The Welfare-Entitlement Culture

[WinePusher]

Apparently Ashton Kutcher recently gave a speech at the 2013 Teen Choice Awards about the value of self reliance and hardwork and alot of conservatives have been harping on it, and claiming that self reliance and hardwork are exclusive only to conservatives. Honestly, I tend to agree. It seems that many liberals embrace a culture of dependency and entitlement in regards to many things. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

(2) My wife was volunteering in New Orleans when she stepped on a nail. Her tetanus shot was $1000. (of which we paid $600)

Support:

There is a mistake in there. The shot was an antibiotic. She was required to have her tetanus shots up to date before she left. The ER visit cost over $1000 ( I rounded it off---sorry) Our medical plan paid $400 and we were left to pick up the rest. As long as we are baring our souls here, we didn't actually pay the $600. We blew it off. A collection agency came calling and we told them where to stick it. It is the only blot on our credit score. Mine remained unchanged at over 800, but her's dropped to the high 700's. It is the only thing that I have ever beat her at. I am feeling pretty good about that. The larger point is: Is ER care exorbitantly expensive. Yes, it is. Time to switch to a socialized system.

I think another user on this forum nicely summarized the problem with the attitude here:

I looked up "Winepusher" and "free clinics" and found Winepusher talking about the existence of private free clinics and you talking about you and your wife blowing off a $600 medical charge. How is Winepusher the freeloader?

1) Do liberals and progressives value self reliance and hardwork?

2) How is it possible to value self reliance and hardwork when you, at the same time, support the government providing many services to you at the expense of other people?

3) Is the attitude presented in the OP a problem? Should people be allowed to blow off personal expenses whenever they want to, or should the expenses always stick with them and should the company be allowed to garnish your wages until the expenses are paid off?

Edit to include another question:

4) Are self reliance and hardwork noble virtures? Do conservatives place to much emphasis and focus on self reliance/virture?

[nursebenjamin]

Actually, I don't think most people would consider Social Security or Medicare to be 'entitlements.' But, any honest person would admit that both these programs are unsustainable and have huge long term problems that need to be dealt with. /quote]quote="cnorman18"]I’m an honest person, and I won’t "admit" that, because it isn’t true. Remove the $110,000 income cap on Social Security contributions and let EVERYONE contribute according to his income; problem permanently solved.

LOL you just admitted that there are long term structural problems, if there aren't any and if social security is perfectly fine the way it is then why should we remove the payroll tax cap? Make up your mind, is there a problem or isn't there?

The problem is that if social security was going to be funded primarily by private, voluntary contributions on the part of the rich then it would be no different from any other private sector charity. The consensus among Democrats and Republicans seems to be that the payroll tax cap should remain in place, and payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime. There was much bipartisan support for the payroll tax cut extension about a year ago, and this is because the main problem with the trust fund is not the amount of money that's going into it, but rather the amount of money that's going out of it. More and more people are going to be relying on social security, mainly due to an increase in the aging population, and this problem isn't going to be fixed by increasing payroll taxes on wages and reducing the incentive to work. If anything, young people should be given the choice to opt out and save their money privately for retirement and the social security system should be forced to compete to other, more effective private forms of pension and retirement planning. ...

<<<“Make up your mind, is there a problem or isn't there?�>>>
The only problem Social Security faces is that Big Money Interests wish to private the program.

<<<“The problem is that if social security was going to be funded primarily by private, voluntary contributions on the part of the rich then it would be no different from any other private sector charity.�>>>
You are not describing Social Security accurately. And no one is prohibiting you from making private, voluntary contributions to your retirement nest egg. I am certainly making voluntary private contributions.

<<<“The consensus among Democrats and Republicans seems to be that the payroll tax cap should remain in place, and payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime.�>>>
This is not true. 71% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats believe that preserving Social Security is critical even if it means raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (i.e. lowering/eliminating the payroll tax cap). [Page 11]


<<<“There was much bipartisan support for the payroll tax cut extension about a year ago…�>>>
Apples and Oranges. People supported a temporary payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate a sluggish economy. People, in general, did not support this temporary measure because they believe the “payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime�.


<<<“More and more people are going to be relying on social security, mainly due to an increase in the aging population�>>>
Fact: 1/3 of elderly Americans rely on Social Security for >90% of their income.

<<<“and this problem isn't going to be fixed by increasing payroll taxes on wages and reducing the incentive to work.�>>>
This is not true. Eliminate the payroll tax cap, and Social Security basically become solvent for as long as projection are useful.[1]

<<<�If anything, young people should be given the choice to opt out and save their money privately for retirement…�>>>
Please explain, if young people “opt out of paying for Social Security�, then how will current benefits to seniors today be paid for? Please answer this question as specifically as possible.

Medicare should be extended to everyone in a single-payer healthcare system, as in Canada and most of the industrialized world. Other nations seem to be doing just fine with it.

And how on earth would this solve the fiscal imbalances in the Medicare program? Jeez, can you at least try to stay on topic?

Actually, A Medicare for All program would save the country billions of dollars ($592 billion in its first year, and $1.8 trillion in the first decade), according to a University of Massachusetts Economics professor.[2]

[WinePusher]

Good to see you're back!

Make up your mind, is there a problem or isn't there?

The only problem Social Security faces is that Big Money Interests wish to private the program.

There are many problems with social security and privatization is not one of them. Far from it, privatization is the only realistic solution to the problem. Do you or do you not agree that the social security system is facing huge financial dilemmas due to the fact that there are more people taking from the trust fund than there are people putting money into the trust fund. The basic problem is that the social security program is running deficits as opposed to surpluses and one way to fix this is by reducing the number of people dependent upon social security. When conservatives talk about privatization, they are not suggesting that the entire system be fully privatized. They are arguing for partial privatization of the program. The free market provides many other financial services as far more effective and efficient rates than the government could ever hope to. Partial privatization of social security would be no different from private 401k accounts, and those seem to be working pretty well.

The consensus among Democrats and Republicans seems to be that the payroll tax cap should remain in place, and payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime.

This is not true. 71% of Republicans and 97% of Democrats believe that preserving Social Security is critical even if it means raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans (i.e. lowering/eliminating the payroll tax cap). [Page 11]

Ok? I didn't say anything to the contrary. What I said was that there was huge bipartisan support to cut payroll taxes. Do I think that the social security system needs to be preserved? Yes, because there are many people who have paid into the system and rely on it to survive. But, I think at some point in the nation's future we should be able to gradually get off social security and move towards a complete market based program, but as of now I am not advocating that. I am merely presenting realistic solutions that can and will solve social security's fiscal imbalances.

There was much bipartisan support for the payroll tax cut extension about a year ago.

Apples and Oranges. People supported a temporary payroll tax cut as a way to stimulate a sluggish economy. People, in general, did not support this temporary measure because they believe the “payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime�.

Not really. Cutting payroll taxes is not an effective way to stimulate economic growth. But, that's besides the point. The fact is that there was huge bipartisan support to cut payroll taxes which would consequently reduce the amount of money flowing into the trust fund. This shows that social security is not suffering from a revenue problem, it is suffering from a 'spending' problem in the sense that there are too many people retiring and requiring the trust fund to pay out more and more benefits for them.

and this problem isn't going to be fixed by increasing payroll taxes on wages and reducing the incentive to work.�

This is not true. Eliminate the payroll tax cap, and Social Security basically become solvent for as long as projection are useful.[1]

Says Elizabeth Warren and a few other uninformed Democrats. Frankly, Elizabeth Warren has huge credibility issues and has shown that she doesn't understand unbiased economics. Here is another article demonstrating why eliminating the cap on payroll taxes is the wrong course of action to take.

If anything, young people should be given the choice to opt out and save their money privately for retirement.

Please explain, if young people “opt out of paying for Social Security�, then how will current benefits to seniors today be paid for? Please answer this question as specifically as possible.

I have heard of no Republican proposal that would affect current senior citizens and retirees. Every single Republican proposal, most notably Paul Ryan's plan, would not affect current seniors. These proposals seek to reform social security for future generations, and one way to do it is by allowing people to opt out if they want to. Iif young people opt out then obviously when they become seniors they will not be relying on the social security trust fund for benefits. This would reduce the number of dependents on the system.

[johnmarc]

[Replying to post 1 by WinePusher]

(2) My wife was volunteering in New Orleans when she stepped on a nail. Her tetanus shot was $1000. (of which we paid $600)

Support:

There is a mistake in there. The shot was an antibiotic. She was required to have her tetanus shots up to date before she left. The ER visit cost over $1000 ( I rounded it off---sorry) Our medical plan paid $400 and we were left to pick up the rest. As long as we are baring our souls here, we didn't actually pay the $600. We blew it off. A collection agency came calling and we told them where to stick it. It is the only blot on our credit score. Mine remained unchanged at over 800, but hers dropped to the high 700's. It is the only thing that I have ever beat her at. I am feeling pretty good about that. The larger point is: Is ER care exorbitantly expensive. Yes, it is. Time to switch to a socialized system.

3) Is the attitude presented in the OP a problem? Should people be allowed to blow off personal expenses whenever they want to, or should the expenses always stick with them and should the company be allowed to garnish your wages until the expenses are paid off?

This is about as weird as it gets.

Winepusher puts me on 'ignore' and in just a couple of days leads off with this. Let's unpackage this a bit.

(1) I don't know what his continued fetish with me is, but clearly he could have found ten thousand better examples of 'freeloading' than this one. Here he takes a nice older couple with one unpaid bill in 45 years of marriage and calls them freeloaders. Good Grief, what if we had had left two bills dangling? This is not the definition of 'freeloader' in any rational mind.

But this is not the crux of the problem:

(2) The story continues. The ER visit was over in twenty minutes and an antibiotic administered at a cost of $1000. That is the problem. No wonder there has been such a fuss over the high cost of medical care. I wonder why this is unaddressed by Winepusher? These kind of examples occurring broadly over the last ten years have created a hew and cry for change. NO ONE should be saddled with a $1000 bill for twenty minutes work and a common antibiotic. The hospital is obviously over-charging those with means to support those without means. (example soon) What would happen if a department store charged triple in order to recoup losses due to a government policy which allowed those without means to shop free? This is one of the major healthcare issues that Obamacare is trying to resolve.

But it becomes more specific:

If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.

(3) Winepusher advocates a policy whereby one might forgo insurance premiums during the young and healthy part of one's life. Unfortunately, he is not clairvoyant and neither are millions of folks like him and many of them land in ER (shopping free) without the means to pay the overwhelming cost of ER. So who does?

I guess I do by being billed $1000 for twenty minutes work.

The huge irony here is that I am being called the freeloader because I refused to pay an astronomical bill that essentially funds the very freeloading that Winepusher advocates.

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole.

[WinePusher]

This is about as weird as it gets.

Winepusher puts me on 'ignore' and in just a couple of days leads off with this. Let's unpackage this a bit.

Yes, I can see that you're very upset with me ignoring you. But, I felt it was for the best. You made up several lies about me, you claimed that I don't have insurance and that I publicly admitted it. I asked you to produce a quote where I said that and you failed, and then you were proven DEAD WRONG by others users on the site including the administrator himself. And when you were proven DEAD WRONG you didn't honorably retract your false claim, that reveals much about ones character and I have no interest in debating 'people' like that.

(1) I don't know what his continued fetish with me is, but clearly he could have found ten thousand better examples of 'freeloading' than this one. Here he takes a nice older couple with one unpaid bill in 45 years of marriage and calls them freeloaders. Good Grief, what if we had had left two bills dangling? This is not the definition of 'freeloader' in any rational mind.

First of all, I don't care about you. Your existence is of no consequence to me so, do not ever falsely claim that I have a fetish with you. Second, this thread is only partially about you. I would never make a thread dedicated solely to being about you because, as I said, your existence is completely inconsequential to me.

(2) The story continues. The ER visit was over in twenty minutes and an antibiotic administered at a cost of $1000. That is the problem. No wonder there has been such a fuss over the high cost of medical care. I wonder why this is unaddressed by Winepusher? These kind of examples occurring broadly over the last ten years have created a hew and cry for change. NO ONE should be saddled with a $1000 bill for twenty minutes work and a common antibiotic. The hospital is obviously over-charging those with means to support those without means. (example soon) What would happen if a department store charged triple in order to recoup losses due to a government policy which allowed those without means to shop free? This is one of the major healthcare issues that Obamacare is trying to resolve.

Frankly, I don't care. You've changed your story so many times I'm losing count. How am I, and the readers, supposed to know what's true and what's not when you're continually editing and changing your story? The fact seems to be that you and your wife blew off a medical bill that you could have otherwise afforded. Why? I don't know and I don't care. Thinking that you can just blow off your bills and expenses whenever you want, regardless of the circumstances, is a hideous attitude to have imo. You incurred the bill, so at least have the decency to pay it off or work out a settlement with the collection agency/company.

The huge irony here is that I am being called the freeloader because I refused to pay an astronomical bill that essentially funds the very freeloading that Winepusher advocates.

Actually, I don't think anyone on this forum was calling anybody else freeloaders until you got here and started posting. Calling other people freeloaders seems to be a favorite line of yours, and as I noted, you had to resort to making up a lie about my character that you were proven DEAD WRONG on by other users and the administrator himself. So here you are, calling other people freeloaders and making false accusations, when in fact you are guilty of it yourself. THAT is ironic

Btw, don't ever expect me to engage or read any of your posts in the future. Admit you were wrong and retract your false accusation about how I don't have health insurance and I might think about taking you off ignore. I mean come on man, otseng proved you wrong and so have other users and you STILL won't retract your false claim? Good grief

[johnmarc]

[Replying to post 24 by WinePusher]

First of all, I don't care about you. Your existence is of no consequence to me...

I understand that. But what is so particularly troubling to liberals/progressives/atheists is how one could be a conservative Christian with ties to a literal God and have no interest in that which God so clearly cared the most about---each individual. All of this sounds so...so...so...Christian?

Actually, I don't think anyone on this forum was calling anybody else freeloaders until you got here and started posting.

If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.

I don't think that I used the term 'freeloader' until I saw this quote. What exactly is the broad based and long term consequences of following this example? And after multiple requests, Winepusher has produced no answer. I suppose that is because there is no satisfactory answer. Ending up in the ER with a broken foot and a bill that cannot be paid IS the definition of freeloading. Excuse me here, if I am using the correct term. Can you find a better term?

Let's unpackage both claims:

(1) Johnmarc's wife did not pay $600 of $1000 for twenty minutes in an ER.
Suppose 25,000,000 folks did as johnmarc's wife did. Failed to pay one bill representing .00005 of all of the value of bills accumulated over a lifetime. What would be the result? I guess that Mastercard, Visa, and every bank in the USA would be dancing in the streets. I guess that all of those folk would have credit ratings in the high 700's. I suppose that credit card interest rates might even come down a bit.

(2) or, 25,000,000 folks followed Winepusher's advice to 'not waste money on an insurance policy'.

I see two results:

(A) None of those 25,000,000 are clairvoyant enough to know when the next accident or illness might require some kind of medical care. A certain percentage of them will end up in ER without the ability to pay the freight. Those numbers would overwhelm the system creating a huge mess for the ER itself and the folks like me who ultimately pay the bills. (middle class) Some change would have to be made. (to some degree, this is already happening)

(B) AND private insurance which would soon note that the young and healthy, having dropped off the rolls will have created a huge hole where the profit once was. Insurance depends on premiums from the young and healthy in order to 'be there' for the old and infirm. What needs to be recognized is that those are one and the same people---just a different stages of their lives. Once this 'cash cow' is gutted, premiums will raise drastically to cover the expenses of the expensive class. That drastic increase will put insurance out of the reach of the middle class. It is just a mess and I don't know how that mess is resolved.


I don't want to address Winepusher or anyone else---I want to address this problem. And the problem is that no one else has offered up this example:

If I'm healthy and don't foresee any need for medical care in the future, I'm probably not going waste my money on an insurance policy.

So there is no one else who is responsible for an answer. In all seriousness, WHAT ARE THE BROAD BASED AND LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF THIS BEHAVIOR?

And again---no answer?

Frankly, I don't care. You've changed your story so many times I'm losing count.

Stay tuned because there is another change. Now I have finally won a bet with my wife---that makes twice that I beat her at something. I bet her a dollar that I could get you to interact with me again. But unfortunately, I never got the money. Now it is double or nothing on something related. Don't give up on me yet, I need the money to pay bills.

[WinePusher]

LOL you just admitted that there are long term structural problems, if there aren't any and if social security is perfectly fine the way it is then why should we remove the payroll tax cap? Make up your mind, is there a problem or isn't there?

That’s a facile cheap shot that isn’t even accurate. The problem isn’t with the structure of Social Security. It’s only with the limits on who is required to contribute.

If there isn't a structural problem with social security then why is their a need, in your mind, to raise or eliminate the cap on payroll taxes? It isn't a facile cheap shot to point out a contradiction in what you're writing.

In other words, you’re ducking the point and refusing to acknowledge that that small adjustment would solve ALL the problems with Social Security.

You're under the false illusion that raising taxes is just a 'small adjustment.' Economists are trained to think in terms of trade offs, opportunity costs, costs and benefits, 'what is seen and what is unseen,' etc. The question that you aren't asking is if we raise payroll taxes substantially, what will be the ripple and underlying consequences. What is the trade off for raising taxes? What is the opportunity cost of raising taxes? Do the benefits of raising taxes exceed the costs of raising taxes? Will raising taxes cause unseen problems in the economy? The problem with liberals and Democrats today is that they do not understand the negative effects that taxation has on the economy.

Are you here to actually exchange some ideas and debate, or just to score ego points and post condescending putdowns?

Both actually. I'm happy to debate and exchange ideas with anyone who is willing and intellectually capable. Also, if someone is condescending and egotistical towards me but still manages to make some good points I'll be condescending and egotistical back. But, I do have very little tolerance for people who go around condemning condecension and namecalling when they are themselves guilty of it.

The problem is that if social security was going to be funded primarily by private, voluntary contributions on the part of the rich then it would be no different from any other private sector charity.

Who said anything about “private, voluntary contributions�? I certainly didn’t.

YOU wrote: 'let EVERYONE contribute according to his income.' People do not contribute to the trust fund, so this is poor word choice on your part.

The consensus among Democrats and Republicans seems to be that the payroll tax cap should remain in place, and payroll tax rates should be gradually reduced overtime. There was much bipartisan support for the payroll tax cut extension about a year ago, and this is because the main problem with the trust fund is not the amount of money that's going into it, but rather the amount of money that's going out of it. More and more people are going to be relying on social security, mainly due to an increase in the aging population, and this problem isn't going to be fixed by increasing payroll taxes on wages and reducing the incentive to work.

Nobody’s talking about payroll tax RATES. Just the cap, where people who make $10 million pay the same into Social Security as people who pay $110,000.

You missed the point entirely. There is bipartisan support for lowering payroll taxes, not raising as you are suggesting. This is because payroll taxes are direct axes on wages and are particularly detrimental to consumption and economic growth.

If anything, young people should be given the choice to opt out and save their money privately for retirement and the social security system should be forced to compete to other, more effective private forms of pension and retirement planning.

Riiiight. Privatize Social Security. Put it in the hands of the people who tanked the economy and robbed billions of dollars from millions of people -- and got away with a profit. Sorry, Social Security has worked just fine as it is since it was instituted in the Roosevelt Administration. There’s NO reason to mess with it in order to give already wealthy financiers another opportunity to steal.

Yeeees. Privatize Social Security. Put it in the hands of the free market wherein it would be run more efficiently and productively. Put it in the hands of people with MBA's and business experience who are accountable to the law of profit and loss instead of corrupt bureaucrats who are immune from market regulations.

Medicare should be extended to everyone in a single-payer healthcare system, as in Canada and most of the industrialized world. Other nations seem to be doing just fine with it.

And how on earth would this solve the fiscal imbalances in the Medicare program? Jeez, can you at least try to stay on topic?

Could you at least TRY to respond to an on-point, salient observation, as opposed to ducking it? You said that Medicare, as well as SS, was “unsustainable.� I show that even broader systems of healthcare are thriving in other nations -- and you say I’m “offtopic�?

I asked how the fiscal problems in Medicare could be solved. You answer by saying that the entire healthcare system should be a single payer system. So in your mind expanding a program that is on the verge of bankruptcy and extending it to even more people without generating more revenue or making it more cost efficient and effective is an 'on point, salient observation?' Nope, it's an absurd non sequitor.

No, actually I'm referring to the list of demands that was posted on the occupy wall street website. This was the original list of demands and the three specific demands I mentioned, free incomes-free educatio-debt forgiveness, are still being pushed for by many liberals today.

That is plainly not the case in the link you provided. Do you have another link?

Link.

Further; do you still have no comment on the ACTUAL list of demands from Occupy Wall Street as posted in the link that you yourself provided? That was the obvious thrust of my comment, and you have ignored and ducked that implicit question too.

Yes I do, I said that the demands of occupy wall street are absurd that are illustriative of the welfare-entitlement culture that I made this thread about. Not only that, but they are also economically impractical as well. Anyone who starts taking classes on economics and delves deeper into the subject and will begin to realize how absurd most of these liberal-progressive opinions are.

No, I personally don't know anybody who has just voluntarily blown off an expense like the person in the topic did. I read about it on the forum a while back and it perfectly illustrates how hidious the welfare-entitlement attitude is.

So you admit that you don’t know ANYONE who has done this? That you know of ONE case that you read about on the Net?

May I remind you that you spoke of a CULTURE, and repeatedly? Is that factual and objective observation about your own post also “incoherent,� “emotional� and “irrelevant�?

Yes, the welfare-entitlement culture is well alive in many liberal circles today. The purpose of presenting the case in the topic was to 1) determine whether or not it is an example of freeloading and/or a welfare queen/entitlement attitude and 2) see whether or not businesses should have the power to garnish wages until debts are completely paid off.

I ignored it because I agree with it. Welfare reform under Clinton was a by in large a big sucess. I've also made it amply clear that I support welfare for people who legitimately need it, like starving children, single mothers and the elderly. The only thing that needs to be done now is just to simplfy the welfare bureaucracy and squeeze out the waste and fraud.

First time you’ve mentioned any of that. Are you telling me that you’re NOT advocating cuts to food stamps, longterm unemployment and welfare? If so, please elaborate.

Yes, I'm for cutting and scaling these programs back. Am I for completely eliminating them? No. I've made that abudantly clear in many of my posts. Im in favor of a basic social safety, not a bloated social safety net.

I don't approach policy matters from a religious standpoint, and I certainly couldn't care any less about your unintelligable, subjective interpretations of the Bible. We live in a secular society, and policy issues should be approached through an a critical analytical lens, not a religious-dogmatic.

So your religious beliefs are entirely irrelevant to the policies you favor?

That's right.

Thanks for clarifying. To what, then, ARE your religious beliefs relevant? Nothing wrong with approaching policy from a critical and analytical viewpoint -- but aren’t ETHICS, or JUSTICE, or RIGHT AND WRONG involved at all? And aren’t your religious beliefs relevant to THOSE issues?

Yes, which is why I try to do charitable acts in my own personal capacity. Am I going to disclose any of this personal information (regarding what I do or to whom I contribute to) to some random person over the internet? No.

Sorry, but you don't seem to understand the role of investment spending in the economy. Hedge funds, and hedge fund managers, are merely the engines of operation by which investments take place. Many start up companies require heavy investments from investors and this is done through hedge funds. If these loanable funds were not made available through the hedge fund then it would be much more difficult fo raspiring entreprenuers to start up companies and businesses and to create jobs.

The question isn’t whether hedge funds are necessary; it’s whether their CEOs are really worth salaries in the BILLIONS of dollars. That seems pretty clear in my post, too. Ducking and dodging again.

If they weren't worth it then they wouldn't be paid it.

There is some legitimacy to this argument, but I've already written up a statement expressing my concerns about minimum wages:

How do you think wages are determined in the first place? The company CEO just randomly decides to pay his workers whatever amount of money he deems appropriate? Workers are paid according to their output, productivity and skill level. All the economic literature has shown that there are literally no businesses and companies that pay their workers below what they're actually worth.

Care to post some links to that “literature�? Dollars to doughnuts it’s from industry-sponsored “think tanks� and rightwing sources. Let’s see what you’ve got.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_wages
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nominal_rigidity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_economics

If anything, most companies pay out efficiency wages that exceed the workers marginal productivity and worth. And do I really need to remind everybody here that literally anybody off the street can get a job at walmart? There is probably an endless supply of people who are willing to work at walmart and from what I understand there are very few qualifications that walmart requires from potential employees. When all you take of this into account, there's no wonder why walmart pays its workers low wages.

Yes. The primary reason they pay low wages is because they CAN. The government will make up the difference in order to allow those people to actually survive. In other words, taxpayer money is being used to subsidize Wal-Mart so that its owners can grow ever more wealthy. You know this is true, but you aren’t commenting on it. Why is that?

Further, CostCo rather gives the lie to your theory here. They pay their workers about TWICE what Wal-Mart pays, as well as offering benefits, and that company is even more profitable and productive than Wal-Mart. Turns out that people work harder and are more productive if you pay them more.

First of all, it isn't my theory. It's standard neoclassical mainstream economic theory regarding labor markets. Second of all, I've already addressed the fallacious example of Costco that people like you incessently bring up:

First of all, the primary cause of part time employment is Obamacare.

False. A popular myth, promoted by the right; but false nonetheless. Wal-Mart, and others, employed mostly part-time workers LONG before "Obamacare" was even proposed. That it was to avoid paying for benefits is true enough, but that had nothing to do with "Obamacare" and the passage of the ACA has NOT increased that practice.

As expected, you are wrong. We can play this tit for tat game all day long, but the difference is that I actually have economic theory to back up what I'm saying. You literally have nothing. Apparently it wasn't clear to you, but I was talking about the increase in part time employment rates and the reduction of overall full time employment. Yes, obviously part time employment existed before Obamacare but that's a non sequitor. The substantial increase in part time employment overall is because of governmental regulations like Obamacare.

Second of all, this is all flat out ridiculous because companies and executives were the original ones who created the practice of work-related benefits. The government imposed maximum wage ceilings during the second world war, so the only way businesses could attract workers to their firm was to offer benefits instead of just offering higher wages.

So what? Those caps are obviously not in place NOW. Shall we all pretend that things are just as they were in the 1940s, when more businesses considered their workers more than disposable cogs in the machine -- an “attitude� that you perfectly represent above?

What on earth are you even talking about? Work related benefits were created by the market as a way to get around the government imposed maximum wage. The purpose of these benefits is to attract workers to specific businesses, and the purpose remains the same to this day. The inverse relationship exists between the wage rate and the types of benefits the employer offers. Employers that offer higher wages generally don't offer lofty benefit packages while employers that offer lower wages generally do offer lofty benefit packages.

Really? 1. Who buys the products that they have manufactured overseas and sell at outrageous markups? 2. Who pays for the government assistance that compensates for their refusal to pay living wages to their employees? 3. Why do they get enormous bonuses for “performance� even in years when their corporations LOSE money -- and where does THAT money come from? 4. The PUBLIC’S money has nothing to do with all this? What about the enormous subsidies and tax breaks these megacorporations get from the government, which have to be paid for by the PEOPLE? Do you know that 26 of the 30 largest corporations in the United States paid NO INCOME TAX AT ALL in 2012, and in fact received government SUBSIDIES which gave them an effective tax rate as high as a negative -18% (General Electric)? If not, why not? If so, how can you make this outrageous claim?

1. Consumers, but this is wholly irrelevant. There are many costs of productions that must be compensated for, ie: fixed costs, variable costs, average total costs, etc. It's not as if executives are just reaching into the pockets of consumers and extracting all their money.

Did I say that or anything near it? No, I did not. Nice try, but still a dodge. You said, “A CEO does not require other people's money in order to survive.� Plain words, and they are plainly false.

LOL don't ever accuse me of being dishonest again, especially in light of what you've written here. You asked me a question, I gave you a straightfoward answer. Consumers are the ones who buy products. And now you have the gull to suggest that I'm somehow dodging it?

The company must first provide a good or service that is satisfactory for the consumer, and the consumer and the company then proceeds to engage in a voluntary exchange: the consumers gives the company money while the company gives the consumer the goods/services.

And therefore CEOs REQUIRE other people’s money to do business, and thus survive. Q.E.D.

Not in the sense I'm talking about. If you remember anything about this discussion we were comparing welfare recipients with CEO's. A CEO does not require other people's money to survive in the same way a welfare recipient does. The CEO/entreprenuer must first provide a good or service that is deemed to be satisfactory by the consumer in order to generate any revnnue and profits. A welfare recipients doesn't.

Minimum wages cause unemployment among low skilled workers. This would also increase the demand for welfare, which is something you seem adamently opposed to.

Sorry, but here are links to a number of studies that appear to prove that false too.

LOL you're giving me a link called 'raisetheminimumwage?' Weren't you just complaining about biased sources and think tanks? And now you yourself are providing a biased, uncredible source to support your argument? Don't complain about biased sources when you yourself are guilty of using them. Btw, I would like an honest answer to this question. Ddid you actually read through the studies you cite? Do you actually understand what they're saying?

And I've looked at many minimum wage studies and personally ran several regressions on minimum wage/youth unemployment data. The best study that supports your position was the 1990's study by Alan Krueger and David Card and it has major flaws in it, as most studies of this magnitude do. If you've ever glanced at the study, you would realize that Krueger and Card only sample fast food restaurant workers. In other words, they intentionally limited their sample size to a specific portion of the service sector and exluded all other portions of the service sector.



Nope, as I already said the corporation is just taking 'the publics money,' they must first provide a good or service that is deemed satisfactory by the public. The same isn't true for welfare recipients.
[/quote]
And, once again, you don’t answer the question about government subsidies and tax breaks, all of which are paid for by the public -- taxpayers. Again; 26 of the 30 largest corporations paid no taxes at all. And we took up the slack. Why do companies with profits in the hundreds of billions of dollars need government assistance? Why is that more legitimate than assistance for people who do not make enough money to feed their children -- to the point that we spend hundreds of times as much money on CORPORATE welfare as on the poor? How very strange it is that you have nothing to say about that!

Corporate executives and other people who are in the top 1% spend their money on either consumption related purposes or investment related purposes. I can understand why liberals would want to tax a rich person when he/she is going out to buy a new yacht or a new corvette because the money is being spent on personal consumption and will only benefit the rich person. But, much of the money in the top 1% is circulated throughout the economy in the form of investments and loans. This benefits the poor and middle classes because it expands and grows the economy. Economic growth comes primarily from an abudnance of savings (a large supply of loanable funds) and the rich supply most of the savings and investments in the economy. And all the stuff you said about the minimum wage as been refuted ad naseum. It seems like you're only looking at the surface of all these issues; you're not digging deeper and looking at what the unintended consequences of all your propositions are.

Watch Fox News much?

Is this really the best you can do? I should know better than to try to have a serious economics discussion with someone who's best reply is 'Watch Fox News much?' But, I would like to know why liberals are so obsessed with Fox News. For the record, I don't watch Fox or cable news in general unlike you apparently. You must watch Fox 24/7 since you're such an expert on the type of content they cover.

Oh, stop with the facile cheap shots. Your remarks would be justified if that were all I had to say; but it wasn’t, and you know that.

Here are some facts of which you are apparently unaware, from

Your articles don't address anything I wrote. Economic growth comes from higher savings and production, this is taught in basic macroeconomics classes.

Not very astute. Delete, duck and ignore. What an ineffective pretense of argument

Just on principle, I'm going to repost the remarks that you deleted and let our readers decide whether or not they "address anything [you] wrote."

Here are some facts of which you are apparently unaware, from here:

The growing gap between the richest Americans and everyone else isn't bad just for individuals. It's hurting the U.S. economy.

So says a majority of more than three dozen economists surveyed last week by The Associated Press. Their concerns tap into a debate that's intensified as middle-class pay has stagnated while wealthier households have thrived.

A key source of the economists' concern: Higher pay and outsize stock market gains are flowing mainly to affluent Americans. Yet these households spend less of their money than do low- and middle-income consumers who make up most of the population but whose pay is barely rising.

And here:

...economists’ thinking has changed sharply in recent years. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development this year warned about the “negative consequences� of the country’s high levels of pay inequality, and suggested an aggressive series of changes to tax and spending programs to tackle it.
The I.M.F. has cautioned the United States, too. “Some dismiss inequality and focus instead on overall growth — arguing, in effect, that a rising tide lifts all boats,� a commentary by fund economists said. “When a handful of yachts become ocean liners while the rest remain lowly canoes, something is seriously amiss.�
The concentration of income in the hands of the rich might not just mean a more unequal society, economists believe. It might mean less stable economic expansions and sluggish growth.
That is the conclusion drawn by two economists at the fund, Mr. Ostry and Andrew G. Berg. They found that in rich countries and poor, inequality strongly correlated with shorter spells of economic expansion and thus less growth over time.
And inequality seems to have a stronger effect on growth than several other factors, including foreign investment, trade openness, exchange rate competitiveness and the strength of political institutions.

And one more thing; One hundred percent of poor people’s money is spent on “consumption� -- you know, things like rent, food, clothing, fuel and electricity.

Looks pretty "relevant" to me.

Yes, that's the problem. Consumption is merely a consequence of production and is not representative of economic growth. GDP is measured in terms of production, not consumption. The homes, food, cloths, fuel and electricity must first be produced in order for anybody to consume it. Economic growth comes from production and savings and like I said, the rich have a higher MPS (Marginal Propensity to Save) while the poor have a larger MPC (Marginal Propensity to Consume).

Consumption is a “problem�? Is it unrelated to production?

If people have more money to spend on necessities -- commodities and products of every kind -- production will increase to match it, no? Therefore, REDUCING the amount that people have to spend will necessarily depress production, will it not?

ALL of their income goes back into the economy. ALL of it. The wealthy's "investments?" You mean in money markets, trading on currency exchanges? Gambling in the stock market? Investment in huge overseas companies? How does any of THAT help the economy, never mind the plight of the un- and under-employed?

Wow, you seriously can't be asking that. You really don't know how the entire economy is related in with the stock market, the bond market, the real estate market and the exchange markets? Clearly, all of these markets have a very real impact on economic conditions for the un-underemployed otherwise Ben Bernanke wouldn't be purchasing 80+ Billion dollars worth of government treasuries in an attempt to boost the stock market and the real estate market. While I disagree with Bernanke's methodology, he clearly understands what you don't. That investments by the rich play a vital role in the economy.

Thanks for all the condescension, but I doubt very much that a single mother who is struggling to get by on a minimum-wage job that doesn’t pay for adequate childcare is much affected by the stock and bond markets. Do those people just not count in your academic theories of the economy, or what?

As for “loans� -- well, we’ve seen how THOSE help the poor and middle-class. People all over the country have lost their homes to predatory banks and mortgage companies -- which were bailed out at TAXPAYER expense, whose CEOs and executives got six-and seven-figure bonuses for indisputably CRIMINAL behavior -- all while the billions provided for relief went into their pockets and practically none of it went to actually relieve the cheated homeowners. Are you sure you want to talk about “loans�?

We've had a financial services sector for nearly 2 centuries in this country. This type of risky lending never really occured on a continual basis. It reared it's ugly head into the market during the 2000s because of a mixture of bad government policies, ie: a low fed funds rates, Fannie and Freddie, the community reinvestment act and the government actively encouraging and sponsoring home ownership. If anyone should be in jail it should be Barney Frank, Chris Dodd and Alan Greenspan.

And the deregulation of the banks and the gutting of Glass-Steagall had nothing to do with it? The blatant greed and dishonesty of the big banks, in packaging bad loans and promoting and selling them as good investments, is irrelevant?

For the record; most people on the Left were OUTRAGED at the government bailouts of the banks -- if not before the fact, certainly AFTER, when it turned out that nothing changed, no one went to jail, and the banks made more profits after the bailouts than before.

Glad to hear it. Btw, since when are people incacerated just for making stupid decisions. When someone makes a dumb move, they lose and suffer losses. These wallstreet execs. would have suffered tremendous losses if it weren't for the bailout and that would have been punishment enough.

No one’s talking about “stupid decisions.� We’re talking about blatant, proven dishonesty and violations of the law. It’s all on the record. Let’s not pretend we’re just talking about bad judgment. We’re talking about bad faith, deliberate fraud, and premeditated violations of the law.

Some do deserve it, some don't. I don't know why you're bringing up this non-issue though because it is NOT about what people do and do not deserve. This isn't a perfect world, not everybody gets exactly what he/she deserves. Good things happen to bad people, bad things happen to good people. That much should be clear by now. The real issue has to do with what can be done to alleviate poverty and increase the living standards for the masses.

Precisely. You only seem concerned with maintaining living standards for the rich, subscribing to that tired old “trickle-down� theory that has been thoroughly disproven and discredited over the last few decades. We’ve had tax breaks for the wealthy since Reagan; if “trickle-down� was a valid theory, we’d be up to our butts in jobs and economic growth by now.

We’re not.

Wow, how did you get all of this nonsense from what I wrote? You made an asinine point about how people don't always get what they deserved and I responded to it. And then, you come back with a bunch of stuff on trickle down, Reagan, the rich, etc.

Your remark, as I noted later, contains no concern about the issues of JUSTICE or GREED at all. “That’s just the way it is� isn’t proposing any kind of solutions; it doesn’t even indicate that you care. How was that conclusion unjustified by your actual remarks?

Do you NOT believe in “trickle-down economics�? I’ve seen nothing to indicate otherwise. Please clarify.

We’re not talking about a third-world country. You aren’t addressing the problem of wealth and income being CONCENTRATED in the hands of the 1% or the 5%. And that IS a problem, though you keep trying to say that it ISN’T.

It isn't. The real problem is poverty and income immobility. Inequality is an inherent part of any system and total equality is niether practical nor desirable. Many communist states were completely and totally equal in the sense of wages and income and wealth, yet the living standards for the population were horrible.

Once again: no one said anything about “total equality.� Putting words in my mouth yet again. Gross and savage INequality is quite another thing, and you don’t seem inclined to even acknowledge that, never mind address it as being a problem.

Have you ever asked why corporations outsource jobs overseas?

No comment about the RELIGIOUS aspects of your preferred policies again, I see....

See above. There is no religious aspect to economic outsourcing. I've neer seen any academic paper or article that incorporates a 'religious aspect' in with international economics and outsourcing. I also don't care about your subjective, biased, liberal interpretations of the Bible.

So religion -- even your own -- is irrelevant to the real world? Interesting response. Can you justify THAT approach from either the Bible or your own religious beliefs?

If my interpretation of the Bible is “subjective, biased� and “liberal,� please explain how the Bible does NOT advocate justice, compassion, and caring for the poor --which is all I’ve ever said on the matter.

Let me be sure I understand you here. You think that American corporations should be able to pay their employees thirty-four cents per hour, as they do in Indonesia? Or perhaps thirteen cents per hour, as in Bangladesh? You think that safety regulations in factories should be abolished, as in the aforementioned Bangladesh, where a fire at a factory killed 111 people making clothes for Wal-Mart (and note that Wal-Mart chose NOT to help with factory upgrades that could have prevented the fire)? And you're OKAY with all that, and think abolishing all these laws and regulations would make American corporations more competitive, and would be good for the country?

Let me be sure I understand you here. You think that if there wasn't any government involvement American corporations would be paying employees thirty four sents per hour?

When did I say THAT? I ASKED if you thought that companies should have that right! I point out, with emphasis, the objective and unemotional FACT that you did not answer.

Do you know nothing about labor economics? Do you know nothing about efficency wages and marginal productivity? You also think that there would be tons of fire factories that would kill off tons of workers? Do you know nothing about about basic market regulations? Do you really think it'd be in the interest of the company to allow fires to burn up all their workers?

What I know is that you are not answering my relevant and directly-on-point questions. You blamed outsourcing on American government policy. Do you, or do you not, think that the starvation wages and the lack of safety regulations in other nations affect outsourcing? If so, what is that effect? If not, why not?

Sneering at my alleged ignorance of economics and asking rhetorical questions does not constitute an argument. It constitutes yet another duck-and-dodge.

Let me guess. Libertarian dogma, right? Let corporations do WHATEVER THEY CHOOSE, without ANY GOVERNMENT REGULATION WHATEVER, and let the market decide. Child labor, 60-hour weeks, no overtime, no sick pay, no benefits, no pensions -- and since the corporations all work together to maximize their profits and suppress wages and benefits, we’ll end up with even GREATER inequality and injustice than before?

If you really think that the government the entity that ended child labor, imposed the 40 hours work week, instituted stick pay and benefits and pensions then I really can't help you. Sorry, but I don't have blind faith in the government like many liberals do.

Are those practices and regulations not matters of law, which means that they were passed into law by the Congress, signed by the President, and judged Constitutional by the Supreme Court, i.e., by actions of the three branches of “government�? Please explain why that is not true.

Have you ever asked why many politicians, including Obama, don't support high corporate income taxes?

Sure. Maybe it’s because campaign costs have soared into the billions (free market, right?} and politicians are beholden to the wealthy corporations and the tycoons who run them for financing.

Yea, that's what I thought you thought. The government's in league with the corporations.

That isn’t what I said, not at all. SOME politicians -- even MOST -- are beholden to and dependent upon SOME wealthy individuals and corporations, not to mention the “dark money� organizations that funnel money to politicians whose policies they support. “The Government� isn’t a single entity in this context, and neither are “corporations.�

Once again; misstating my arguments and replacing them with words you attempt to stuff in my mouth, whether from your own misunderstanding or deliberately, are not tactics that I have much patience for, nor will I let them go unnoted.

A more objective answer would have been that it's because of this little thing called tax competitiveness. Like I said, the negative effects of high taxation are well documented. If only you would make an effort to read up on it......

More condescension. Thanks very much. Funny how highly taxed nations like Japan and those in Western Europe have high standards of living, high economic mobility, little poverty, high levels of political freedom, much HIGHER levels of education, and are beating the stuffing out of us in world markets and in educational effectiveness.

Have you ever asked why there needs to be cuts in government welfare/entitlement spending? Oh, lemme guess, your answers are gonna be something like this right?

My ACTUAL answer is: There DON’T need to be cuts in government “welfare/entitlement spending.� It should be INCREASED, and government subsidies and tax breaks to CORPORATIONS should be cut -- which would, incidentally, amount to HUNDREDS OF BILLIONS more in actual savings.

No. The government should actually shrink in size and cut spending on all programs across the board. Government subsidizes and tax rates should be substantially reduced and this would benefit the entirety of the population. Central planning, socialism and liberalism are utter failures.

When did I advocate “central planning� or “socialism�?

And “liberalism� being an “utter failure� -- well, let’s look at some liberal positions over the years, all opposed by conservatives, and see how they fared:

The abolition of slavery, the 40-hour week, overtime pay, the abolition of child labor, the income tax, the Voting Rights Act, desegregation, Social Security, Medicare, women’s voting rights, collective bargaining rights, regulation of food and drug safety, innumerable public-works projects like the Interstate Highway System and flood-control dams, the National Park system, and much, VERY much, more...

Looks like liberals are doing OK to me.

You're clearly inconsistent due to the fact that you would resist any government involvement when it comes to social issues like gay marriage, abortion, sex, etc.

All of which are properly the concern of the individuals involved and them only, since none of those issues affect the rights of others.

But when it comes to the economy, an area would the government should be hands off moreso than the social issues, you want the government to come in, mindlessly prance around and ruin more lives.

The “economy,� by definition, affects everyone. Mandating honesty and fairness in business practices IS the government’s business, just as mandating that our food and medicines be pure and safe. Do you REALLY advocate “laissez-faire� capitalism? I am no socialist; I LIKE capitalism. It WORKS. But that doesn’t mean that wealthy people and big corporations get to do whatever they want without regard to anyone else. “The market� does NOT solve all problems and “regulate itself.� If it did, child labor and nondiscrimination laws would never have been necessary.

I’m just curious; do you, like many followers of Libertarian God Ron Paul, believe that businesses ought to be free to discriminate against racial groups if they so choose?

Our social safety net is already the thinnest and least adequate in the industrialized world; this remains the ONLY nation in the First World where people fear their medical bills, and where people go bankrupt -- literally lose everything -- over those bills. And the MAJORITY of people who go bankrupt in the US do it because of their medical bills. It’s better to be sick or poor in Turkey or Spain than in the US.

As opposed to the socialized healthcare systems that make patients wait enourmous amounts of time to get care.

Can you document that from unbiased -- that is, non-right-wing -- sources? It’s a popular myth, but I know many Canadians (there are some on this board) and I haven’t seen a lot of complaints from THEM.

It's all about trade offs, if you want better healthcare you're going to have to pay for it out of pocket.

Meaning: If you’re broke, you’re gonna die, right? Don’t forget -- that “free� emergency room care for the very poor, which is not adequate for serious health issues anyway, is not “free� -- it costs the taxpayers MUCH MORE than the Affordable Care act will.

If you want free care (in the sense that your medical bills will be paid by other people and you yourself will be paying for other peoples healthcare) then you're obviously going to get lower quality.

Nobody is talking about “free� health care (other than the nuts you love to quote, that is). The name of the act is the Affordable Care Act. I myself now have actual health insurance for $430 a month; before, even under the “Texas High-Risk Pool,� it would have cost me over $1,600 a month -- which was twice what I then made as a caregiver for the elderly. Your solution for me is, apparently, “tough cookies,� as I said before.

Economic mobility -- that is, the ability to improve one’s economic lot -- is lower in the US than in any European nation except Britain, lower than Canada, lower than Australia, and so on. It’s harder for the poor to escape poverty in the US than in virtually any other nation in the First World.

Here's a more serious study demonstrating that income mobility was experienced by a significant portion of households during non recessionary periods.

“More serious� because it agrees with you? Please. Selectively quoting “studies� from six years ago, BEFORE the banking crisis, and using data from twenty-six and seventeen years ago, isn’t very convincing. I found a couple of dozen studies that say otherwise, and those results are well known. Got anything else, or just that one cherrypicked and out-of-date “study�?

I don't think that Republican "hate" poor people; I think they frankly don't give a rat's behind about them, as you yourself apparently don't. You've not betrayed a scintilla of concern about those in our society who are poor and needy; you have not so much as mentioned their legitimate concerns at all. Most poor Americans are WORKING poor; they HAVE JOBS, but those jobs do not pay a wage adequate to support a family. The old LIE that the poor are merely "lazy" and should just "get a job" has been proven a lie for a LONG time now, but some still worship it as the truth. I see no indication that you think otherwise.

Oh jeez, is this really the best you libs can do?

Is that the best answer you have for it?

The personal insults are getting so old and, worst of all, they're completely unoriginal and uncreative.

What “personal insults�? I noted that, before this post, you haven’t indicated the least concern for the poor anywhere in this conversation -- and you haven’t.

At least think of some better names to call people when you start losing the argument.

What “names�? How am I “losing the argument� when you’re ducking and dodging most of my points -- as you are, once again, right here?

Most poor people are WORKING people. You have not addressed that point, or any of the others I’ve made in that paragraph. That’s a matter of objective fact, and when I pointed it out, all you did was ruffle your feathers and claim that I “insulted� you.

Not very convincing for someone who claims to be winning the argument.

But, judging from your post you don't seem to understand complex issues about politics and economics, ie: taxation, investments, hedge funds, social security, healthcare, etc. Most of what you write is just plain out wrong and shows a huge lack of understanding.

Oh? Then why do you find it so hard to answer my simple, direct questions and choose to put words in my mouth, argue against positions I don’t hold and haven’t mentioned, sneer at my arguments as opposed to actually answer them (as you do once again here), and otherwise duck and dodge them instead?

You must have loved A Christmas Carol, and been shocked when Ebenezer Scrooge lost his fine Libertarian principles and became a sucker for the moocher classes in good old Victorian London.

Speaking of Christmas, I probably won't be posting much during the holidays so if you want a response you'll have to wait awhile.

Don’t be concerned. I’ve debated you before, and your tactics and style don’t impress me. That, once again, is not an “insult�; just an honest observation. I doubt I’ll bother to respond to your tactical dodges and distractions again, not to mention your false accusations and “snarkiness,� AKA personal attacks and open contempt.

I am enjoying our exchange though...

I’m not.

...and hopefully you won't take my snarkiness the wrong way.

Too late.

To be fair, you've been quite snarky at many points too...

Sarcastic, perhaps. Contemptuously condescending to you, alleging your ignorance and sneering at it, making false accusations of name calling and outright insult -- never.

...but I find that it makes the debate more lively and entertaining .

I find that it quite gets in the way of a civil exchange of ideas and makes “debating� an unpleasant exercise in untangling twisted logic and pulling words out of my mouth that have been stuffed into it -- apparently, as I read this, for purposes of your personal entertainment rather than for actual, civil and meaningful debate.

You see, I don't come here for fun. I actually believe in the ideas I write about, think them important, and intend to make my case for them. When I am shown to be wrong, I admit it, retract my statements, and learn from it; I have done so many times, perhaps more than anyone on this forum. I'm not here to bolster my ego by putting others down or trying to make fools of them. I'm here for some real, honest, and practical discussions. I'm not alone, but sometimes I feel that way.

In any case -- whether the implied criticism above applies to you or not -- since the title of this subforum is “Politics and Religion,� and since you seem not to regard that as a legitimate topic for discussion, I fail to see any reason to pursue this “debate.� If you don’t want to see “religion,� even your own, anywhere in the vicinity of your political views -- and since applying religious principles to political discussion is my chief interest in this thread -- what’s the point?

For the record, I’m not referring to any sectarian or otherwise controversial religious principles; I’m referring to basic principles of morality acknowledged by every religion of which I have ever heard: Advocacy of JUSTICE and COMPASSION and CHARITY, and opposition to GREED and OPPRESSION and EXPLOITATION. Those seem like VERY relevant and proper topics for a political debate to me; but if you prefer a “critical and analytic� approach that holds these ideas to be irrelevant and of no account -- and I truly cannot imagine why -- I don’t think we have anything to talk about.

Have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year, anyway. I think we’re done, and in the interest of peace on earth and good will toward all, I think I’ll decline to continue. Be well.[/quote]