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: KyrosL who wrote (230320)	8/29/2013 2:59:13 PM
From: bentway	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 542155

My own take is that we should provide basic needs for anyone who needs them - food, housing, healthcare, education. I believe we could do this with no economic or social harm whatsoever. Anyone who wants MORE than that would have to earn it, be VERY well compensated, and subsidize those who just want to sit on their asses. No reproduction allowed for the ass-sitters.

To: KyrosL who wrote (230320)	8/29/2013 3:25:06 PM
From: JohnM	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 542155

Many liberals, like Daniel Patrick Moynihan, also believed that some Great Society programs, like open ended welfare for single mothers, did great harm to blacks and in particular the black family. Clinton's mid-nineties welfare reform tried to correct some of these problems. Moynihan's assertions were widely, seriously, and, in my view, soundly disputed in a very large literature in the 60s. I'm surprised anyone beyond ideological conservatives still assert them. But, then, you never know. As for Clinton's attempt, it's fair to say that Clinton was politically trapped into those "reforms." Whether he wanted to sign or should have signed those bills, was more than controversial. There were several resignations from his administration over that.