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: JohnM who wrote (10723)	2/3/2006 10:45:28 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 541851

I don't think it is possible to talk about these issue for precisely the reason you mention. You can't argue about basic frames for how people see the world. You see things the way you have been raised, and with the frames that fit the way you want the world to be- you might be able to understand the way others frame issues- but I don't think argumentation can change our basic approach to the world. I see social programs for the poor as for me, as much as they are for the poor. I would have a very hard time living in a society that had people starving in the streets. One of the things I remember about a visit to Hong Kong and Thailand in the early 70's when I was a child, were the crippled and diseased people lying in the streets begging, or the elderly begging. When we put social programs in place it isn't just "charity"- it's also social insurance for the wealthy and the middle class, that they can live in a society where the streets aren't littered with ill people, or starving people. I think we all want different things out of life, and I don't want to live in a country that doesn't support people to a certain level- because I find it unpleasant to see the consequences of a "free market" that lets people sink as far as possible. I have to count the kind of society I want to see as something for me, and not for the poor- it has value to me, as a middle class person- it isn't charity, it's a combination of security and aesthetics (security, because the hungry poor are more dangerous than the somewhat placated poor, and the desperate poor are an unaesthetic sight, as I learned in my childhood.)

To: JohnM who wrote (10723)	2/3/2006 11:10:02 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 541851

>So it's very far from charity for me. And is a fundamental difference between the way you and I think about social policy. Exactly. I'm glad that we're finally clear on that. There really is a huge chasm between the socialistic and the capitalistic approaches. We sometimes get caught up in little debates about whether a tax cut is really a cut and loose track of the huge fundamental difference. Having evolved myself from one side to the other over a lifetime (when I first registered to vote, I wanted to register as a socialist but NJ didn't register by party. <g>) and being an introspective and non-partisan person, the fundamental difference is very clear to me. I can think of no better example of it than the ours/theirs/take/give question. To repeat what I've typed on several occasions, I see medicaid as humane, in that it provides for a more liveable old age than would be possible without it. I think that helping the poor elderly is humane, too. But I will fight with my last breath the notion that it an entitlement. If your side would consider thinking of it as charity and framing it that way, IMO you'd have a much better chance of getting support for the kind of programs you want. The psychology matters. Maybe that's something we could talk about sometime.

To: JohnM who wrote (10723)	2/3/2006 12:22:20 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 541851

So I latched on the notion that you think of social programs like medicaid as charity, public charity. I obviously don't. I think of them as good social policy which, best I can tell, despite some problems, is reasonably well managed. The two ideas are not mutually opposed. At least in theory, and perhaps in practice, charity can be good public policy, and the program to impliment that policy could be well managed. char·i·ty Audio pronunciation of "charity" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chr-t) n. pl. char·i·ties 1. Provision of help or relief to the poor; almsgiving. 2. Something given to help the needy; alms. 3. An institution, organization, or fund established to help the needy. 4. Benevolence or generosity toward others or toward humanity. 5. Indulgence or forbearance in judging others. See Synonyms at mercy. 6. often Charity Christianity. The theological virtue defined as love directed first toward God but also toward oneself and one's neighbors as objects of God's love. Government benefits to the poor could be charity under the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th definitions, and could act according to the 5th definition. Charity doesn't have to equal "private charity". Tim