Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mezriss

conservative approaches to poverty

Recommended Posts

Guest svfrey

I think it's funny how people confuse ALEX GEE for a liberal because he makes fun of conservatives.

 

 

 

 

 

 

libertarianism for the (sort of) win.

Edited by svfrey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
umm, i dont know what your getting at...thats a horrible practice which i dont agree with. i think it suggests a desperate attempt to deny anothers views.

 

thank you, well i wouldnt say that, i mean look the situation that had to deal with....im not denying obama handled it well, and im not saying bush was the best ever, im just saying that look what they had to work with, bush had to undo the wrongs committed by clinton(who was given a great situation by bush sr.) and had to also juggle everything else with a constant barrage of negative media and slander. obama did rather well in completing his promise of passing a plan, however you cannot claim he did better until you know the action done wasnt negative and will benefit our nation.

Ok, im sorry i dont have a plan covering everything written up, i dont have time and frankly it clashes with what the Democrats wanted(i disagree on the porkbarrel spending especially when i dove into specifics, and i dont think his ideals on taxes, healthcare, and a few other major issues), but you have to admit that an alternative wouldnt survive in our House and Senate.

I will agree that George W Bush isnt the greatest president of all time, but you cannot judge his decisions until we can see everything he had to deal with. I mean Obama essentially just reversed Bushs policies, and they need time to prove themselves as 'better'

All I have to say about the stimulus is I pray it does, I have my doubts after doing some research, Im hoping it does though, for the sake of our nation

look at it this way

bush's bailout redistributed wealth from the lower and middle classes to rich bankers. many people agree we have little to show for this in terms of economic recovery

obama's bailout made some inroads to help the US education system, US poverty (jobs) and the renewables industry. these are very good ideas regardless of the economic crisis rhetoric needs to be used to justify this politically

 

economy will recover by the end of the year regardless of the stimulus and stimulus wont really work for economic recovery – new data i've researched suggests markets are beginning to stabilize and the fed has made some smart moves that didn't get much media hype. i'm not really worried about the need for an economic stimulus. it won't make things significantly better or worse in banking/mortage sectors, but so what – it is still effective in other areas relative to bush's policies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only cool thing i think Obama said he was gunna do was go over the yearly budget and cut the things we dont need right now. I have been sayin that for years. Whether its realistic or not is besides the point.

 

I think someone of a high position should make a law prohibiting our yearly budget to be in the negatives for however many years until our deficit is significantly lower. Lower deficit

 

I say this because to me, regardless of the economic situation we are in now, knowing that everytime we spend money, its money we dont have, that we dont even come close to having! How about Obama get support to prevent congress from going into a deficit for the year and maintain that law for however many years. i understand that a deficit somewhat is a good thing because it shows that you can spend money you dont have to pay for stuff but i think we have been across the line for a long time and someone needs to reverse that trend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think someone of a high position should make a law prohibiting our yearly budget to be in the negatives for however many years until our deficit is significantly lower. Lower deficit

I agree, let's abolish the Department of Defense and pull the military from their exotic foreign locales. That'll do the trick!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree, let's abolish the Department of Defense and pull the military from their exotic foreign locales. That'll do the trick!

 

yup. completely isolate the US from the world. Make our own shit and eat it too. Thats what i say. Make the world see the significance of the US. For years militant extremists have condemned the US and yet ignore the money and aid that we dump into their dirt living countries. Either nuke them or isolate ourselves lol. That would be awesome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
yup. completely isolate the US from the world. Make our own shit and eat it too. Thats what i say. Make the world see the significance of the US. For years militant extremists have condemned the US and yet ignore the money and aid that we dump into their dirt living countries. Either nuke them or isolate ourselves lol. That would be awesome.

sarcasm fail

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sarcasm fail

 

i was definately not sarcastic....

 

 

ONE GOD ONE WORLD ONE NATION! LOL notice the sarcasm. Maybe Obama will give me a stimulus for being a poor college student. i should get a job a mcdonalds first i guess and then work there for 4 years and then become retarded and praise the lord that Obama speaks to me and then ask him if he has an idea or anything that could be used to make somthing thats been there for as long as its been there more inclined to that. lol. Atleast i wont have to worry about paying my mortgage or putting gas in my car.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

before y'all keep ranting about how Obama's stimulus is the devil reincarnate and proves that he hates bipartisanship and is a fraud, consider the following:

 

1. Any sort of governmental response to the crisis will result in a party-line vote. It's an ideological issue. liberals want spending, conservatives want tax cuts. You can't do both and expect anything to get better (spending more with less can never work).

 

2. Obama's mistake was to let pelosi/reid run the show. He wanted a much more moderate version of the bill that got passed. This was their creation, not his.

 

3. Like synergy explained, the stimulus bill does spend money on renewables/jobs/infastructure, which are good things.

 

4. You have no alternative other than a purely ideological fantasy. It's easy to bash a plan without having to defend anything else.

 

5. your conception(s) of "pork" is local projects designed to make local communities more attractive/deal with things that need to get done. People won't stay in communities that have nothing to offer. Granted, some of the stuff in the stimulus (the sex ed stuff, for instance) is prolly unrelated to the end goal, but a lot of the local projects serve to stimulate local economic growth, which a lot of people suggest is important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I listen to Rush for the comedic value. His crazy right wing antics amuse me. In my years of listening I've picked up on a definite conservative strategy with regards to questions of poverty. It goes something like...

 

1. Status Quo solves: Economic growth will lift more out of poverty. There are plenty of shelters and programs (government run and NGOs) to deal with those who are in poverty. Those who don't realize this or don't take them up are making a conscious choice.

2. Solvency Answers/Turns: Generally this involves a set of specific arguments for why an anti-poverty program won't work or will make things worse. This usually includes some argument about government dependency. The "case turns" are where Limbaugh spends the majority of his time.

3. Econ/Spending DA: Some disadvantage involving costing lots and lots of money and hurting the economy.

 

I thought this might be helpful for those debaters who are not really in an area where CPs, Ks and the like are as accepted. It could also be an interesting and somewhat viable strategy for someone into an in depth case debate.

 

Disclaimer: I don't agree with Rush on the issue of poverty to be perfectly honest. Most of his reasons the status quo solves and the programs won't work are over-inflated lies. But given that debate is constructed primarily through over-inflated lies, I figured this might still be useful for someone.

there are many good approaches to poverty on the conservative side of the political spectrum. None of them can be better understood by listening to rush Limbaugh. The use of Rush as a model for discussion of poverty is like using the Pope as an arbiter on birth control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this morning i just did a community service project through school with habitat for humanity

 

this was their seventh week constructing a house for a family that was buying it with 0% interest. there were about 25 student volunteers and 5 americorps people and 5 parents. the only thing we did was give the house a second coat of paint, although i felt like there were few problems with the one already there from a few weeks ago.

 

it just seemed like a really inefficient project. for about 3 hours of work since 8pm on the house (that counts as 10 in our school program for the college resume) we had coffee with donuts for breakfast, for snacks we had a box of 50 snickers bars and a box of chip packs, about 200 water bottles and juice packs, and for lunch about 50 boxes from jason's deli with five different selections. after about an hour about half of the kids were standing around talking or playing ultimate frisbee. i felt like it should have taken 5 people to efficiently cover any holes in that house's paint job. especially when you compare it to the other houses in that neighborhood you have to wonder, is another coat of paint really what these people need? i think if we offered that family all the money we spent on that food and 30 new paintbrushes/buckets for all volunteers (why not reuse from last time?) they would rather take have that. or better yet give the family a paint and brush so they keep that afterwards to fill in any holes they perceive necessary– that shaves off a week in the construction time.

 

i talked to the americorps volunteer there afterwards and he says HBH is building 60 houses this year which is close to their average but during these times they really need to do more but can't because they rely on corporate grants for all their expenses and corporations can't give out as much now. this is exactly why i think for-profit charities are more efficient in achieving the goal of helping the most people. right now there's probably some single person at the top that makes a budget plan that this much total that is needed for food, construction, paint brushes, etc. since they rely totally on grants, their incentives are to ask for more donations if they want to build more houses. it doesn't correlate with demand or encourage them to look at effiency in how they spend money on each project. families buy the houses they build, but i imagine at a lower cost. maybe a better organizational structure would be one that gives them a primary incentive to build more houses – they'd sell them to the families at an affordable price and the government or the corporations would fill in the rest of the difference so they remain a nonprofit for tax purposes. the fill-in budgets would be set to motivate them to construct the greatest number with most efficient manner, since they'd get to access incrementally more of the government fill-in budget or corporate fill-in budget (incentivized by incrementally larger tax breaks) with more number of houses and they have an incentive for efficiency because the family can't pay more so the more efficiently they work the less the cost-gap will be.

Edited by Synergy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
there are many good approaches to poverty on the conservative side of the political spectrum. None of them can be better understood by listening to rush Limbaugh. The use of Rush as a model for discussion of poverty is like using the Pope as an arbiter on birth control.

I don't disagree with you about that. I merely used Rush as an example because I had noticed that Rush used this set of arguments and they seemed analogous to debate arguments that could be made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't disagree with you about that. I merely used Rush as an example because I had noticed that Rush used this set of arguments and they seemed analogous to debate arguments that could be made.

I am becoming concerned that debate is becoming like talk radio. We should pause and reconsider before turning debate into a race to the bottom (intellectually speaking).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
this is exactly why i think for-profit charities are more efficient in achieving the goal of helping the most people. right now there's probably some single person at the top that makes a budget plan that this much total that is needed for food, construction, paint brushes, etc. since they rely totally on grants, their incentives are to ask for more donations if they want to build more houses. it doesn't correlate with demand or encourage them to look at effiency in how they spend money on each project. families buy the houses they build, but i imagine at a lower cost. maybe a better organizational structure would be one that gives them a primary incentive to build more houses – they'd sell them to the families at an affordable price and the government or the corporations would fill in the rest of the difference so they remain a nonprofit for tax purposes. the fill-in budgets would be set to motivate them to construct the greatest number with most efficient manner, since they'd get to access incrementally more of the government fill-in budget or corporate fill-in budget (incentivized by incrementally larger tax breaks) with more number of houses and they have an incentive for efficiency because the family can't pay more so the more efficiently they work the less the cost-gap will be.

 

i appreciate the sentiment, but this really isn't how shit works. especially @ the budget level. budgets are usually set by the XO, but scrutinized by the treasurer and governing board. for a non profit of this size, the board is probably mixed between people competent and caring, and those who have great fundraising connections.

 

secondly, the reason why there is a grant, is so that a govt board or corporation doesn't have to 'fill in the difference' on each instance. instead, the grant covers the cost and the recuperation from sales is part of non-taxed income (i assume its the 501c3 branch), if the money goes back into the charitable services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i appreciate the sentiment, but this really isn't how shit works. especially @ the budget level. budgets are usually set by the XO, but scrutinized by the treasurer and governing board. for a non profit of this size, the board is probably mixed between people competent and caring, and those who have great fundraising connections.

 

secondly, the reason why there is a grant, is so that a govt board or corporation doesn't have to 'fill in the difference' on each instance. instead, the grant covers the cost and the recuperation from sales is part of non-taxed income (i assume its the 501c3 branch), if the money goes back into the charitable services.

 

that's true, but it assumes that the grant is large enough. it's never large enough to meet the need– only basing the profit incentive on met need can come close

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That was an interesting back and forth, fellas. The contest had its high points as well as its low points, but overall it was very interesting to read.

 

PS

I was laughing at both sides of the argument the whole time because it was so funny the way it got personal fast. real fast

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That was an interesting back and forth, fellas. The contest had its high points as well as its low points, but overall it was very interesting to read.

 

PS

I was laughing at both sides of the argument the whole time because it was so funny the way it got personal fast. real fast

 

Was this really necessary dude?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

haha lol. so this is now a conservative - liberal debate. o_O

 

btw i only read the first 10 posts of the first page and the conno guy is simply repeating old fail mccain campaign slogans and crap.

 

i hav nothing against rush limbaugh; he just shouldn't mis-inform the public. i can pick out an obvious answer to something he says / false information usually once every 2-3 minutes on fox. bill o'reilly + hannidy and colms mostly. and rush has a worst reputation then both. so he can't be any better >.>

 

btw on thread: TS'r; nice idea but obviously untopical. but if ur a good T arguer; then go ahead. if they run T (social services) the aff doesn't provide any additional social services; you can start arguing about how you permanentize social services; so you provide additional sevices; by guaranteeing their existence later on.

 

just a suggestion^

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Was this really necessary dude?

 

Sorry icon9.gif if I somehow inadvertently attacked anyone or made anyone feel ... idk... annoyed. The thread was interesting and amusing. Thats all.

No need to send fail reputation messages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sorry icon9.gif if I somehow inadvertently attacked anyone or made anyone feel ... idk... annoyed. The thread was interesting and amusing. Thats all.

No need to send fail reputation messages.

 

>.< np lol I was just bein a dick dun worry about it.

 

Seriously though in sum Rush Limbaugh is a total fucking idiot:

 

  • "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --on the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is white
  • "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" --on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
  • "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
  • "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>.< np lol I was just bein a dick dun worry about it.

 

Seriously though in sum Rush Limbaugh is a total fucking idiot:

 

  • "And don't forget, Sherrod Brown is black. There's a racial component here, too. And now, the newspaper that I'm reading all this from is The New York Times, and they, of course, don't mention that." --on the 2006 Ohio Senate primary race involving then-Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-OH), who is white
  • "This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation...I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You ever heard of the need to blow some steam off?" --on Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse
  • "Feminism was established so as to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society."
  • "The NAACP should have riot rehearsal. They should get a liquor store and practice robberies."

 

its weird how thats offensive stupid and wrong yet theres some unsaid truth to it. more feminists are ugly chicks, blacks commit more crime, minority card gets played by some black politicians and so on. you just wish he wasnt saying these things in the middle of dumbfuckingstan

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its weird how thats offensive stupid and wrong yet theres some unsaid truth to it. more feminists are ugly chicks, blacks commit more crime, minority card gets played by some black politicians and so on. you just wish he wasnt saying these things in the middle of dumbfuckingstan

 

theres not truth to any of this. sherrod browns not black. claiming he is, thats called lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its weird how thats offensive stupid and wrong yet theres some unsaid truth to it. more feminists are ugly chicks, blacks commit more crime, minority card gets played by some black politicians and so on. you just wish he wasnt saying these things in the middle of dumbfuckingstan

 

Hey now my girl-friend's a feminist so none of that ;)

 

But yeah I just think that the discursive space that he speaks in makes it clear that the truthful kernel in his speech is being padded with more blind biggotry so that it gets deployed in a needlessly violent and prejudiced way, regaurdless of the spectre of truth that may or may not be there.

 

And yeah sherrod brown is white hahaha.... maybe Rush meant that he was just becoming african in a deleuzian sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...