Jessald's Waterfall
You keep using the phrase "marginal utility" as though it means "utility". This tells me you don't understand what the "marginal" part means. But since I've already tried to explain it twice, I'll just let that go.
You're sort of right that we can't measure utility precisely. However, we can approximate it. For example, in the vast majority of cases, we know that when people are starving, they value food more highly than a yacht. You don't need numbers to know that. It's obvious. We can use that judgment to conclude that giving food to a thousand starving people would carry greater utility than giving a yacht to a rich person (at least in the short term).
Furthermore, in theory we could measure utility exactly. It just comes down to neurons firing. The amount of subjective value obtained from a hamburger vs a yacht could be measured through some extremely complicated equation. The number may be too hard for us to find, but it does exist. And even if we can't determine the exact value of a given thing to a given person, through careful study, we can bring our approximations closer and closer to the true value.
I mean, say I kicked someone in the balls. Would it be reasonable for me to say the other guy's suffering was meaningless because it couldn't be precisely quantified?
Food is not so valuable to an anorexic person.
Yes, yes, obviously the rules don't apply to the mentally ill. But the vast majority of people are not mentally ill. Besides, even anorexics value food significantly, or else they would starve to death. Anyway, you're missing the point.
This is the value of this thing for everyone...
No, that's not what I'm saying. Diminishing marginal utility just means the value of each additional thing drops as you get more it. The "absolute" value is irrelevant. It seems like you're not really understanding the concept or marginal utility, and if you can't grasp it then we're not going to be able to move forward here...
It's dictatorial and I rather die than live under a dictatorial regime.
No, Joe... the amount of coercion done by the government lies in a spectrum with anarchy on one end and totalitarianism on the other. You can't just point to any act of coercion and claim dictatorship.
What? I'm not sure I really understand your argument. I think what you're trying to say is:
1) People value things differently.
2) Therefore the concept of "value" is meaningless.
3) Therefore you can't say food is more valuable than a yacht.
It's true that some people like watching basketball and others don't, therefore the ability to watch a basketball game can hold more utility for one person than another. But there are some things that are universally valued by all people. Food, for example. Food will always be more valuable to a starving person than a yacht to a rich person.
The more apples you eat, the less you want. The value of each additional dollar drops as you get more of them. Marginal utility is a well defined economic concept.
Let me rephrase: the fact that people will always want more is irrelevant to the question of whether stealing is acceptable in certain situations (because it avoids a greater evil).
As far as the billionaire, if he can't buy that yacht because he just had to pay a million dollars worth of taxes, then the "marginal utility of that money" did NOT drop!
You don't seem to understand the concept of marginal utility...
It's like eating apples. If you're really craving an apple you might be willing to pay a dollar for one. But after you eat it, you're craving is mostly satisfied. So you would only be willing to pay, say 75 cents for another one. If you ate a couple more after that, you would probably start to get sick of apples and the amount you would pay for another one would start to approach 0. Get it?
If you go from zero to a million dollars that means you can get food, a house with air conditioning and heat, a car, the ability to support a family, healthcare, etc, etc.
If you go from a billion to 1.1 billion you get a yacht.
Which of the two carries more subjective value?
It's not that we are greedy...
Wait, so you're a rich person now?
Says who?...That is a subjective statement...
It's not subjective. It follows logically from the facts. Like I said:
"The marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire."
There will always be a group of people clamoring for more
Irrelevant. The fact that people will always want more has no bearing on the question of where we should draw the line.
People generally want to get money. Therefore getting money is good. You've got that part right.
But actions generally come with both costs and benefits, and we need to take both into account.
The cost and benefit in your example would depend on how much money each person had. This is because the marginal utility of money drops as you get more of it. A million dollars is worth a lot to a starving person but comparatively little to a billionaire. So, leaving all other variables aside, failure to equalize wealth is bad -- and the greater the wealth disparity, the worse it is. Assuming the two people have an equal amount of money, the transaction would take away more utility from the giver than it would give to the recipient, and therefore the transaction would be a bad one.
Even if it were a rich person and a poor person, handing over a million dollars would be too much. It would drastically eliminate the person's incentive to create value, while alleviating comparatively little suffering.
The best answer is to give just enough to meet minimal quality of life. Which means food, shelter, healthcare and education.
There is a flaw. One act of theft is no big deal, but many acts of theft aggregated together are a big deal. Stick enough raindrops together and you get an ocean.
Same thing with preventable deaths. One death isn't so bad, but many deaths are indicative of a systematic problem.
Yes those are the costs. The benefits on the other hand include (I'm talking about unemployment here):
Alleviates short-term hardship for those laid off.
People are less likely to get stuck in crappy jobs.
Allows people to spend more time finding work and less dealing with basic survival issues.
Mitigates the wealth concentrating effects of capitalism.
Controls inflation. (link)
Stimulates the economy. (link)
I don't see how you can judge that the evils of slightly disincented job-seekers and mild taxation outweigh the listed benefits.
Death is no big deal because everyone dies. Non sequitur. The fact that death happens to everyone doesn't change the fact that it's undesirable for the vast majority of people.
Death for the old is not such a big deal, death for the young is more so.
Hmm, ok. There would still be some logistical problems. But if we had a "homeless tax" that was automatically deducted from your income unless you opted out... that might work. It might be interesting to see how much money we would end up with if all taxes were optional like that...
Still, aside from homelessness, we also ought to provide healthcare and education. Those cost money too. Asking liberals to bear the weight of society's welfare alone is asking for too much.
Taking a little from those who have a lot is not a big deal. The benefits outweigh the costs.
Stealing is worse than letting someone die.
Ok, I just wanted to hear you say that explicitly.
You're obviously wrong on that point (and I think you know it) but I'll leave it at that for now.
your example is flawed because...
It was just a thought experiment, meant to get a better understanding of underlying principles.
Average IQ has risen steadily over the last hundred years. Therefore Joe's argument is bunk.
$9500 actually.
http://www.google.com/
Don't worry, I know math is hard for conservatives ;)
Everybody knows that government is inefficient, but there's just no better way to deal with this kind of problem.
Right, but do you think charity is going to be sufficient to provide $100,000 a month (or whatever it takes to run a shelter)? And that's just for one shelter.
"$28.5 billion was allotted to homeless programs ran through HUD (Housing and Urban Development)"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
No way you can get that much through charity.
fairness is not an objective term
Ok then let's go with "better" instead. Better means "more good". And good is an objective term. Good means "the extent to which desires are satisfied."
We can make the world a better place.
I guess you're stubborn that way
You're only stubborn if you're wrong. If you're right then the word is patient. :)
If they are alive, they have met my definition of minimal quality of life.
Wow... So even if they're going to starve to death in a few hours... no big deal, huh? I mean, they're alive now, aren't they?
Stealing is stealing and stealing is wrong.
I'll leave this one to the other thread.
Ok, thinking about how to solve homelessness, I guess it would be better to get one building with a bunch of beds. And now I see that what I'm describing is a homeless shelter. That's probably the most effective way to deal with the problem.
Having them residing in people's houses has too many logistical problems.
Also, managing homelessness sounds like a full-time job, which means the person doing it will need to be payed a decent salary. Sounds like charity is going to be insufficient here.
It is stealing.
Why is stealing wrong under the given circumstances? Which would be the greater evil, taking a dollar from the guy or letting the child starve?
find some other way
Suppose there is no other way.
liberals want to help people as long as they get to do it by using someone else's money or forcing someone else to do it
Why use such broad generalizations? "Liberal" is just a label. People are not that simple. Some liberals just want to take whatever they can, yes. Some legitimately want to help people.
Speaking for myself, I can say that I want to make the world a better place. The harm caused by taking a little from the rich is outweighed by the benefits gained in feeding the hungry. It's just that simple.
Convince me with logic, not emotional crap.
I am using logic. I'm just stating the most extreme example to get an understanding of your viewpoint. I think you must see that taking a dollar in this case would be ok. Once you agree that (at least in theory) it is ok to redistribute wealth in certain situations we can discuss where the line should be drawn.
No, taking someones money is different from guiding them through every aspect of their life. It is much, much easier to do the former.
I don't think taking someone's money is moral. I think it's the lesser evil.
Paying for a cell phone or cable tv would be excessive, I agree. What laws provide such things?
If you own a farm worth more than a million dollars, I'm sorry, but you're pretty fucking rich.
Anyway, if there really is a serious problem with farms getting liquidated, then maybe there should be an exemption in certain cases. I don't know. But I do know the Florida Farm Bureau is not the place to go for objective analysis.
We would never be able to agree on how much food or what type...
But would you agree that there should be something? Non-zero? Most extreme case I can think of: Say there's some orphan who can't provide for herself. Say there's one guy who has billions of dollars. Everybody works for this guy for less than a dollar a day. They can barely afford to feed themselves. He doesn't care about this little orphan and will just let her starve. Is it ok to take a dollar from this guy to buy some rice for the girl?
Then we don't have a consensus because you and I already don't agree.
We don't need a consensus. I was just answering your question: "Who decides?" The majority decides.
That means that you want take other people's money so that you can give a "minimal" quality of life to someone else and make yourself feel better.
I want to take other people's money, yes. But it's not about making myself feel better. It's about making the poor person feel better.
If each homeless person had one sponsoring liberal family...
That's kind of an interesting idea, actually. I would be down for it if enough other people would be to actually solve the problem. But I doubt they would. Because, yes, it's easier to take somebody else's money. Unemployment benefits are the only politically feasible solution.
But homelessness is not the only problem. Food, education, and healthcare all cost money. It's not fair to place the burden on providing for those people exclusively on liberals. The burden should be shared. And those who can most afford to pay should pay a disproportionate amount.
No, we can't because liberals and conservatives do not agree on what constitutes "minimal" quality of life
We can't make life more fair because we don't agree on what constitutes minimal quality of life... Do you know what a non-sequitur is? It means "does not follow". Don't you see? We obviously can make life more fair. It's not physically impossible to do so. Whether or not we agree on what constitutes minimal quality of life is an entirely separate question.
Anyway, what is your definition of minimal quality of life? And do you agree that taking may be justified in order to provide it under certain circumstances?
Where do we draw the line?
Minimal quality of life. Food, shelter, education, healthcare.
Who decides where we draw the line. You?
Yes me. And also you. And the rest of the voting public.
It isn't fair that I don't have a BMW in my garage.
You keep acting like I want to make everybody equal, but you know that's not true. I just want mitigate suffering as much as possible without having to pay too great of a cost.
If you want to make life fair for the homeless...inviting one of them to live with you.
Helping one homeless person won't have any significant effect on the big picture. I can't personally provide housing to every homeless person. Charity is insufficient. Coercion is necessary.
Can we make life more fair? Yes, we can.
Ok, now you're starting to sound reasonable.
What exactly is this "generational welfare" you're referring to?
I know what the term means, but I'm not convinced that it's a serious problem. Providing any sort of safety net is going to make some people reliant on it. That doesn't mean we should just get rid of it.
I think it's far more likely that the problem is blown out of proportion by rich Republicans looking to scare people into voting even more money their way. I think you must be incredibly naive if you don't see that.
Yes, taxes are up for billionaires. Cry me a river. Obama has cut them for everybody else.
And I looked up your "death tax". And what do you know?
"The exemption would fall to $1 million and the top rate would move back to 55 percent from the current top rate of 45 percent."
http://www.reuters.com/article/
Translation: If you inherit more than $1 million from your rich daddy, it will get taxed at 55% instead of the current 45%.
Jesus Christ here comes the apocalypse!
You are such a patsy for the rich. They are playing you for a fool and you don't even realize it.
A small amount of money should be coerced from those who can afford in order to provide a minimal quality of life to those who can't afford it. So they won't suffer and die. It's basic morality.
Coerce the weak to be strong? How do you propose doing that? Taxation is simple. Living someone's life for them is not.
I don't think these "bums" you guys like to talk about actually exist in any significant quantity. There are a few, maybe, who cheat the system, but they are vastly outweighed by large numbers of people who just had a run of bad luck and need some temporary assistance.
I think you guys conjure up this image of an army of bloodsucking parasites threatening to undermine the integrity of our nation for one simple reason: selfishness. You don't care about what's right and what's wrong. You only care about grabbing everything you can and fucking everybody else.
Nobody wants equal outcomes. That's another thing you guys constantly say even though it's complete bullshit. As I've said over and over, people should just be provided with a minimal quality of life. Food, shelter, education, healthcare. And they should only get that much if they make an effort to work. That's not too much to ask.
Are the tax cuts set to expire, (going up)?
If you make more than $250,000.
I don't about the death tax or the child tax or the marriage penalty. I'm sure I could do some research and find out if those are legitimate grievances -- but I'm not going to, and I'll tell you why:
Which do you think is more likely? That the economists are lying or that you've been manipulated by rich people into voting for their interests?
The dumber you are, the harder you have to work. There's no getting around the fact that some people just can't keep up.
http://graphics8.nytimes.
It doesn't even cost that much to provide basic welfare.
"2.7% of GDP pays for Medicaid, food stamps, family support assistance (AFDC), supplemental security income (SSI), child nutrition programs, refundable portions of earned income tax credits (EITC and HITC) and child tax credit, welfare contingency fund, child care entitlement to States, temporary assistance to needy families, foster care and adoption assistance, State children's health insurance and veterans pensions."
http://polecolaw.newsvine.com/_
So you think there was no luck involved in your success? None at all?
You're probably smarter than like 80% of people. Which implies your parents are probably really smart too. That by itself is really lucky.
The fact is that a whole lot of people in your circumstances would not have been able to make it out, regardless of whether or not they got welfare. So why not do a little to mitigate their suffering?
Assuming you make less than $250,000 a year, then yes.
"taxes are at their lowest levels in 60 years, according to William Gale, co-director of the Tax Policy Center and director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution."
http://www.cbsnews.com/
Why didn't you know that? Where do you get your news?
I actually agree with you that minimum wage laws are harmful, but have serious doubts that getting rid of them would be politically feasible. We live in a democracy, after all, and that means dumb ideas can win if they are popular enough.
I didn't realize there was a difference between "fired" and "laid off". I should have said laid off, because that's what I meant. If the guy loses his job through no fault of his own, he ought not be forced into homelessness.
Why do you say he has no incentive to get a job? Unemployment benefits are strictly temporary. They only provide the minimum needed to survive. He will be motivated to get a job in order to increase his standard of living. And if that's not enough motivation, then he will be cut off after a certain period of time.
Why isn't life fair? Should we try to make it more fair?
What percentage of your salary do you pay in taxes? If you didn't pay any taxes would your life be substantially different?
Funny how you never try to get conservatives fired up. Seems to me like you just want to bitch. The "fired up" thing is just a cover, an excuse for engaging in selfish behavior.
In a country as incredibly wealthy as the United States of America, should people be left without the basic essentials needed for life?
Say a guy gets fired from his minimum wage job. If it weren't for unemployment, he wouldn't be able to pay rent and would probably become homeless. Does that sound fair to you?
Say a woman can't afford health insurance. She gets really sick but doesn't get treatment because it will bankrupt her. When she finally ends up in the emergency room they find she has cancer and it has progressed too far to be treated. She dies. Is that the way life should be?
the more people there are, the less jobs there are and the lower the wages
That's not necessarily true. Life is not a zero sum game. The mentality that for you to win someone else has to lose is wrong and destructive. Wealth can be created. People can trade fairly. Everyone can win.
But who the hell wants to work when they can just get a handout?
What handouts are you referring to? Stuff like unemployment is strictly short term and comes with the requirement that people look for a job. It seems like no matter how many times I say this, you don't hear me. Could it be that you're just looking for someone to hate?
What makes you think anybody else would have succeeded where BP has failed?
What makes you think anybody else could handle Afghanistan better? He just swapped out McCrystal for Petraeus, what more do you want?
As for healthcare: People in the United States should not be left to die from easily treatable diseases. That's the bottom line.
Regardless, I don't know why you're saying health care reform is bad for the economy; because, according to the CBO, it'll reduce costs:
"The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the net effect (including the reconciliation act) will be a reduction in the federal deficit by $143 billion over the first decade."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
I'm not hearing any solutions from you, just a lot of whining.
"The value of life...is the marginal cost of death prevention in a certain class of circumstances."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
EPA says $6.9 million.
The ones most qualified to fix the oil spill are the engineers at BP, not Obama. Our strategy in Afghanistan was created mostly by our generals. Healthcare passed with a supermajority.
These are big, complicated problems. Obama can't just wave his magic wand and make it rain gumdrops. People need to stop with the mindless bitching.
"The study reaffirms the importance of practice for reaching high levels of performance, but also indicates a large variability, the slower player needing eight times more practice to reach master level than the faster."
http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/
Except we're not buffalo. Humans have moved beyond natural selection. We can easily afford to carry a few stragglers.
Also, the richest are not necessarily the strongest. They're just the most ruthless. A society of cooperators would be stronger overall than a society of backstabbers.
I do think wealth should be concentrated. Sometimes it seems like you guys buy your own bullshit and forget that a large majority of Democrats are pro-capitalism. It's just that I don't think wealth should be concentrated to such a great degree.
The profit motive has been proven to be a good way to direct our resources toward productive uses. But don't forget that to concentrate wealth is to concentrate power. If you're the CEO of a massive company, you can create huge barriers to entry which can prevent other people from being able to compete with you fairly. You can manipulate the people and the government into giving you even more money and power. It is dangerous to allow anyone to accumulate this level of power.
Meanwhile you have the problem of poverty for other people. The flip side of 1% having 40% of the wealth is that the bottom 80% only get 10%. Why should we have so many people living lives of relative poverty, when we could take just a little from the richest? $1000 would mean a whole lot more to a really poor person than a really rich person. Even if this hurt the economy somewhat, it will create such a dramatic improvement in the overall welfare of the population that it would clearly be worth it.
So, no, I'm not calling for a communist utopia. And I favor incremental change over radical change. So if it were up to me, I would redistribute only a bit of the wealth and then wait a while and see what happens. If everything went ok, I would distribute a little bit more. I would keep doing so until I found a line where it seemed like the well-being of society as a whole was appropriately balanced against the need to incentivize people toward doing productive work. I think it's clear that we are far from that point.
You might have a point if the top 1% controlled 40% of the pussy. :p
But they don't, women are distributed fairly evenly.
Money on the other hand...
Jesus Christ you guys are such pathetic cunts. Your arguments can't stand on their own so you resort to prying into people's personal lives.
I have been on my own since I dropped out of college. Living off of savings while trying to start a company. Not that it's any of your fucking business.
What do you mean by "do something"? Be more specific.
As I've explained a million times already, families have to work a certain number of hours to get stuff like food stamps. Unemployment only lasts for a certain period and you're required to look for a job. Nobody except the elderly and the handicapped gets money for nothing.
1-3. Good job confirming my petulant child characterisation.
4. The "free money" kind of welfare only goes to people who can't work: the elderly, disabled, etc. Other kinds of welfare (food stamps, unemployment) require people to do something: work a certain number of hours, find a job within a certain amount of time, etc.
P.S. Were you hitting on me in #2? Sorry, I'm straight. ...don't worry I won't tell ;)
Delusional? No. Hypocrite? No. Arrogant? ...maybe ;)
1. Nobody made me boss. If I were boss I could just take your money and we wouldn't need to have this debate.
2. No, I see government as the father figure. I see you as a petulant child. (Why do conservatives have so much trouble with analogies?)
3. Lol, classic first grade argument, thanks. Typical Joe. Oh, wait, you added a little twist at the end, lol. Let's see... "...take everything you can" - ah, wrong there. I just want to take a little bit. Just enough to make sure people don't starve. Why are you so eager to have people starve Joe? Could it be that you have sociopathic tendencies? I think it might be.
4. So you agree with a minimal level of welfare? Or are you saying if charity is insufficient then fuck the hungry? If it's the former, then I agree. If it's the latter, then you're going to have supply a better rational then, "the world's not fair". Because the world can be more fair if we choose to make it that way.
You call me self-righteous. But I think a better word is just "righteous". The word "self-righteous" implies that I'm not actually right.
I think you're just a fundamentally bad person. People like you don't see right and wrong, you only see power and weakness. You want to take everything you can and hoard it. You're getting pissed off at me not because you have some ethical disagreement, but because Dad is trying to make you share the candy with your little brother.
Maybe stupid people don't have a divine "right" to other people's money. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't give them a little in cases where they will suffer and die without it. Because allowing human beings to suffer and die is just plain wrong. And again, as I've said over and over, charity is insufficient.
I don't think your examples are realistic.
The people who get welfare are mostly the bottom 10% of Americans. They have few skills or talents. They were not raised with ideas like saving money or planning for the future. They are stupid and unambitious. Like it or not, people like this will always exist. They will take any jobs they can get, but when there are no more low skill jobs to go around, or if they cannot make enough to support their family, they will experience levels of suffering that no American should have to face.
Is it right for people to go hungry while guys like Ken Lewis are pulling $20 million a year? Come on.
I've been using an Acer Aspire One for the last six months, and have been happy with it. Just go on Amazon and search for netbook. I got it for just $300.
The biggest downside is the tiny keyboard. The small screen can be annoying too. So I'd recommend hooking it up to a big external monitor, and using a wireless mouse and keyboard.
Oh, and the built-in speakers suck, so you should get some external speakers if you want to listen to music or watch movies on it.
Other than that, even the low end should give you all the power you need, unless you want to play 3D games. So if I were you, I would go for low price.
Oh, and buy new. My last computer was a refurbished HP laptop that I got for $800. It crapped out on me within six months. Somehow the hard drive and the RAM became corrupted, and now it's an $800 brick.
/facepalm
What part of BALANCE do you not understand?
Civil liberties are important, but they are not sacrosanct.
Liberty is good. But suffering is bad.
Welfare slightly infringes on liberty while greatly alleviating suffering. It's not a hard decision.
If being "liberal" means legalizing heroin, then I'm not a liberal. Sorry to disappoint you.
And we're not talking about a "shit load" of money. Maximum tax rate is around 30% for the rich. Only a fraction of that goes to welfare.
You're too idealistic. You need to have a sense of balance.
It doesn't have to be libertarianism or communism. There is a massive grey area in between.
A Pirate? What? You illegally distribute copyrighted material? How does that give you authority to comment on welfare fraud?
Welfare fraud is something that we should crack down on. Nobody is going to argue with that. But every system is going to have its imperfections. That doesn't mean we should remove the system entirely.
Taxation is a necessary evil. Charity is insufficient to meet the needs of the disadvantaged.
Don't be an asshat. Neither of us are running for office. We don't need to play politics here.
I am ready and willing to listen to any suggestions you may have. But it is natural to be skeptical of sweeping change. If your ideas cannot be realistically implemented, then they are not worth much, are they? The task of any who desires change is not only to outline their goals, but to demonstrate that those goals are achievable in the real world.
Anyway, let's hear it. How are you going to achieve these objectives?
Or do you have nothing to back up your populist posturing?
"Think outside the box", lol. What an excellent solution. Right up their with "shifting the paradigm" and "achieving greater synergy".
What do you mean by "give them prosperity"? We already have ways of pushing and pulling them into becoming productive members of society. Are you suggesting massive increases in welfare spending? Does that not give people a big incentive to sit on their ass and do nothing?
Eliminating welfare spending altogether is also not an option, for reasons I've outlined in my other arguments.
I do of course think real-world systems can always be improved upon, and welfare is no exception. I would welcome any productive, realistic adjustments to the system. But don't give this fantasy land nonsense.
What exactly are you suggesting? All I see are vague values statements buried in loquacious prose. Be more explicit and specific, please. Concision would be nice too.
Edit: Ah, I see you were a bit more specific in your second response to my initial argument. I will respond there.
You can argue that welfare perpetuates poverty and I will agree. And you know, if we chucked deformed babies off of cliffs like the Spartans did, that would be great for the economy.
What I'm saying is that we have to accept the downsides of a minimal level of welfare because no welfare at all is morally unacceptable. Like it or not, we will always have those who cannot provide for themselves or their children for various reasons. Leaving them to die is not an option. Basic welfare isn't supposed to eliminate poverty, it's just supposed to ensure everyone has at least a minimal quality of life.
Charity simply does not generate enough money, and it is naive to think it would. Do you honestly think the wealthiest Americans are going to voluntarily give up 30% of their income?
You suggest helping people help themselves, and this is exactly what American welfare does. We have programs that help people find work. Unemployment benefits require that people find work within a time limit. Longer term welfare require that people work a certain number of hours a week. What more do you want?
Finally, it should be stated that the excessive handouts we had in the past have been reformed to the minimal levels we have today.
There are no costs to banning gay marriage? Tell that to the people who can't get married.
Emissions is most certainly not "a load of bullshit". The IPCC is full of highly qualified efforts who state that it is a serious problem. The people who question it are for the most part are politically or financially motivated, or they are informed by people who are.
It's good that you did some research, but why didn't you post a link to where you got that info? It makes me wonder if you aren't selectively quoting.
"Eligibility for a Welfare program depends on numerous factors. Eligibility is determined using gross and net income, size of the family, and any crisis situation such as medical emergencies, pregnancy, homelessness or unemployment. A case worker is assigned to those applying for aid. They will gather all the necessary information to determine the amount and type of benefits that an individual is eligible for.
The Federal government provides assistance through TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families). TANF is a grant given to each state to run their own welfare program. To help overcome the former problem of unemployment due to reliance on the welfare system, the TANF grant requires that all recipients of welfare aid must find work within two years of receiving aid, including single parents who are required to work at least 30 hours per week opposed to 35 or 55 required by two parent families. Failure to comply with work requirements could result in loss of benefits."
So you are right that it goes to more than those who strictly can't work, but you are wrong that it goes to "anyone who knows how to apply". It goes to those who can't work as well as to the unemployed (temporarily) and to those who don't make enough to support their families.
Sounds reasonable to me.
Exactly. You can argue that it won't happen anytime soon, and you're probably right. Just don't try to say it shouldn't happen, because we both know that's not true.
And, of course, I don't give a rat's ass about your politically motivated shrink.
