One of the biggest bones of contention that finds its way into every one of these political discussion is welfare. It crops up again and again. Typically, the argument is framed as repubs contra, dems pro…and we ain’t getting anywhere.

You see, like you republicans, I’m not in love with the idea of welfare either. Neither are many other democrat leaning folks. I don’t think instituted hand-outs for the down at heel really solves anything in the long run…(nor am I happy about institutionalized hand-outs to corporations and farmers either).

I like the idea of temporary assistance in several forms with the purpose of helping the poor become financially independent...with the explicit understanding the financial independence is the expectation. I agree that long-term institutionalized welfare creates a vicious cycle of dependence.

With that said, if a project of welfare reform is to be successful, I believe the economic playing field needs to be leveled. For example, ALL full time jobs should be living wage jobs. Period. Ergo: increase minimum wage. That’s one example…I could go on. I believe that no one should be without health care. The Canadians all have it…as do the Japanese…why don’t we? I don’t believe it is fair to demand that employers provide it. Globally, it puts US companies at a distinct disadvantage.

Now, here’s the crux of the biscuit. The part that hangs up you working class or lower GOP types: I agree that a man ought to be able to keep what a man earns, minus some reasonable taxation…

But: I seriously doubt anyone “EARNS” his $500,000 a year…let alone those CEOs who rake in TENS of MILLIONS of dollars a year. Just as the minimum wage earner truly deserves more, those at the other extreme TRULY DESERVE LESS. I can’t overstate that. I believe that our propensity to overcompensate the lucky few is the most corrosive element, and the biggest threat to our democracy when taken into view with its corollary: the propensity to pay someone as little as you legally can. Here is where the re-distribution needs to occur. Not through big government programs…but through a fairer distribution of salary at the corporate level, at the workplace level, nationally.

Current economic status quo grossly errs at either end of the extreme. Professional sports employ salary caps… so too should business. We already have a minimum salary cap in the form of minimum wage. Now its time for a maximum wage/salary cap.

With good work comes dignity. There is no dignity in current minimum wage jobs, and little hope to even sustain much of a life. If you want to lure welfare folks off the public dole, you need to give them a fair shot. All work has value. Everyone should be compensated for their time and efforts…not paid a pittance or given a kingdom. The value is between the extremes.

There! I solved it! Republicans and dems join hands! You libertarians: back to your caves.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/economy/income/2006-02-23-fed-incomes_x.htm?csp=34
Average family income drops 2.3%

"Fed economists said the figures were "strongly influenced" by a more-than-6% drop in median real wages during the period."

Ouch.

Nice links, 56.

No mechanism except free-market supply and demand has ever worked over any period of time.

Reaction times for the use of resources are better with a free market. Including the partaking of bon-bons.

The free market moves at light speed. When government tries to regulate the economy, both the government and the economy move like cold molasses. Everyone gets frustrated and wasteful. India and China are examples of successful un-regulated economies.

So having someone decide what is "fair" in the distribution of resources does not work.

BTW, this is getting the question right. Not pulling the wool over your eyes.

About Krugman --

To begin with, Krugman did not respond to Bernanke correctly. What Bernanke said was that skills and education is becoming the economic driver, causing inequality. Krugman apparently heard incorrectly that there was a "rise of a fairly broad class of knowledge workers" causing inequality.

Skills and education are one thing. A broad class of elite knowledge workers putting their boots on the necks of the poor and creating inequality is not what Bernanke said.

But let it slide. Krugman was just looking for an excuse to introduce his study.

Which is fine. He can do that. What he can't do is say here is THE problem and then walk away from it without one idea of how he wants to correct the inequality that he sees.

But I know where he is going! He wants Bush out of the White House. Frog-walked across the lawn in ankle restraints for boosting the elite class' wealth! Krugman just wants control and to begin regulating the economy his way, putting the rich in their place.

Which won't work. Because we would be back to the idea -- or reality -- of over-regulating an economy and killing it.

So the problem is really somewhere else.

PS: Bush will not get my support in 2008.

"Skills and education are one thing. A broad class of elite knowledge workers putting their boots on the necks of the poor and creating inequality is not what Bernanke said"

Funny, not what krugman said either. Ergo: oligarchy. As in the title of his piece...

The funny thing about discussions of the "free-market" or "un-regulated market" is that no such thing exists...they are all constrained to some degree. We all seem to over-look that. We all accept some degree of constraint...the discussion here is where to draw that line. Too much regulation does what you say it does. Not enough regulation does what I say it does. This discussion is about balance.

I'm not arguing against "free-markets"...i'm arguing about "degree of constraint". Among other things...

I'm sure bush will be frog-marched...in history books. After the wounds have healed some, and some semblance of democracy returns to the US...you can reflect on your complicity. The shame will eventually cause you to scrape the fading W off of your bumpers and baby carriages. You'll even change your five year old son's name....

Btw: I don't know if you saw it, but fox's ratings are dropping fairly dramatically. It seems the conservative movement is sickening of itself. Turns out the whole thing was buttered bullshit. I recall you singing a different tune not long ago....something about the death of the left...

Stinky said:

Upon what principle or premise do you base the need for any constraint?

Last edited: Thursday, March 02, 2006 at 5:48:44 PM

The enron principle, for one...

Not a good week...er....month....er....year....er......term....er....presidency for the clowns in charge, is it.

Beating a dead horse.....

There's one thing I wanted to go back to that I think is relevant here. I supported the idea of private donors and organizations supporting many of the social programs of our country and provided a graph showing how many billions are given to charity. Well, I learned something. Most of the wealthy are donating to themselves (or at least their interests). So when a rich person gives to a needy organization, they're donating to their favorite museum or opera house or whatever other pet project that holds their interest instead of soup kitchens and homeless shelters so those who need it the most (the poor) aren't seeing any of that money. So the rich keep their money in their own circles while fulfilling their need to "give", but don't tend to support the huddled masses.

Then I have to wonder about what's wrong with a woman being a homemaker?

That is a nice post except for the last sentence. ;)

My response: What is wrong with a woman not being a homemaker? Society has told women they should do these things since humans started.

Well, I'd be a homemaker if I could. Maybe one day...

More on enron deregulation and the public good...

http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/2003Q3/dereg.html

What were you saying about China being an example of the victory of the market JJ?...this is a new twist...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/06/tech/main1373768.shtml

So much for market economics.

BC: next principle: Sago mine
next principle: Exxon Valdeze.

Any of this getting through? Or is the disconnect too vast?

You site a few examples of the falibility of some. Ergo regulate regulate regulate. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater Stinks.

Prostitution and TicketMaster. XD

@ Monica: See now, I think you're trying to position yourself. You made a statement, I asked a question and instead of answering, you posed your own counter question. Now perhaps I'm just a simple, caveman lawyer, but it almost looks like you want to put yourself in the position of offense rather than defense. I just want to know why you think what you think.

Last edited: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 7:21:13 AM

I think that there is something wrong with women being insubordinates to their husbands by staying at home. When the bacon-bringer comes home, he can do anything he wants to her because of fear. E.g:

"I beat you over the head, but if you tell the police, they'll put me in prison and we won't have any money."

Or:

"Hey, I'm the one earning this money. I should decide what we do with it."

All because of stereotypes.
Apparently the concept of "created equal" will never be fully put into play.

I've defended my position and answered your question...now answer mine...or I'll turn around, shoot you in the face, and say it was an accident. ;)

Last edited: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 9:21:34 AM

BC: you need to account for the "exceptions" since you are promoting this idea...

I can...and probably will...provide many many many more instances where government intervention was necessary to address the abuses of the environment, of workers, of fraud, of price fixing, of yada yada yada, of US corporations.

Monica, thanks for that. But there seems to be an assumption that when a woman stays at home, she's subordinate to her husband and she's going to end up being abused. Maybe. But in our case its a situation that best fits our needs while we maintain a mutual respect for one another. I work and she stays at home. There have been times when she's worked as well and even a period when she was the only one working, but its always been our goal to live the "stereotype" since its good to have someone home taking care of the home. We've also found it more beneficial to our son for her to be home (and we've tried it both ways) since there's a lot she can do when that's her focus rather than trying to do both. Now that's where I think the rub comes in, when women try to do both. If a woman doesn't want to be a homemaker, that's fine, but I don't think working mom's is the best case scenario either. Its just too much for anyone to do. So I think a woman should decide which course she wants to follow and go for it. Otherwise trying to do both will result in poor performance in one or both careers.

But then there's the poor, right? From what you've said previously, I think you're mostly addressing poor mothers, but I think we can agree that their situation isn't the choice that they would make. I'd say they were expecting their man to stay around and help or they weren't planning on getting pregnant in the first place. Stuff happens and I'm aware of that, but I still think that the best case scenario is the "stereotypical" nuclear family.

Now as far as women needing to work to help the economy, I don't see that. It shouldn't make a difference which gender is providing a service. I think the problem here is the "necessity" for two income households where the man and woman work. Of course, that's a whole new can of worms, but I think it ties into the concept of wealth being the final goal for some while missing out on some other important needs a family has in order to be successful.

W. Clark is smart.
http://www.crooksandliars.com/2006/03/07.html#a7425

I like that clark dude. Why isn't he our president? Brave, smart, handsome...

BC: I'm not sure what you meant with the "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.."

Odd, since earlier you challenged me to find one principle against the idea of laissez faire capitalism. I thought, jesus, that's a strangely easy request. Examples abound everywhere. How could I not be able? And...does he not understand how easy that would be?

I'm not arguing against our system of economics, I'm arguing for governmental constraints. I've provided you with just a few, topical examples of why constraints are necessary. I could provide thousands and thousands more. Environmental regulations, labor law, safety regulations, anti-discrimination laws and so on all have their origin in the conflict between corporations and the public good. I also have pointed out that the need for restraint isn't like my "pet" idea. It is in fact the standard practice in all economies, to some degree or other.

I think just about everyone understands this. Even business people.

Apparently though, you don't. In a situation like this, I don't know if it's constructive to continue the discussion. I can't help but think that this parallels the point in other conversations when the irrational undercurrents of religion become undeniable, and one finally understands the reason for the disconnect. Is that what's going on? I mean, you do seem a bit past disconnected on this topic. How would the notion of "conflict of interest" be so foreign to you? How is it you never connected the dots on say, environmental regulations and industry practices? Or, sweatshop manufacturing and human exploitation?

The only way I can understand this is if I understand that you worship capitalism as a religion. With Ayn Rand is your prophet...

And then, it seems somewhat quaint, but also somewhat disconcerting.

Last edited: Tuesday, March 07, 2006 at 7:52:41 PM

@Rabban

You only answered one part of my question.
Stereotypes also degrade the family where the wife works and the husband stays home. There is nothing wrong with this type of family (the point I was trying to make against stereotypes).

Plus:

Well, I live in one of those "stereotypical nuclear families," supposedly the best kind, and this has already happened. We are by no means what you would call poor unless you are the CEO of Google. Just about as "average" as you can get.

Stinky, here's my favorite Ayn Rand quote:

I'm not disconnected on the topic, but I do agree that further discussion doesn't promise to be productive.

Who said anything about contradictions? We were talking about disconnects...you see only the positive aspects and are blissfully ignorant of the numerous drawbacks. That is until I bring them up.

But I guess you are quick to sublimate the drawbacks and return to your bliss...and return to your savior, ms Rand. So be it.

Monica, I had a feeling about what you were saying, that you were experiencing the sort of situation you were discussing. My sister has made similar decisions based on her experiences as home. My stepmother tends to take care of everyone...my dad, my sister, my grandad, her mother and her brothers then is upset that she's taking care of everyone. Some of it she's brought on herself and others are taking advantage of her nature. So my sister? She's decided not to let the same thing happen to her, which is good, but that seems to have translated into avoiding marriage all together, which I think is unfortunate. The thing is, she's allowing her personal, dysfunctional experience define what the marriage experience is expected to be and somehow it seems like that's what you're doing in your situation.

And whether someone is controlling or abusive or whatever, I think that's more of a result of the individual's personal actions, not the institution of marriage or any perceived stereotypes.

I've been reading a book, Bringing Up Boys by Dr. James Dobson. I just read a chapter last night that spoke of the differences between men and women, their body chemistry, their brain development and that sort of thing. So the way men and women act isn't just a result of what society tells them, but a combination of many factors. Sure there may be cultural influences that emphasize certain behaviors and some people are just plain jerks, but I think it is a mistake to just outright reject gender roles based on bad experiences.