannie/Freddie anyone?)

What I'm sure of is that the status quo is not only not working out very well, it's rewarding complacency and inefficiency. That don't cut it in my book.

And those advocating for the status quo or for more governmental help when we're already way, way past being able to pay for that help are not advocating useful solutions even if those solutions are arguably workable in the short term. Selling out our future to make marginal improvements in the present is absolutely not a sound way of managing any crisis. Passing out more free money like this and not actually doing anything to reconfigure our systematic issues is only setting us up for a much more dramatic and much more serious failure than those in the past.

+1776

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by bosaco

indian bum?

Indian with a feather or Indian with a dot?