Doctor Fate wrote:Danivon, I wrote:

Just what did the welfare recipient, George Romney, receive? You brought it up, so answer it.

a full page ago. You never responded.

Why not? Do you now admit you were just making stuff up? If he received such a huge boost, surely you can find out what it was.

From now on, I'm fighting on your terms.

huh? Lenore Romney is on record from 1962 saying that George was on Welfare for the first few years on arrival in the USA. I don't know what that was, or how much, and she did not say. I was making nothing up. Perhaps you are calling Mitt's mom a liar, I don't know. I'm getting to the point where I don't care who you are slandering any more.

And yes, I know that things were different in 1912 to today. Back then, the US congress set up a $100,000 fund to assist Mormons returning from Mexico (where the civil war was threatening their colonies). The Romneys benefited from that fund. They may also have claimed benefits of some kind during the times when they went bankrupt (twice) in the next decade, but there's no evidence that I can see for that. (don't trust me? Try google and George Romney's wikipedia entry)

As you were at pains to point out that over 49% of Americans live in a household where some form (any form, however small) of Federal benefit was received, it's clear that George Romney was such an American in the first years of his life in the USA. In what way is juxtaposing that with Romney's words 'lying'?

Ray Jay wrote:As it relates to our current political debate, I'm always amazed when conservatives deny that there are some people on food stamps that should be.

I do not and would not deny that. I do think there are WAY too many people on them now. Instead of planning (which some could do) or working another job (which some could do), too many are too eager to take from "the government."

They forget: WE are the government! It's not some 3rd party that can (truly) create money (they can print it, but that's not the issue here). All the money we are now borrowing will be paid for by future "us."

Although Romney stated it crudely, and exagerated the extent, there is a certain level of truth to it. There are many Americans who just want more, and don't want to work. They are not motivated to vote for anyone who will cut down government spending. This is a serious issue.

And one Romney should address seriously, not foolishly at a fundraiser.

At the same time, I do think that the payroll and other taxes that poor people pay are real. If you don't include the payroll taxes that they pay in, then you should also exclude the social security and medicare benefits that they take out. However, let's also be cognizant that there are structural imbalances to these programs that need to be fixed.

A President ought to look at this, realize that adjustments need to be made, and hammer out a deal. Where is the President? He's more likely to play golf or go to a fundraiser than to talk to Republican leaders--by far. That is a failure to lead.

Give me capitalism, democracy, a rule of law (including property right) and free trade. Soften it with some social spending. But let's marvel at the brilliance of an economic / political system that can temper human selfishness, nay, channel human selfishness for maximum well being. Let's marvel at an economic / political system that can create checks and balances, both political and economic, that can protect liberty, which by definition means protecting property, and also guard against tyrany.

You've got my vote. You should be governor.

Okay, I'm on cold medicine right now so I'm not sure whether this is brilliant or crazy talk.

Closer to brilliant.

Ray Jay wrote:So, taking a step back, it seems to me that one has to acknowledge that people are both selfish and altruistic. (I prefer not to use the terms good and evil.) Biologists will tell you that altruism was and is necessary for the group to survive. You take care of your group for mutual benefit. Every day soldiers risk their lives for their group. You take a risk so that the clan can take down a buffalo. You share information so that others can harvest good plants. Sometimes you take care of their kids with no obvious quid pro quo.

This is close to my own view of human nature. It seems off to talk about the 'inherent evil' of man without addressing the fact that sometimes humans carry out acts of extraordinary bravery or compassion for the benefit of others.

Regarding Orwell, his intent may have been to call for democratic socialism vis-a-vis non-democratic socialism; however, for me his books resonate as a critic of revolutionary socialism. I appreciate his intelligence and abilty, but I think he doesn't fully understand the selfishness gene the way a police detective does after many years on the job. Human nature is what it is; I posit that revolutions go bad more often than they go well.

Orwell was actually a policeman for 5 years in Burma. He wrote a novel based on his experiences, which was about the effects of the imperial system and society on the people and how the system was undermining the better side of human nature (Burmese Days). If you want to criticise the man for lack of law enforcement experience, go ahead, but I think it an odd route to go down.

His books (I assume you refer to the last two novels, rather than the four other novels and three narrative documentaries) are indeed a criticism of the post-revolutionary socialist of Stalin, although Nineteen Eighty-Four is also about his experiences working for the Ministry of Information in the UK during WWII, the way in which WWII slid into the Cold War, and is really an inverse of the outcome he had outlined in The Lion and The Unicorn: Socialism and the English Genius. Remember also that with the unreliable history, it could well have been a fascist regime (English Socialism invoking the National Socialism of Hitler), and it's not clear whether IngSoc came to power from revolution or democracy (the official history suggests that the main means of creating Oceania is the takeover of the British Empire by the USA).

Indeed, neither are a strict criticsm of revolution itself. And I think reading his books you do indeed get a strong indication that he sees a similar duality in human nature that you do.

Give me capitalism, democracy, a rule of law (including property right) and free trade. Soften it with some social spending. But let's marvel at the brilliance of an economic / political system that can temper human selfishness, nay, channel human selfishness for maximum well being. Let's marvel at an economic / political system that can create checks and balances, both political and economic, that can protect liberty, which by definition means protecting property, and also guard against tyrany.

I understand what you are saying, but while capitalism does appear to generate maximum wellbeing in an aggregate sense, I don't agree that it does so at an individual level. Capitalism can just as easily restrict liberty as any other economic system, it can undermine or negate democracy, and when it has a spasm of crisis, the outcome can be disastrous. It is also a terrible system to use in a national crisis, such as major war, and also without fetters is just as prone to the problem of dishonesty and greed as any other system.

Besides, it may not be the best system. All we know is that it's the system that pretty much prevailed during the last couple of centuries in the West (although with a healthy dose of mercantilism for much of the early years, before welfare came in). It's reverse logic to say that the path we took was the only/best path to take to get where we are. A different history could have given completely different results, but we cannot know. To assume that there is no as-yet unknown alternative, or that the alternatives are worse is a form of cognitive bias. It's really a bit post-hoc.

Okay, I'm on cold medicine right now so I'm not sure whether this is brilliant or crazy talk.

It seems pretty good to me. Best of all, it's reflective and balanced. I don't wholly agree, but it's is 'agreeable'

Indeed, neither are a strict criticsm of revolution itself. And I think reading his books you do indeed get a strong indication that he sees a similar duality in human nature that you do.

Cool ... on that basic question, it seems that you, Dr. Fate, Orwell, and I agree. I'm sure you know more about Orwell than I do, but if you accept a certain selfishness is intrinsic to human nature, then you have to accept that there need to be constraints on human behavior, or people will take advantage of the system. Wouldn't you also accept that they system has to push back against those who want something for nothing?

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:As it relates to our current political debate, I'm always amazed when conservatives deny that there are some people on food stamps that should be.

I do not and would not deny that. I do think there are WAY too many people on them now. Instead of planning (which some could do) or working another job (which some could do), too many are too eager to take from "the government."

They forget: WE are the government! It's not some 3rd party that can (truly) create money (they can print it, but that's not the issue here). All the money we are now borrowing will be paid for by future "us."

Although Romney stated it crudely, and exagerated the extent, there is a certain level of truth to it. There are many Americans who just want more, and don't want to work. They are not motivated to vote for anyone who will cut down government spending. This is a serious issue.

And one Romney should address seriously, not foolishly at a fundraiser.

At the same time, I do think that the payroll and other taxes that poor people pay are real. If you don't include the payroll taxes that they pay in, then you should also exclude the social security and medicare benefits that they take out. However, let's also be cognizant that there are structural imbalances to these programs that need to be fixed.

A President ought to look at this, realize that adjustments need to be made, and hammer out a deal. Where is the President? He's more likely to play golf or go to a fundraiser than to talk to Republican leaders--by far. That is a failure to lead.

Give me capitalism, democracy, a rule of law (including property right) and free trade. Soften it with some social spending. But let's marvel at the brilliance of an economic / political system that can temper human selfishness, nay, channel human selfishness for maximum well being. Let's marvel at an economic / political system that can create checks and balances, both political and economic, that can protect liberty, which by definition means protecting property, and also guard against tyrany.

You've got my vote. You should be governor.

Full agreement, except the governor part.

Doctor Fate wrote:Or, just maybe . . . you're reading too fast and importing whatever meaning you'd like?

I'm still confused about you logic. Are you saying that the failure of pure socialism is evidence that man is inherently evil, or that man's inherent evil is evidence that pure socialism will fail. It looks like you are stating both, without much evidence other that they are true (and that a work of allegorical fiction is itself evidence that can be cited).

Indeed, you suggest that if all churches were like the Mormons in regard to social welfare, the government would be superfluous.

Read it again, bub. I said "government assistance," not "government."

I meant in the spehere of welfare, and perhaps that was not clear. Above this I'd already stated that I know you support government controlling some functions.

Right, because churches don't help people outside of themselves? Is that what you are saying?

Some do, some don't. Some of those that do may treat members differently from non-members, or be tempted to use their help as a means of proselytising or as a bargaining chip against acceptance of their creed (in part or in full). The point is, each church will have their own path, based on the way it's leadership and/or members take it.

Or, are you saying it's okay for the government to have that kind of power over people's lives, which you say comes with the giving of aid?

I'm saying if there is that kind of aid, whoever gives it, there is that potential power and with it the threat. Whether it is the government or another body, the real question is accountability and involvement. More so, if you hold to your thesis of inherent evil.

danivon wrote:I'm still confused about you logic.

I doubt it.

Are you saying that the failure of pure socialism is evidence that man is inherently evil, or that man's inherent evil is evidence that pure socialism will fail. It looks like you are stating both, without much evidence other that they are true (and that a work of allegorical fiction is itself evidence that can be cited).

Ah, so you'd like me to prove it? Where would you like to go? Which worker's paradise?

But, both are true.

Feel free to disprove it, but try not to use some as-yet-not-established utopia.

Ray Jay wrote:Full agreement, except the governor part.

Can't afford the pay cut?

Right, so basically you are asserting both as true, which is circular logic. As I suspected, but it's good to know.

danivon wrote:Right, so basically you are asserting both as true, which is circular logic. As I suspected, but it's good to know.

No, it's not circular logic.

1. Pure socialism cannot be sustained because of inherent human greed.

2. Inherent human greed ensures pure socialism cannot be sustained.

That's not circular logic; it's repetitive. The order is reversed, but both say the same thing. You did that under the guise of confusion.

Doctor Fate wrote:

Ray Jay wrote:Full agreement, except the governor part.

Can't afford the pay cut?

I wish that was the problem ... I'm too much of an introvert and I have too much of a sordid past to ever be in politics.

Ray Jay wrote:I wish that was the problem ... I'm too much of an introvert and I have too much of a sordid past to ever be in politics.

Given what some politicians have been up to, the mind boggles as to how sordid your past could possibly be to preclude a political career.

Well, I am willing to mention that I've always filed a very clean tax return; we even pay our cleaning lady on the books withholding payroll taxes which is something that our current Treasury Secretary forgot to do.

Ray Jay wrote:forgot

Forgot? Oh you mean "Forgot" Nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

danivon wrote:Lenore Romney is on record from 1962 saying that George was on Welfare for the first few years on arrival in the USA. I don't know what that was, or how much, and she did not say. I was making nothing up. Perhaps you are calling Mitt's mom a liar, I don't know. I'm getting to the point where I don't care who you are slandering any more.

Hmm, not really sure, but I think slander actually means saying something, not just having someone assume that you would have said something or were thinking something. Maybe there's another definition of "slander" you're using.

And yes, I know that things were different in 1912 to today. Back then, the US congress set up a $100,000 fund to assist Mormons returning from Mexico (where the civil war was threatening their colonies). The Romneys benefited from that fund.

How many others benefited? Was he able to get food stamps, 99 weeks of unemployment, Medicaid, free cell phone, housing assistance, and free school lunches for any children?

Yes, I know that the last question is anachronistic. However, that's the point. One cannot compare a single grant, divided between who knows how many people, with the "safety net" we've established now.

As you were at pains to point out that over 49% of Americans live in a household where some form (any form, however small) of Federal benefit was received, it's clear that George Romney was such an American in the first years of his life in the USA. In what way is juxtaposing that with Romney's words 'lying'?

Because George Romney received nothing like what people receive today in terms of scale or duration. If it's not "lying," it's certainly an inapt comparison of epic proportion.