Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dale Baker who wrote (3937)	9/25/2005 12:08:49 PM
From: Solon	Respond to of 543603

"I must be missing something." Probably not. Life thrives on inequality. The cow eats the grass and we eat the cow. And people are grass, ass, deer, and Senators. If everybody lived in the suburbs, then who would live in the slums?? Cows eat grass. ...or they don't eat. And when did a cow ever say, "I'm sorry?"

To: Dale Baker who wrote (3937)	9/25/2005 12:23:53 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 543603

I don't think you can say people get poor because of liberal policies. I think you CAN say that some liberal policies, notably welfare, are too little, and too misguided, to get people out of poverty, when they are already there. People born in to the welfare system have little in their lives that helps them to get OFF it. To really have a sensible and humane welfare system we would need to spend more money, and spend it well- and it would save us money in the long term if it helped move people out of poverty permanently. As I've always said it makes sense to start with the young, and make sure they have adequate nutrition (so many children of poor uneducated people have their IQ's lowered from the start by malnutrition), and enough stimulation (especially verbal stimulation), that they have the intelligence to start school on a near equal basis with middle class kids. Remember, I posted a good study here that showed the enormous disparity between the linguistic exposure poor children have, versus the exposure middle class children have. Such differences in learning, at a time when the brain is at its most plastic, result in lifetime differences in achievement. After we have put in programs to assure the health, mental and physical, of the poor, we really ought to take a look at the system of assistance that allows poor people to buy such very bad foods. No garbage foods should be allowed to be purchased on welfare- no potato chips, no candy bars, and definitely no sodas. Oh yes, those junk food lobbies would cry and kick and scream, but so what? Why should we subsidize the poor to slide into poor nutrition and obesity (especially when their children will be handicapped by it, and our society at larger will pay the health costs?) I think a bit of paternalism is warranted when your life is being supported by the state. There is something wrong when you cannot support yourself, and the supporting institution has the right to try to "fix" you- humanely, and effectively. What isn't so good is a paternalistic system that fails to improve the lives of people, and that is what we have now. It's not a liberal problem, or a conservative problem, it's everyone's problem. IMO, of course.

To: Dale Baker who wrote (3937)	9/25/2005 12:55:15 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 543603

No garbage foods should be allowed to be purchased on welfare-no potato chips, no candy bars, and definitely no sodas. And no green pants, either...nor Italian music. Put them on a tether, I say. Let them decide how short they gonna chew the grass. They are just beasts in any case. All they ever think about is potato chips. Hey! It is MY bloody money. I'll decide how it is spent! No Italian music, I tell ya! Some "welfare people" will always try to beat the system by getting somebody else to buy sodas for them and just exchanging the money behind the scenes. If we could put a star or something on them we could probably curb their sweet tooth.