Poverty is due to moral lacking

[thir]

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conservative-columnist-social-problems-are-caused-by-depravity-of-the-poor.html#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

[ksst]

No, it's not a moral failing. Otherwise some very rich people would be falling into poverty very quickly. They are certainly not all hard working, morally incorruptible and staying married for life. It's more about what you learned when you were young, and the opportunities you had, for a lot of people any way. You learn to be poor, or you learn to be middle class, or you learn to be rich. A different set of coping strategies is needed for each. Which leaves open the possibility of learning new strategies or giving people new opportunities even as adults.

There are certainly better ways to help reduce poverty than the welfare system. Head start has made a huge difference. Keeping people from going broke due to medical expenses would be a big step in the right direction also.

[Thorne]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.

As for divorce, just look at all those rich people with their second or third or more spouses. Or with children via several partners (illegitimacy). And how many of the wealthy in the US, at least, wind up in clinics and/or therapy to battle their addictions (or stay out of prison.) As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.

Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

[ksst]

it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.


I'm going to remember that. Good one.

[Thorne]

I'm going to remember that. Good one.

I'm going to have to start writing these down somewhere. For posterity's sake, you know.

Or is it posterior?

[ksst]

You left yourself wide open for a rude comment on that one. Must... resist...

[thir]

I think they have this a little bass-ackwards, there. The primary cause of poverty is ignorance, not the other way around. Teach people HOW to handle money and their lives and they will be more likely to get out of poverty. But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of.


Not surprising.



As for morality, well, it takes a lot of money to be truly immoral.


To get away with it, anyway :-))



Chances are if you compare a wealthy businessman with poor laborer, the only real difference in their histories will be the opportunities for a good education. Everything else is pretty much a wash.

That would be based on the old idea that if you really want a job, it will be there. Which is a myth.
we are as dependant on economical ups and downs as farmers are on the weather.

And as for those, people far out of our reach are free to make a mess of everybody's lives, as we have seen with the banks. But it is also a matter of the government policies. A right-wing government wants unemployment, because it gives them control of the employees. (At least in DK they accidently said so to an open microphone - ha!)

But I agree that education is a huge factor in all this, and with the other statement about health care.

In DK we complain about not having enough access to loans for living while you study or whatever, but education itself is free. In UK they have just made university education an impossibility for any but the rich, at least, you get saddled with a dept that will cripple you for life.

Serious illness can knock you out completely. In UK our government (right-wing) is trying to dismantle the public health care system and throw it to the commercial wolves. In Denmark a less ambitious attempt was done with private hospitals. When it wasn't so popular to go more to the US system, they contended themselves with having a sucking straw down in the puclic treasury, by way of charging 25% higher prices than they were allowed. It was a scandal involving the prime minister.

In later years I increasingly get the impression that some parties see their country as consisting of only their own 'class' of peple, and no one else matters. About 90% of all 'help' to unemployed - insane 'courses' consiting of building house of pasta and the like - was and is nothing but a milking cow into the public coffers. I am also thinking of Bush and his wars and personal interest in the oil industry.

Have I stopped being naive, or started to become paranoid? ;-))

[Thorne]

You left yourself wide open for a rude comment on that one. Must... resist...
Resistance is futile!

[ksst]

You will be assimilated!

[denuseri]

You not paranoid thir...and you would may or may not be surprised to know that it isn't a phenomenon that's regulated to any one political party alone...here in the states the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans when it comes to abuse of power and giving in to the wishes of corporate special interest groups.

[Thorne]

the democrats are just as guilty as the republicans when it comes to abuse of power and giving in to the wishes of corporate special interest groups.
There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

[ksst]

And they both claim to be the party of the middle class. How does that work?

[denuseri]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

Not at all, they both like to say they will do things to help the poor and middle class but what they actually do once elected is both take money from the middle class and poor alike and give it to themselves and their rich friends.

[Thorne]

Not at all, they both like to say they will do things to help the poor and middle class but what they actually do once elected is both take money from the middle class and poor alike and give it to themselves and their rich friends.
Yeah, I suppose it works that way, too. Whether they call themselves jackasses or elephants, they're all pigs in the end.

[denuseri]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

[Thorne]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!
Enjoy it while you can, dear. I haven't been feeling well, so my game is off.

[thir]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

I marked the day in my calendar :-))

[thir]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

The middle class seems to have played a real important part many times in history, though. In Europe they meant that the king could join with the them against the nobility with the end of feudal times as a result (but stronger kings) if I got it all right, and it seems to me that many parties do court the middle class - hence all the (in my eyes) rather exaggerated emphasis on family values and so on.

They do get squeezed, I think that is true, but not as much as the really poor. The rich always gets the cream.

[Thorne]

I marked the day in my calendar :-))
Me too! It's not every day I get to see denuseri's panties, after all.

[DuncanONeil]

Tried to answer & timed out. Oh well!

Tried to answer & timed out! Oh well@
"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conservative-columnist-social-problems-are-caused-by-depravity-of-the-poor.html#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

[DuncanONeil]

"But that means providing an adequate education, at the taxpayer's expense, something else that conservatives are afraid of. "

The current educational system gets more money than it needs. Cost of education has increased by a factor of 14 since 1970 and yet the outcome has remained flat in that time. Meaning no improvement.

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?

[DuncanONeil]

There are differences, though. The Republicans want to take money from the middle class and the Poor and give it away to the rich; the Democrats want to take money from the middle class and the rich and give it to the poor. Either way, the middle class gets squeezed, which explains the shrinking middle class in the US.

The middle class is not shrinking!

[DuncanONeil]

squeals! jumps up and down and waves her panties in the air....Thone agreed with me....whooootz!

Can I get a visual of that!?!?

[Thorne]

So money has not solved anything, how is more money going to solve the problem?
That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?

[Snark]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[lucy]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

[Thorne]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?
Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.

The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

[DuncanONeil]

But these are the arguments always presented for an increase in allocations to schools! It has been a few years since I looked specifically at my local schools, but the statement is still true. We have 16 high schools in the district. Each of these schools has FOUR assistant principals. As is usual their responsibility is the disruptive. One per grade! The total cost of these is $9,056,512. Plus benefits which average about $50,250 or $3,216,000
Total cost of these 64 positions $9,272,512. I think this is overboard! The district has a budget of about $1 billion.


That depends on where the money is being allocated. Instead of paying for new office furniture for administrators, and higher administrators' pay, why not put that money into hiring qualified teachers and quality classroom equipment? Instead of paying for psychologists to pamper kids who get their feelings hurt, why not pay to teach kids self-respect, self-discipline and good manners? Instead of paying for lawyers to appease hysterical parents who just "know that my kid is a good boy/girl" why not find a way to truly discipline bad students, and bad parents?

[DuncanONeil]

"I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else."

Government should not be doing this at all!

[DuncanONeil]

Hear! Hear!


The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

[DuncanONeil]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!

[denuseri]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person. Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it? Washington, DC schools are the highest funded in the country; clear evidence that more money is not the answer. Conservatives (as compared to Republicans) desire less government, lower taxes. I fail to understand how taking LESS from some one -rich, middle class or poor - provides the resources to "give" to some one else. Large government sucks capital out of the economy to dole it out to those areas to maintain dependence on large government. The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work. The larger the government, the less effective it will be. The entire system of our representative republic was designed to keep it small and let the state and local governments deal with regional and local problems. Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results. Monopolies - especially through governmental intrusion into the marketplace - will stifle competition and improvement. Some regulation to prevent abuse is necessary. The problem is that most regulation is aimed not at preventing abuse within the system but at controlling the system and giving favor to one portion over another. The current liberal attitude is to seek equality of outcomes; something that is impossible, rather than equality of opportunity; which is how our country was designed.

That's the best response yet imho!

[lucy]

But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.
Not in this case. In this case, we tried to model reality according to the theories. Well, not we, since I didn't ....


The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.
Sorry, but in recent years it was the economists who dictated the rules, the politicians just followed them blindly. It really wasn't the other way round. At least that's the impression I got here.

[lucy]

Gravity is a theory!!

So the answer to your question is, no. Besides the "problem" with "economic developments" was in fact Government intrusion in the first place!
Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[Thorne]

Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.
Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[StrictMasterD]

"One of the underlying threads of conservative thought is that the rich are inherently hard working and “earn” their good fortune, and the poor almost always are poor due to some sort of moral lacking."

"This is the assumption that makes the right believe that most people on welfare, on unemployment, using food stamps or other government aid must be lazy, or lacking in courage, determination or pride. No one “needs” government assistance because they should be able to care for themselves, and a “handout” just makes them try even less."

"It’s usually not discussed publicly in so many words, even though that’s what many believe. But David French of the National Review Online doesn’t have any qualms about coming right out and voicing it himself:

"It is simply a fact that our social problems are increasingly connected to the depravity of the poor. If an American works hard, completes their education, gets married, and stays married, then they will rarely — very rarely — be poor. At the same time, poverty is the handmaiden of illegitimacy, divorce, ignorance, and addiction. As we have poured money into welfare, we’ve done nothing to address the behaviors that lead to poverty while doing all we can to make that poverty more comfortable and sustainable.""

(Italics are mine.)

Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/conservative-columnist-social-problems-are-caused-by-depravity-of-the-poor.html#ixzz1XRnZONUW

I don't think it is specifically a political view, but probably also a world-view shared by many, which is why I put it here.

What do you think? What exactly causes poverty?

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[DuncanONeil]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!


Yes, gravity is a theory. But unlike economic theories it actually works in everyday life. At least I didn't float upwards this morning when I got out of bed.

[DuncanONeil]

All theories are subject to testing!


Not quite! The theory doesn't WORK, it EXPLAINS! Gravity worked long before there were any theories about it.

But just imagine what would happen if, for example, scientists discovered that gravity depended upon a certain number of people spending a certain amount of their money over a certain period of time. As long as those conditions persisted, gravity worked. Then, along comes some idiot movie/sports star and says that, no, people would be better off if they spent MORE money, faster. Suddenly gravity no longer works! The theory may be sound, but the application of the theory has been sidetracked.

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

[DuncanONeil]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.


I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

[Thorne]

Alright then Global Warming is a theory!
Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[Thorne]

All theories are subject to testing!
Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[Thorne]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.
I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[StrictMasterD]

Although you "paid" in you didn't really "earn" anything for those payments. Since you were not really buying something, you were being taxed by the Government to fund a benefit program.

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

[StrictMasterD]

Yes I earned the righttheright to get my benefits that come with the FICA Tax Deduction, my point was simply oto say that some peoplewho recieive Socialy Security, Food Stamps Legitmately get them, and itis not a case of them or me justbeing LAZYand not wanting to work
If you invest in a Comay by buying stock inthem, you haveearned theright to the divident you get back
But to say those wgho reveivie Siclay Security or Food Stampsare simply to lazyto work, I find that very wrong, I worked my entire life well over 40 years
Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly
My FICA decition was to insure I recieived money when I did stop working, like if you buy an insurance policy through and insurance company, say auto insurance, you pay a semi annual premium forthat you gt into a car accidfent, you pay the deductable buttheinsurance company pays most of thecostofrepairs, my FICA paymeny insures me the say righ,ti can't wrok i go to my "Insurance Polivy" via my FICA paymentys and they pay for what i need to me Scialy Swecirty and my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,
Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[DuncanONeil]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!


Well, technically, Global Warming is a fact, just like Gravity and Evolution. The MECHANISMS of global warming, or evolution, or gravity, are theories.

[DuncanONeil]

Factually true I agree. But this could be considered a form of testing.


Not necessarily. From a book I'm reading: "... only that which is experimentally observed, or that which can be logically connected to experimental observation, has any reality."
There are some things which cannot, yet, be directly observed. They can be logically deduced, based on other observations, but not measured directly. A black hole is a perfect example. We cannot see what happens inside the event horizon, but by observing effects OUTSIDE, scientists can deduce what is happening inside. They can then predict OTHER effects which SHOULD happen if their hypotheses are right, and if those effects are observed the theory is strengthened.

[DuncanONeil]

Agreed! Which is why there is always an argument. What it IS vs What was INTENDED. Seems like there is a party that wants credit, and to be the "good guys", based on what they intended to do rather then what they accomplish.


I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.

[DuncanONeil]

Yes I did buy someting, i bough the righ to have Medical Insurance when I stopped working, by my FICA Dedcution weekly

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

[DuncanONeil]

my FICA paymentst are no different then the premium you pay for health, auto or life insurance,

Again with those other things you actually have a vested interest in them. With SS you do not have any interest in it at all.

Can you will you SS benefits to your heirs?

[DuncanONeil]

Responding to your own posts???


Corrrct and that Benefit Program that I HELPED fun I am now using

[Thorne]

I was going to say AGW but thought the meaning would be lost!
Yes, AGW is a theory: which means there is ample evidence for it. It explains that evidence better than any other speculation by deniers. While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found. Unlike the idiotic rationalizations thrown out by deniers, especially the "God will protect us" group, like Perry and Bachmann.

[DuncanONeil]

Sorry but I don't think the evidence supports this theory in the least. Think it more hubris than science.


Yes, AGW is a theory: ... While it is not the ONLY mechanism driving climate change, it is currently the best explanation for the data being found.

[Thorne]

Sorry but I don't think the evidence supports this theory in the least. Think it more hubris than science.
Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.

[StrictMasterD]

Responding to your own posts???
No to a reply to my post ,failed to put their quote in sorry

[lucy]

Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.
No, the real stupid ones go to an astrologer or even a haruspex and never visit the doc in the first place. At least I wished that was the case since it would considerably lower the percentage of idiots.

[Thorne]

No, the real stupid ones go to an astrologer or even a haruspex and never visit the doc in the first place. At least I wished that was the case since it would considerably lower the percentage of idiots.
Yeah, we should probably let them promote homeopathy and all those other fake cures. At least it would help reduce the level of stupid in the world. Eventually.

[DuncanONeil]

But the issue is there is no assurance that number is correct. Also there was a point in time when all the appropriate scientist thought the earth was the center of the cosmos.


Well, when 98%+ of the CLIMATE scientists (You know, those people who actually STUDY the science) tells you that AGW is the most likely culprit, I'd have to say that they have way more credibility than all the talk-radio hosts and Fox News talking heads out there. When the doctor says you are sick, you don't go to an astrologer for a second opinion.

[DuncanONeil]

It just looked funny!


No to a reply to my post ,failed to put their quote in sorry

[Thorne]

But the issue is there is no assurance that number is correct. Also there was a point in time when all the appropriate scientist thought the earth was the center of the cosmos.
That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

[Snark]

I have always looked at it more as a forced savings account, which is more or less what it was intended to be. The actuality? Far different, sadly.
Unfortunately, many people have this misunderstanding. It was never intended, nor practiced as a forced savings account. It has always been a pay as you go collection and distribution system with no actual accounts assigned nor assets accumulated in any individual's name. There is no Social Security Trust account; it is simply a collection of Treasury Notes giving the SS system the right to retrieve the excess collections that the congress siphoned away. In its simplest terms it is a government operated Ponzi scheme. Always has been and will be until it is changed.

[Snark]

That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

The global warming fanatics claim accuracies of detail far beyond any possibility of verification. Perhaps 1.5 degrees celsius of warming has occurred. Claims of accuracies to within 1/10 of a degree are ludicrous. Instrumentation to consistently deliver such accuracies have only been available in the last 70 years; reading them with such accuracy by thousands of individuals over such a time is impossible. Accurately reading a thermometer to 1/10th of a degree in a range from 0-120 degrees would require thermometers in excess of 48". Every reading must be made precisely from the same angle. Calibrations must be confirmed. Readings within 5 degrees from tree core samples in one location of the Earth? Even considering such as accurate "data" confounds belief. And we are supposed to disrupt our entire economy over this? Greenland was once much warmer than it is now, as was Europe and the UK. There is ample evidence of a very slight increase in temperature; there is little verifiable evidence that it is beyond normal planetary fluctuations nor that the activities of men have enough to add to it that we should throw our country away. There has been no verification of any data, no corroboration by public organizations. Only conjecture by organizations with huge amounts of money being thrown at them to "prove" a theory that funds the panic industry. To top it off,when the light of disclosure was shined on the instigators and the raw data was demanded the response was "it was accidentally deleted". File cabinets of manual records? Deleted? Follow the money. This isn't "feelings". Interpolations and averages do not deliver such precise measurements and the fraud demonstrated repeatedly in the "global warming" industry is enough to make anyone skeptical. Junk science is still junk. Consensus is NOT science; it is conjecture. Only the same results can be demonstrated by independent analysis can anything approaching science be considered.

[DuncanONeil]

"They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting."
The penultimate data used is the data set from East Anglia. The original data is not available. The data set is from a very limited pool. Both of these call the data itself into question. The hockey stick graph has been evaluated to determine it is just as likely that CO2 is following the increase in temp as the other way 'round.
Be advised I have never claimed the world was not warming. But there is also evidence that the world itself is cooling, has been for much of a decade.
So the question remains; What is really happening?


That's the great thing about science, though. The more we learn, the better our understanding of reality. Given the equipment (or lack of it) that scientists had to use, their observations were logical. Later study proved them wrong, so they revised their hypothesis. It was the conservative elements, mostly the Church, which resisted the reality.

The same holds true now. Maybe the numbers aren't correct, quite. Maybe this is a statistical anomaly. The thing is, though, that ALL of the numbers indicate that Global Warming is occurring, and most of the numbers show that mankind is playing a significant role. The only thing the deniers have to offer is their constant harping over repeatedly debunked claims. They have no evidence that the scientists are mistaken, or are misinterpreting. They only deny because of their "feelings". Led, again, by the conservatives for political reasons (big oil, anyone?) and by fundamentalists who don't believe their god will let them down.

[Thorne]

The penultimate data used is the data set from East Anglia.
This was only the beginning of the data. Since then there have been multiple sets of different data, all pointing in roughly the same direction. Ice core samples, tree ring data, etc, etc. Sure, some data show variations, for various reasons. Most of them explainable, except to those who insist that such variations are proof of the opposite. The facts are there. The interpretations are where the problems lie. But any interpretation which cherry picks among the facts is virtually useless.


The hockey stick graph has been evaluated to determine it is just as likely that CO2 is following the increase in temp as the other way 'round.
It has been evaluated by whom? By those who don't like the idea of AGW! And one other point to consider is the fact that Global Warming does, indeed, increase the release of naturally occurring greenhouse gases. CO2 which has been trapped in permafrost for millenia is now being released due to the thawing of that permafrost. The same with methane gases.


Be advised I have never claimed the world was not warming. But there is also evidence that the world itself is cooling, has been for much of a decade.
There are, of course, natural cycles overlaid upon the Global Warming trends. Sure, there can be several years in a row where the global temperature may drop, slightly. But the overall, long-term trend is towards warming. The highs are higher than historical, generally, while the lows are not as low as historical, generally.


So the question remains; What is really happening?
What is happening is that the world is getting warmer. Not too much question about that. And even if you insist that mankind is not the CAUSE of the problem, man's actions are certainly making the problem worse. Reducing our CO2 emissions may not stop the problem, not anymore at least, but it certainly could help to reduce the ultimate impact. And lets face it, finding cheap, alternative forms of energy, preferably non-polluting, would ultimately help everyone. Denying the problem and blindly carrying on as if there's nothing wrong only makes things worse.

[thir]

Umm ... haven't recent economic developments pretty much proven that market theories are just that: Theories?

Yes!

[thir]

Depends on how you're using the term 'Theory'. The layman's concept of a theory is basically that it's little more than an educated guess, and that almost any theory is just as valid as any other. But in scientific terms (and yes, economics is a science, if not a rigid one) a theory is a model of reality. It explains what can be shown to be true, and predicts new facts which may not yet be understood.


If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless. One of which is the incompetance of banks.

Anyway, it is not a science. It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.



The problem with economic theories as I see them is that they rely on the actions of people, which is a very difficult thing to model. And in the modern world, with almost instantaneous communications and global markets, the problems are multiplied exponentially. When you add in government interference, the results become completely unpredictable. The models might work, on a small scale, but be completely useless once government regulations alter the playing field.

In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.
The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.

[thir]

Poverty has many causes. Morals do not determine personal responsibility. Being born dirt poor and doing nothing to improve it means that it will continue for that person.


Meaning the myth that if you really want a job there will always be one, and if you really want an education one is possible.
In other words, it is their own fault, the lazy good for nothing buggers.



Education is available to anyone in this country - legal resident or illegal. Why do specific groups in this country refuse to take advantage of it?


Why ideed? It is a real mystery.



The Soviet system demonstrated how well central planning and government intrusion doesn't work.


It did work for quite a while, in which ordinary people had food on the table for the first time. They had no freedom, but they hadn't had that before either, and anyway, like in China, food is more important. Until you have enough and some - then freedom starts to be important.



The larger the government, the less effective it will be.


This may be true to a certain extent. Unfortunately you can also say that the wilder the capitalism, the more mess!



Competition- not monopoly- in healthcare, education, banking, business, even government, will produce better results.


Well, it certainly hasn't in any of my countries! When health care is big business, they only do what is cost effective and not what is good for patients. Education same.

Banks -they have certainly shown that they are too greedy and incompetent to be able to hold that function in society. And when it goes wrong, as with the businesses, they come whining to the government, wanting interference!

[thir]

This is kind of what happens with economic theory. Under the right conditions, those theories will explain what's happening. But when conditions are altered, generally by some pretty face, or a politician, or any of a number of absolutely inane possibilities, the theories can no longer be used as models. So the economists say, given a population of X, which has a disposable income of Y, performing Z actions will help the economy improve. Politicians say, great! Let's do that, and pass the required laws. Along with new tax laws, and new spending bills, and more appropriations, all of which alter the value of Y, making the whole equation worthless.

Well, reality - a world full of different and increasingly complicated and interrelated economies and wheather and natural disasters and politcal changes and wars and what not - is far too complicated for any theories.

A bigger problem is that economics are not science, a bunch of theories does not science make. Science means proving stuff, in ways that can be dublicated.

Further more, said theories are based on idelogies about what aught to happen if you do X Y and Z, sort of in a lab with no distraction from real life.

[thir]

I take exception o this, I worked my entire life, I paid into the system for over 40 years
I am now disabled, unable medicaly to work, yes I recieive Socialy Security Disability and Assistance from my state for Food, but I EARNED the right to do so, I have never not worked becuse I am or was Lazy, I am under the careof Docotors
So please do not say those who live "off the Goverment" are lazy, mos tof us are not I paid inot the system and are simply getting back what I paid in FICA Taxes for over 40 years,yes there are some out that that are lazy, that find it easier to live off the system but please do not say ALL those ho recieive Social Secirty Diability, or Retirment Pay or Food Stamps are lazy, not having been in that situation you can not place everyone who is in the same boat
That is tenamount to sayig all people of a certain Ethnicity are bad because of a few select one,s not ALL whitesae bad, not all Blacks are bad not ALL Muslims are Radical lke those responsable for 911
Base pepole on who they are and not the class or Ethnicity they come from

Nobody is saying that, not the article, and no I myself, who is merely presenting it for comments.
I happen to agree.

[Thorne]

If economics is a science, it is one trying to operate with so many variables it becomes useless.
Well, I used the term loosely. It IS a science, but a "soft" science, like psychology. Rather than predicting definitive outcomes, it predicts trends. And yes, it is far from precise.


One of which is the incompetance of banks.
Actually, it's the incompetence of BANKERS that is the problem, and economic theory can take that into account. It's just not comfortable when you do, so many economists ignore that, preferring to blame the "volatility of the market."


It is armchair thinking, and much more political ideology than logic or knowledge.
In large part it's a combination of all of these. Which makes it very easy to misuse.


In fact, nothing but a lot more control of this wild capitalism will save another crisis, and another.
I disagree. Removing the controls of capitalism would work far better, I think. Tighten the controls on monopolies, of course, and strengthen consumer protections, but let the markets work. A competitive marketplace has always been beneficial to both industry and consumers. Adding regulations which make it impossible for innovators to break into the marketplace only makes things worse.


The news on our tv was that if Obama and senate/rep had not made this temporary compromise, US would have had to stop paying its officials and vital functions within a very short time.
Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

[thir]

No! You did not buy anything. Your were taxed to fund a Government benefit program!

Twisting words as I see it. I too have payed taxes all my life (haven't we all?) and a lot of them, and I expect to get back what I need when I need it. That is the deal.

[thir]

Doubtful. A good reason not to put to much stock into TV news. NON-vital functions might have had to be stopped, temporarily, which would not have been good for those government workers, but no way they would let the vital functions shut down.

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[Thorne]

They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.
There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

[DuncanONeil]

This I can agree with you! But the problem is that is the Government that decides IF you get anything & how much!


Twisting words as I see it. I too have payed taxes all my life (haven't we all?) and a lot of them, and I expect to get back what I need when I need it. That is the deal.

[DuncanONeil]

The Government has shut down a bunch of times. every time it has only been non-essential services. In simple terms the military do not get furloughed, though the civilians in Supply would likely.


They would have had no choice. I do not place too much stock in tv news, but this kind of thing is not something you just bandy about. And previous craches have been foreseen.

[DuncanONeil]

I was working for the Government during a period of time when there were 15 shutdowns of Government. As I was working for various parts of DoD never once did I get sent home.


There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

[lucy]

Duncan, you make that sound as if the government is some obscure organization whose ultimate goal is to make everybody miserable and f*** them up their asses.
It is, however, the people YOU voted into office. YOU put them in charge and nobody else. Just sayin'.

[MMI]

Thought you might all like this pearl from an ex-public schoolboy (that's a fee-paying non-state school btw).

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."

Make of that what you will.

[Thorne]

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to do the jobs we need them to do properly."
This could be restated in a less "priveleged" manner.

"If the poor aren't educated properly, they won't be able to get the jobs they need to escape poverty."

It's mostly a question of defining "properly".

[thir]

There have been threats like this before. No one has ever really seen WHAT might happen. I can say, though, that it's doubtful the politicians will lose any money over it.

No, it would be a number of official functions shutting down because they cannot be paid for.

[Thorne]

No, it would be a number of official functions shutting down because they cannot be paid for.
Which might not necessarily be a bad thing. At least we could determine which of those functions are truly necessary.

[MMI]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world (http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-21000-children-died-around-the-world)

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

[thir]

"Poverty is Due to Moral Lacking"

Assuming "moral lacking" means the absence of any distinction between right and wrong, and accepting that the consequence of poverty is hunger, dependency, disease and death, then it must be. With most of the world's wealth in the hands of just 2% of the population, and that Two Percent believing it has actually "earned" its fortune by its own good honest toil, there is next to no chance that the Two Percent will do anything to alleviate poverty elsewhere. Amoral.

The Two Percent earned nothing - they took it, and the wealth they "created" was through the hard work of others.

In fact, the Two Percent is likely to take steps to ensure it retains its privileged position: Multi-national corporations using poor nations to produce raw materials, paying pitiful wages, and paying the lowest prices for the goods they buy; dumping food and goods onto these nations at prices that undercut local producers, preventing the growth of independent agriculture and industry; nourishing corruption by supporting client rulers who provide favoured nation deals they can't afford in return; and attaching penal conditions to the aid that is provided, causing what wealth poor nations do have to be handed over to wealthy countries as "debt" repayment. Immoral.

The fact is, the Two Percent doesn't give much of a fuck ... what it does care about is keeping its own privileges and comforts, at everyone else's expense. Meanwhile they pretend they have worse problems of their own, that must be tended to first. Evil.

Today 21,000 children died around the world (http://www.globalissues.org/article/715/today-21000-children-died-around-the-world)

"The silent killers are poverty, easily preventable diseases and illnesses, and other related causes. Despite the scale of this daily/ongoing catastrophe, it rarely manages to achieve, much less sustain, prime-time, headline coverage."

In other words, although we have the means to do much so much good around the world, we would rather ignore the problem. Only when there is a major catastrophe will the western media pay any attention to the disaster - as a form of entertainment - but within days, or weeks, their interest, and that of the audience, will fade away, and the gossip programs will take primacy once more.

The wealthy nations of the world have promised to increase the amounts of aid they give, and in 1970, they set a target of about 0.7% of GNP to be given annually from about 1975. Those nations are now giving about 0.2% to 0.4% pa, some forty years later. The USA is notable laggard. More recently, the EU nations set a new target for achieving the target: they are all failing. The cost for vested interests is too high.

I see no answer but war, and it is likely that the poor will lose, and and lose again, and will be made to pay for their temerity. However, once there have been sufficient martyrs for the cause of the impoverished, maybe there will be some kind of revolution that makes life easier for some. A token.

Don't think the Two Percent will have given up their position of dominance. That will never happen.

Maybe it will..we are making ourselves so vulnerable with more and more technology and in other ways - maybe the system will crach, and maybe in a way that gives us a chance to start over.