Why Social Programs (a.k.a easy money) Don't Work.

[bagdropper]

If this was true, poverty rates should remain steady without regard to social programs. Research that. I think you will find you are empirically incorrect.

Man will find a way to screw them over. After all, someone's going to be a lot poorer cause they ain't cranking out jet fighters or bullets any more. They aren't going to take that sitting down.

There will always be "poor"...always. Why? Because there always has been poor. And I'd be willing to bet that in every instance, other people put them in that spot in some fashion. You think that is going to change?

You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. You, like I...cannot be trusted to always and forever do the right thing.

 

[naturalmwa]

Man will find a way to screw them over. After all, someone's going to be a lot poorer cause they ain't cranking out jet fighters or bullets any more. They aren't going to take that sitting down.

There will always be "poor"...always. Why? Because there always has been poor. And I'd be willing to bet that in every instance, other people put them in that spot in some fashion. You think that is going to change?

You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. You, like I...cannot be trusted to always and forever do the right thing.

I have no faith at all, I thought that was well established around here. I believe in empirical proof. Empirically social programs do in fact reduce poverty and make what there is less problematic for both the individual and society. No faith required. Simply do the research and prove to yourself that we can solve problems.

 

[HRiscool]

Man will find a way to screw them over. After all, someone's going to be a lot poorer cause they ain't cranking out jet fighters or bullets any more. They aren't going to take that sitting down.

There will always be "poor"...always. Why? Because there always has been poor. And I'd be willing to bet that in every instance, other people put them in that spot in some fashion. You think that is going to change?

You have a lot more faith in your fellow man than I do. You, like I...cannot be trusted to always and forever do the right thing.

Look at it like this. In nature the strong survive. So why would mankind be any different? Are we not a part of nature? The strong among us accumulate power. The weak among us suffer the same fate as the weak among all of nature's creations. Why do we over-complicate what Darwin figured out?

 

[aflachawk]

But not the cops? But not the talk show hosts and others amplifying racism and other social ills to blame the victims?

Which is the animal?

To you the victims are the people who did the looting and destruction. You have learned your "democracy now" mis information lessons well.

 

[naturalmwa]

Look at it like this. In nature the strong survive. So why would mankind be any different? Are we not a part of nature? The strong among us accumulate power. The weak among us suffer the same fate as the weak among all of nature's creations. Why do we over-complicate what Darwin figured out?

I try not to take ethical cues from misrepresentations of Darwin's evolutionary theories. I think we might strive to be better than beasts, at least out of the bedroom.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I think Man can do this eventually...maybe a thousand years from now, knowing that more and more people eventually will realize this to where the masses worldwide buy into truly changing.

I don't think he has the capability to do so now though for absolute certain. We're basically talking about changing millions of years of human nature relatively overnight. It will take...no kidding...100% participation for it to work. Every man, woman and child on earth has to buy into it.

It won't happen if we don't choose it as a goal.

"We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard; because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills; because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too. "

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

I try not to take ethical cues from misrepresentations of Darwin's evolutionary theories. I think we might strive to be better than beasts.

As E. O. Wilson said (paraphrasing), we study sociobiology and evolution to understand them. By understanding them we can know when to rely on evolutionary heritage and when we should strive to do better.

 

[HRiscool]

I try not to take ethical cues from misrepresentations of Darwin's evolutionary theories. I think we might strive to be better than beasts.

But isn't our hubris why we are here on the precipice of extinction (see Al Gore was right all along). Your integrity is sacrificed when you deny that natural selection favors the strong over the weak. But then you giveaway your real position when you say "We're better than beasts."

That's your ego talking. If anything we are worse. I have never experienced irrational aggression from an animal or insect or plant, I have never not experienced that from a human. We have chemical malice interwoven into our DNA. And no other life form on the planet suffers from this but us. No life on this planet derives emotional pleasure from anti-social behavior (torture?) but us. For humanity the price of knowledge, is the destruction of our moral compass. It doesn't feel fair does it? But mother nature likely doesn't care about mankind's quaint notions of fair. To her we're no different than all the organisms we've wiped from the face of history.

 

[bagdropper]

I have no faith at all, I thought that was well established around here. I believe in empirical proof. Empirically social programs do in fact reduce poverty and make what there is less problematic for both the individual and society. No faith required. Simply do the research and prove to yourself that we can solve problems.

Our goal isn't to reduce poverty etc. It's to eradicate it. If your goal is merely to reduce it, then you're empirical ideals are half-assing their own goals.

The only reason why that has not happened is too many of both the givers and takers don't want it to happen because then we truly are all equal. And I guarantee you half the world doesn't truly want that, across all current incomes, across all genders, across all religions, across all societies, across all political affiliations.

Across the entire world.

Natural, I could wave a magic wand to give you unilateral power to change the world where everybody is equal in absolutely everything with the stroke of a pen, and I guarantee you that you will step on some group of people in enforcing said pen stroke because of your own prejudices and ideals. You are gonna make someone hurt badly because that power I entrusted you with will corrupt yourself to the point where everything you valued before that moment, you will disavow.

Because you are human. Nobody is immune. Someone always has too much power, and someone always abuses it.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Your integrity is sacrificed when you deny that natural selection favors the strong over the weak.

Did natural actually deny that?

As a point of fact, evolution does not favor the strong over the weak. It favors those who breed better over those who don't. Sometimes strength improves the chances of spreading one's genes, but more often it's some other factor.

 

[What Would Jesus Do?]

Our goal isn't to reduce poverty etc. It's to eradicate it. If your goal is merely to reduce it, then you're empirical ideals are half-assing their own goals.

The only reason why that has not happened is too many of both the givers and takers don't want it to happen because then we truly are all equal.

Eliminating poverty doesn't make people equal. It just eliminates poverty.

 

[HRiscool]

Our goal isn't to reduce poverty etc. It's to eradicate it. If your goal is merely to reduce it, then you're empirical ideals are half-assing their own goals.

The only reason why that has not happened is too many of both the givers and takers don't want it to happen because then we truly are all equal. And I guarantee you half the world doesn't truly want that, across all current incomes, across all genders, across all religions, across all societies, across all political affiliations.

Across the entire world.

Natural, I could wave a magic wand to give you unilateral power to change the world where everybody is equal in absolutely everything with the stroke of a pen, and I guarantee you that you will step on some group of people in enforcing said pen stroke because of your own prejudices and ideals. You are gonna make someone hurt badly because that power I entrusted you with will corrupt yourself to the point where everything you valued before that moment, you will disavow.

Because you are human. Nobody is immune. Someone always has too much power, and someone always abuses it.

The whole "equal" thing is a political contrivance by man to try and tame our aggressive side. If anyone in this thread thinks they are equal to Einstein or Abe Lincoln . . . well . . .

Equal implies sameness. Biology and Mathematics contradict this.

Is Jim Jones really MLK Juniors equal? No. Only a race of creatures as dumb as ours could put that forth as a truth.

 

[naturalmwa]

Our goal isn't to reduce poverty etc. It's to eradicate it. If your goal is merely to reduce it, then you're empirical ideals are half-assing their own goals.

This isn't my position. I'm comfortable with incrementalism, slowly moving the ball down the field toward a goal of generally making the world more humane knowing that perfection will never be reached. As a principle, I thinks it's wise not to make the perfect the enemy of the good.

Social programs do work to reduce poverty. IMO there are a few efforts we ought to strengthen and probably a whole lot of reorganization we could do to improve what we already offer, but giving up isn't the solution.

The only reason why that has not happened is too many of both the givers and takers don't want it to happen because then we truly are all equal. And I guarantee you half the world doesn't truly want that, across all current incomes, across all genders, across all religions, across all societies, across all political affiliations.

Across the entire world.

Natural, I could wave a magic wand to give you unilateral power to change the world where everybody is equal in absolutely everything with the stroke of a pen, and I guarantee you that you will step on some group of people in enforcing said pen stroke because of your own prejudices and ideals. You are gonna make someone hurt badly because that power I entrusted you with will corrupt yourself to the point where everything you valued before that moment, you will disavow.

Because you are human. Nobody is immune. Someone always has too much power, and someone always abuses it.

This part of your post is a little beyond the scope, but it's interesting. First, what do you mean by equal? When I express that idea, I mean equal civil rights or sometimes equal opportunities (which might be a right too). You seem to express it more as equality in fact, like magically I could make us all have the same IQ's or physical talents almost like clones of some "perfect human". I don't think thats a goal I would value, even if I had that magic wand.

I agree humans are jealous and greedy and petty, etc. I don't think thats a wholly bad thing, it might help those in poverty find the motivation to get out if we simply provide them with the food, shelter and education needed to get out.

 

[naturalmwa]

But isn't our hubris why we are here on the precipice of extinction (see Al Gore was right all along). Your integrity is sacrificed when you deny that natural selection favors the strong over the weak. But then you giveaway your real position when you say "We're better than beasts."

That's your ego talking. If anything we are worse. I have never experienced irrational aggression from an animal or insect or plant, I have never not experienced that from a human. We have chemical malice interwoven into our DNA. And no other life form on the planet suffers from this but us. No life on this planet derives emotional pleasure from anti-social behavior (torture?) but us. For humanity the price of knowledge, is the destruction of our moral compass. It doesn't feel fair does it? But mother nature likely doesn't care about mankind's quaint notions of fair. To her we're no different than all the organisms we've wiped from the face of history.

You might be surprised to learn we are not the only animal on the planet that takes pleasure from hurting others. Research it, you will find that the smarter an animal gets, the more of a dick he tends to enjoy being. I mean just look at the two of us.

 

[bagdropper]

I just think we're reached maximum density for social programs to work any more on the scale we want it to. There's just too many variables where a program can never truly round up to where the program works effectively.

Keep in mind, I think both sides are so dug in tight as a tick (meaning two sets...cons v. libs and givers v. takers) to "What They Think Is Right" to do anything about it any more.

I'm not giving up, I just think government can't handle the job any more.

The people need to fix this on their own. They need to make government care - ALL the governments care.

It'll take a millennium to make that happen...

 

[HRiscool]

You might be surprised to learn we are not the only animal on the planet that takes pleasure from hurting others. Research it, you will find that the smarter an animal gets, the more of a dick he tends to enjoy being. I mean just look at the two of us.

You actually defeated your own argument. You said the smarter an organism is the more cruel it is (true for certain simians, but you might want to research elephants). And you also said we are the smartest organism on the planet. Ergo, we are the most cruel.

The fact that you defeated your own argument lends credence to my theory that people aren't as smart as they think they are.

 

[naturalmwa]

You actually defeated your own argument. You said the smarter an organism is the more cruel it is (true for certain simians, but you might want to research elephants). And you also said we are the smartest organism on the planet. Ergo, we are the most cruel.

The fact that you defeated your own argument lends credence to my theory that people aren't as smart as they think they are.

I didn't say we were not the most cruel. I said we ought to strive to be better than beasts. It sounds like you agree.

 

[joelbc1]

"Easy Money" was a poorly written script that relied on Dangerfield to carry it through its rougher moments. THanks to Rodney, the film did have it's moments.....The race track scene was a Dangerfield Classic...."I'm goin'
to Hawaii, I'm going to Hawaii!.....I'm not going to Hawaii!"