The World Beyond BetterMost > Anything Goes
Why are the poor, poor?
HerrKaiser:
the above posts are a fine indication of how confused many posts are:
1) seriouscrayons uses my quote to suggest it supports a point by JW
2) JW salutes seriouscrayons for stating this opinion.
3) JW then refers to the same quote as bizarre thinking.
Very, very strange. ;D ;D ;D
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: HerrKaiser on May 09, 2008, 03:05:58 pm ---1) seriouscrayons uses my quote to suggest it supports a point by JW
--- End quote ---
Yes. But I suggested that it unwittingly supported a point by Jeff -- that your response indicated you had misunderstood Jeff's point to the extent that, in attempting to argue your own position, you inadvertently were reinforcing his.
--- Quote ---JW salutes seriouscrayons for stating this opinion.
3) JW then refers to the same quote as bizarre thinking.
Very, very strange. ;D ;D ;D
--- End quote ---
Not really. If you read all of the posts more carefully you will see that my criticism of your post, and Jeff's description of bizarre thinking, applied to two different weaknesses in your argument.
The first, the point that Jeff initially made and that I repeated, is that you did not seem to consider the suffering of the children -- whose only mistake was to be born -- into the "tough love" equation.
And as I understand Jeff's critique, the second weakness, the aspect he called bizarre, is that you seemed to suggest that a woman, when having children, could be expected to foresee future changes in welfare policy and plan her pregnancies accordingly.
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 09, 2008, 12:40:35 pm ---The first half of this sentence is correct: "People who are dependent on programs for their very life, shelter, medical care, clothing, etc, are extremely unlikely to VOTE."
Yes, as I'm sure you know, voting rates are very low among the poor. (Many believe that's why George W. Bush was no hurry to rush to New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, and I find that quite plausible.) If doing favors for poor people in exchange for their votes is the Democrats' big plan to get into office, it explains why they've lost the last two presidential elections! :laugh:
But when they DO vote, do many poor people vote for Democrats? Sure. Just like many rich people vote for Republicans. As a rule (with some obvious exceptions) people tend to vote for the candidates who they believe are most concerned with their interests. I don't see that as some kind of secret underhanded scheme on the part of either party. Bush is quite open about whom he considers his "base." And that's why HE does the favors HE does. Nobody would mistake our president for someone who goes around worrying about poor folks.
--- End quote ---
oh, come on. now that is Jesuitical parsing if I have ever seen it!
Those who are on assistance of any type are much more likely to vote Democrat. It is no accident of fate that some of the safest Democrat districts in the US are in the inner cities with a large pop on assistance. Lets dispense with such silliness as trying to dodge the economic motivating factors in voting decisions, and the very real impact that being on assistance has on voting decisions. People tend to vote their pocketbook, and this is the control that the entrenched welfare system has over a segment of the electorate.
Jeff Wrangler:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 09, 2008, 03:25:40 pm ---Not really. If you read all of the posts more carefully you will see that my criticism of your post, and Jeff's description of bizarre thinking, applied to two different weaknesses in your argument.
The first, the point that Jeff initially made and that I repeated, is that you did not seem to consider the suffering of the children -- whose only mistake was to be born -- into the "tough love" equation.
And as I understand Jeff's critique, the second weakness, the aspect he called bizarre, is that you seemed to suggest that a woman, when having children, could be expected to foresee future changes in welfare policy and plan her pregnancies accordingly.
--- End quote ---
Could or should be expected to foresee, but, yes, that's it. :)
brokeplex:
--- Quote from: seriouscrayons on May 09, 2008, 12:44:43 pm ---Nope, this is the first time it has come up. And your wish is my command. Since it's so long, I'm going to put it in quote mode to save space. For anyone who finds that difficult to read and wants to see it in bigger print, here's a link.
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
--- End quote ---
Lets all right now start weeping for the starving children of 18th cent Ireland who have been dead for 280 years!
I can see that the left is now running out of ammo and need a little diversion.
The reality is that there really is no relevance to the comparison of the famines in Ireland in the 18th cent which Swift was parodying and the 21st cent American underclass. Just as there is no comparison to the fate of the underclass in this country to the fate of the starving in 3rd world countries of today.
Now if you really feel a call to save starving children such as described by Swift, then go to Africa. There in the Islamic country of Sudan, a people are being starved to death in a type of ethnic cleansing.
and if people advancing the cause of the welfare state actually believe that there is a comparison, then the gulf is too wide to bridge the debate without using words like "delusional" and "confused".
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version