Is the US One Nation or Many?

That's true as far as it goes. The flip side is equally important. One can't pay people to start loving relationships, sure. However, we are seeing that one CAN pay people to have children WITHOUT starting a loving relationship. That is what Namelessfly is speaking to. Encouraging and incentivizing people to bring children into chaotic and dangerous conditions by subsidizing NOT their starting a stable family.

I am all for helping the poor and disadvantaged. Helping doesn't always mean paying. Sometimes, it means not paying. This is one of those times. Our current safety net is a true codependent relationship between government and the poor. Especially blacks.

Donnachaidh wrote:I didn't say they were unrelated, I said the true root cause was economic. That is only true from a solution perspective, the fact is you can't successfully pay people (which is what economic incentives are) to create a loving, supportive household. You can create economic conditions that make it easier for people to create that household but getting people to do that is not something that can be solved economically, it's not that simple. That is a social issue that their community must solve, any solution forced on them from the outside will not be as successful and will cause enormous resentment that will only make the situation worse. Those of us outside of those communities and cultures can only do what we can to encourage economic growth and moral leaders within the community/culture.

From a problem perspective, economic circumstances and family structure feed upon each other both positively and negatively. The only people that can improve the family structure are those within the community/culture. Economic conditions can be influenced some by those outside the community but economics is a tricky thing that we still don't completely have figured out and anything that alters things should be done very carefully.

Donnachaidh still gets it backwards.

The sociology data definitely confirms a causative correlation between poverty and family structure. Getting married and staying married dramatically increases the probability that people will be financially successful. However; stable marriage does not guarantee financial success. Even when people are financially stressed, stable marriage can and does dramatically reduce the propensity to engage in crime. Also, the absence of stable marriage dramatically increases the probability of criminal behavior unless people are extremely well off.

Take Trayvon Martin as an example. His mother had a secure, well paying State jobasa housing councilor and owned a modest home. His father was a truck driver with a full time job. The aggregate income of Martin's two parents was well in excess of $100,000 per year. Unfortunately; TM's parents were divorced and his stable relationship with the step mother who raised him was disrupted by his father's relationship with his wife, no fiancé, nope girlfriend, no really she was a whore, Brandi Green. He lived with his mommy fora few years before she kicked him out of the house so she would be free to be a whore. (this was proven by text messages from his phone). Trayvon Martin's dad was such great role model that he was helping his son traffic in illegal guns and drugs. It turns out that daddy didn't drive him to Sanford, he rode the bus with a Kilo brick of pot shoved up his ass. ( also confirmed by his text messages). It seems that Martin actually started the trip twice but got kicked off the bus for "swinging on a bus driver.". Once in Sanford, Martin who was recently suspended for criminal behavior was left on his own so daddy could attend an orgy, excuse me, "Mason convention", actually a Crips gang reunion with his whore, fiancé or whatever.

A younger, more pragmatic Obama who needed to establish his credibility to run for the US Senate then for President masqueraded as a moderate by condemning these pathologies. If his expressed sentiments had been genuine, he might have become a decent President. I will grant Obama some respect on his family values credentials because he has remained married to Michelle without any hint of having women on the side. (having men on the side is another issue which might explain why some of the alleged boyfriends have turned up murderred). Given the fact that Mrs Obama's ass is almost three axe handles wide, that demonstrates commitment.

PeterZ wrote:That's true as far as it goes. The flip side is equally important. One can't pay people to start loving relationships, sure. However, we are seeing that one CAN pay people to have children WITHOUT starting a loving relationship. That is what Namelessfly is speaking to. Encouraging and incentivizing people to bring children into chaotic and dangerous conditions by subsidizing NOT their starting a stable family.

I am all for helping the poor and disadvantaged. Helping doesn't always mean paying. Sometimes, it means not paying. This is one of those times. Our current safety net is a true codependent relationship between government and the poor. Especially blacks.

Donnachaidh wrote:I didn't say they were unrelated, I said the true root cause was economic. That is only true from a solution perspective, the fact is you can't successfully pay people (which is what economic incentives are) to create a loving, supportive household. You can create economic conditions that make it easier for people to create that household but getting people to do that is not something that can be solved economically, it's not that simple. That is a social issue that their community must solve, any solution forced on them from the outside will not be as successful and will cause enormous resentment that will only make the situation worse. Those of us outside of those communities and cultures can only do what we can to encourage economic growth and moral leaders within the community/culture.

From a problem perspective, economic circumstances and family structure feed upon each other both positively and negatively. The only people that can improve the family structure are those within the community/culture. Economic conditions can be influenced some by those outside the community but economics is a tricky thing that we still don't completely have figured out and anything that alters things should be done very carefully.

Creating the welfare state as it is currently structured was a horrible idea encouraging disintegration of the family and ensuring the absence of a responsible father figure from all to many poor homes. But it was done and now we have to deal with the consequences.

So how do we fix it?

1. Wait until the economy is better than revisit Bill Clinton's get them off welfare and into the workforce. (Generally people on welfare don't have much in the way of employable skills etc to enable them to compete well in this current abysmal economy). But when the economy is better and employers are despite to hire, moving people off of welfare is doable.

2. Get into the schools in poor areas and start teaching life skills beginning in grade school. Life skills should include the basics of personal finance (including the positive effect of marriage one's economic status).

3. Start an intensive effort directed towards young black boys (it's too late once they are men) on the importance of being a man, supporting your children economically and emotionally, and on male responsibility. As the most visible black man who exhibits these traits Obama should lead the charge. Recruit as many high profile good black men as possible to help. We have to change the destructive culture around these boys if we want them to grow up into good men.

As Veterans Day is here what our commander and chief had to say:

Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post wrote:The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday

morning televised "Meet The Press'.

From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11 : 48 : 04 EST,

Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was
asked about his stance on the American Flag.

General Bill Gann' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain
WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem
is played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United
States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...
During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is
displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

NOW GET THIS !!

'Senator Obama replied :

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.."

"The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)

Obama continued : "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose.
I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love. It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails - - - perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ...."

"When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations of Islam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the
President of the United States and I have put my hatred
aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path.My wife and I look
forward to becoming our Country's First black Family.
Indeed,CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of
America "

Yes, you read it right.
I, for one, am speechless!!!

Well at least Adolf Hitler wrote 'My Struggle' before the election and did not comment on his radical beliefs after it was too late. Given the election corruption and the facts coming out on uses of governmental power against opponents one wonders if he did in fact win.

Poker

Didn't happen, apparently (or more accurately, the story originated in a satirical piece).

Here in the UK, at least as of 3-4 years ago, before the most recent round of welfare reforms, there actually was an incentive to not form a stable household - the combined benefits paid to a single man and a single mother with child living separately were more than the benefits for a man and a mother with child living in a single household by more than the difference in combined rents and rates.

In other words, people were in the situation where they couldn't afford to live together (or put it another way: the government was paying them to stay single).

There are other perverse incentives in the system here in the UK (again, as of the last general election) - while claiming unemployment benefits, you're allowed to work part time up to 16 hours a week (since having work history to put on your CV can help you to get a job) but, since the benefits are there as a safety net rather than an entitlement, if you're earning money, then your benefits get reduced - the formula, which hasn't been changed since the 70s is that the first £5 you earn per week is "free", and anything else you earn reduces your benefit on a 1:1 basis. 25 years ago, £5 was a lot. Today, it's less than an hour at minimum wage, and, in many cases, doesn't cover transport costs, let alone any other costs associated with working. In other words, unless you can earn enough to cover your costs and the benefit you're no longer getting, you're actually better off, financially speaking, not working than doing say, 5-10 hours a week.

It's not that the goals of the system are bad, or that it was a bad system when it was setup, but circumstances have changed, and different parts of the system have changed at different rates and in different ways...

Thats one of the problems with putting cash numbers into bills and laws. they just end up getting turned into pocket change eventually. Really, stuff like that, mimimum wages, welfare stuff etc, should be pegged to grow by at least inflation every year, otherwise, like the red queen in alice in wonderland, we end up doing more to end up at the exact same spot.....

rmsgrey wrote:Here in the UK, at least as of 3-4 years ago, before the most recent round of welfare reforms, there actually was an incentive to not form a stable household - the combined benefits paid to a single man and a single mother with child living separately were more than the benefits for a man and a mother with child living in a single household by more than the difference in combined rents and rates.

In other words, people were in the situation where they couldn't afford to live together (or put it another way: the government was paying them to stay single).

There are other perverse incentives in the system here in the UK (again, as of the last general election) - while claiming unemployment benefits, you're allowed to work part time up to 16 hours a week (since having work history to put on your CV can help you to get a job) but, since the benefits are there as a safety net rather than an entitlement, if you're earning money, then your benefits get reduced - the formula, which hasn't been changed since the 70s is that the first £5 you earn per week is "free", and anything else you earn reduces your benefit on a 1:1 basis. 25 years ago, £5 was a lot. Today, it's less than an hour at minimum wage, and, in many cases, doesn't cover transport costs, let alone any other costs associated with working. In other words, unless you can earn enough to cover your costs and the benefit you're no longer getting, you're actually better off, financially speaking, not working than doing say, 5-10 hours a week.

It's not that the goals of the system are bad, or that it was a bad system when it was setup, but circumstances have changed, and different parts of the system have changed at different rates and in different ways...

Unfortunately the inflation number is a politically manipulated calculation. Here in the USA the official inflation used for benefit increases is much less than the actual inflation. Poor people buy highly inflationary consumables rather than many of the goods in the inflation calculations. In bad times housing and durable goods prices stabilize (lower demand) while consumables increase in cost (relatively steady demand).

Both parties here tinker with the calculations (IE. inflation and unemployment) to make their policies appear to be working. IMHO expecting politicians to be honorable and honest is like expecting a rattlesnake that's buzzing not to strike, not bloody likely!

Poker

Spacekiwi wrote:Thats one of the problems with putting cash numbers into bills and laws. they just end up getting turned into pocket change eventually. Really, stuff like that, mimimum wages, welfare stuff etc, should be pegged to grow by at least inflation every year, otherwise, like the red queen in alice in wonderland, we end up doing more to end up at the exact same spot.....

rmsgrey wrote:Here in the UK, at least as of 3-4 years ago, before the most recent round of welfare reforms, there actually was an incentive to not form a stable household - the combined benefits paid to a single man and a single mother with child living separately were more than the benefits for a man and a mother with child living in a single household by more than the difference in combined rents and rates.

In other words, people were in the situation where they couldn't afford to live together (or put it another way: the government was paying them to stay single).

There are other perverse incentives in the system here in the UK (again, as of the last general election) - while claiming unemployment benefits, you're allowed to work part time up to 16 hours a week (since having work history to put on your CV can help you to get a job) but, since the benefits are there as a safety net rather than an entitlement, if you're earning money, then your benefits get reduced - the formula, which hasn't been changed since the 70s is that the first £5 you earn per week is "free", and anything else you earn reduces your benefit on a 1:1 basis. 25 years ago, £5 was a lot. Today, it's less than an hour at minimum wage, and, in many cases, doesn't cover transport costs, let alone any other costs associated with working. In other words, unless you can earn enough to cover your costs and the benefit you're no longer getting, you're actually better off, financially speaking, not working than doing say, 5-10 hours a week.

It's not that the goals of the system are bad, or that it was a bad system when it was setup, but circumstances have changed, and different parts of the system have changed at different rates and in different ways...

Ah. that meddling presents problems then.
Here we have the consumer price index, whihc is based on price changes for food, housing, personal and health care, recreation and education, transportation, tobacco and alcohol, credit services, household operation, and clothing. Its done entirely on what the poor actually tend to buy according to the statistics department, so it should theoretically be a bit less manipulable. Its also rebalanced to account for spending changes every three years, so it stays reasonably relevant.

pokermind wrote:Unfortunately the inflation number is a politically manipulated calculation. Here in the USA the official inflation used for benefit increases is much less than the actual inflation. Poor people buy highly inflationary consumables rather than many of the goods in the inflation calculations. In bad times housing and durable goods prices stabilize (lower demand) while consumables increase in cost (relatively steady demand).

Both parties here tinker with the calculations (IE. inflation and unemployment) to make their policies appear to be working. IMHO expecting politicians to be honorable and honest is like expecting a rattlesnake that's buzzing not to strike, not bloody likely!

Poker

Australia has a very similar system to New Zealand, using a complex CPI based on necessities. One problem even with this is that the average wage tends to rise half as fast again. So after 20 years of 3% CPI and 4.5% wages growth, those on welfare are just as well off in survival terms as they were but everyone else is much better off. Research into satisfaction levels shows that once you reach survival level (Maslov theory), your satisfaction level relates to how well off you are in relation to those around you. Thus a millionaire feels deprived when living in a billionaire suburb.
Another way to illustrate this is to consider a welfare family living as well as a well paid worker would have in 1970 (who would have been happy with his lot). Everyone else has colour TVs and PVRs while you have a B&W TV and no modern gadgets. Not helpful of course that many of the poorer people have limited money skills.
A strange anomaly is that our politicians' pensions are indexed to AWOTE (Average Weekly Ordinary Time Earnings) that is the previously mentioned 4.5% average. Funny that.