Author Topic: So America fought the British in a revolution................ (Read 9747 times)

Archer77 · « **Reply #75 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:08:24 AM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 04, 2015, 12:02:04 AM

You are entitled to your opinion no matter that it is a minority one. I am not mythologizing the WPA. The passage was in quotes. It's what historians say about the WPA. If it was a failure, it seems it is because after 8 years of supposed success, the economy became so robust, largely due to WWII, that it was no longer needed.

"Criticism of the WPA

It's been my observation that whenever the government--especially the federal government--performs an action, or creates a law or program, that is designed to help those in need, a flurry of criticism and panic ensues. This can be seen throughout America's history, during attempts to end slavery, or give women the right to vote, or prohibit small children from working in mines, or in the legislation to create Social Security, or Medicare, or the recent attempts to see that more Americans have access to affordable health insurance or have extended unemployment benefits while unemployment rates remain high." http://www.wpatoday.org/WPA_History.html

It was World War II that pulled the United States out of an economic downturn. Economic recovery had nothing what-so-ever to do with the WPA. The passage you quoted has no bearing on whether the WPA or the Great Society programs you favor have worked or failed. You might have well posted a recipe for banana bread.

Archer77 · « **Reply #76 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:57:12 AM »

As a matter of principle I don't think it's the responsibility of the government and by extension tax payers to subsidize an able bodied individuals living space. No one is entitled to live someplace simply because they want to. You go where the opportunities are. Where that is depends on the individual.

What's the point of living in a city where you can't find work or afford to live in. The only options is to be on government benefits and live in public housing. And once you go down that roads the odds of getting out are not good. Low income housing causes nothing but disaster and is not a viable solution. It creates a permanent dependent class that brings crime and drives away people and businesses. This is what happened to Ferguson Missouri. The section 8 voucher program killed the city.

Homeless shelters for women and children are a good thing and should be funded in part by tax dollars. And as I've stated many times, individuals with mental and physical disabilities need to be taken off the street and provided with care and treatment. This is the first part of a workable solution. The second part is increasing available housing.

The easiest and most effective way to increase available housing is to remove barriers that impede new construction like city regulation, ordinances, taxes and building fees. You also need to provide incentives for businesses to thrive. After all, people need jobs to pay for their apartments. That means not taxing and regulating them to death or burying them in bureaucratic red tape.

King Shizzo · « **Reply #77 on:** March 04, 2015, 01:44:28 AM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 03, 2015, 08:58:29 PM

Actually, some do chose to be homeless. My aunt was schizophrenic. She also was retired from the military and was married to an officer in the military for many years. The point being she had benefits. A psychotic break happened when her husband of almost twenty years left her supposedly with no warning. This triggered the schizophrenia.

She was always a little kooky, but funny and functional. She was my favorite of my two maternal aunts. Guess that says something about me.

Because she had Veteran's benefits, she had healthcare and lived in a small subsidized apartment for many years. I assume she also got SSD. One day she decided that the apartment she lived in was haunted or some such nonsense and she walked out with nothing more than the clothes on her back.

How she survived the last 20 + years of her life living on the streets of L.A. is a mystery to all of us. I imagine she was in and out of the VA hospital several times. She was 82 years old when she died. She outlived all of her siblings. She is survived by her 7 children, all but one of which was born before she flipped out.

It is not uncommon for the mentally ill to take to the streets. This is not my opinion, it is a fact that is particularly true for schizophrenics.

Prime, In your Aunt's case, she absolutely deserved the benefits that she got.

King Shizzo · « **Reply #78 on:** March 04, 2015, 05:49:07 AM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 12:57:12 AM

As a matter of principle I don't think it's the responsibility of the government and by extension tax payers to subsidize an able bodied individuals living space. No one is entitled to live someplace simply because they want to. You go where the opportunities are. Where that is depends on the individual.

What's the point of living in a city where you can't find work or afford to live in. The only options is to be on government benefits and live in public housing. And once you go down that roads the odds of getting out are not good. Low income housing causes nothing but disaster and is not a viable solution. It creates a permanent dependent class that brings crime and drives away people and businesses. This is what happened to Ferguson Missouri. The section 8 voucher program killed the city.

Homeless shelters for women and children are a good thing and should be funded in part by tax dollars. And as I've stated many times, individuals with mental and physical disabilities need to be taken off the street and provided with care and treatment. This is the first part of a workable solution. The second part is increasing available housing.

The easiest and most effective way to increase available housing is to remove barriers that impede new construction like city regulation, ordinances, taxes and building fees. You also need to provide incentives for businesses to thrive. After all, people need jobs to pay for their apartments. That means not taxing and regulating them to death or burying them in bureaucratic red tape.

What about raising minimum wage a bit? Not everyone can be Wolfs of Wallstreet with Masters degrees.

The top companies make billions in profit each year. Time to kick back a little more.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #79 on:** March 04, 2015, 10:40:29 AM »

Quote from: Shizzo on March 04, 2015, 01:44:28 AM

Prime, In your Aunt's case, she absolutely deserved the benefits that she got.

I often wonder how she received those benefits once she decided to hit the streets. How do folks get SSD and Veteran's benefit checks when they have no address? Can these checks be sent to general delivery at a local post office? Since all her family lost contact with her, none of us know how she managed. Hopefully she had some network of friends and support. The fact that she lived to be as old as she did, suggests that she had something going for her.

I do know that occasionally she would act out and get arrested because the police would contact her oldest daughter who lives on the East Coast and couldn't do much to help. Perhaps my aunt spent time in the VA hospital. I know she did some time at the Camarillo mental hospital. Typical of schizophrenics, she was more normal acting when she took her meds. Also typical the meds have negative side effects and she'd go off them as soon as she could.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #80 on:** March 04, 2015, 10:53:12 AM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 12:08:24 AM

It was World War II that pulled the United States out of an economic downturn. Economic recovery had nothing what-so-ever to do with the WPA. The passage you quoted has no bearing on whether the WPA or the Great Society programs you favor have worked or failed. You might have well posted a recipe for banana bread.

You seem to be one of those people who are so closed-minded about certain issues that when you read something about it, you rewrite it in your head. WWII put a lot of folks to work in relatively good paying jobs. Unemployment was at an all time low when the WPA was retired. The WPA was instituted towards the end of the depression when unemployment was at an all time high. What I quoted was that economic recovery made the WPA unnecessary not that the WPA created economic recovery. Of course, people working even working in the WPA had income to spend. Spendable income fosters a stronger economy.

Which great society programs do I favor. You think you know so much about what I support, you should be able to answer this simple question.

Archer77 · « **Reply #81 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:00:54 AM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 04, 2015, 10:53:12 AM

You seem to be one of those people who are so closed-minded about certain issues that when you read something about it, you rewrite it in your head. WWII put a lot of folks to work in relatively good paying jobs. Unemployment was at an all time low when the WPA was retired. The WPA was instituted towards the end of the depression when unemployment was at an all time high. What I quoted was that economic recovery made the WPA unnecessary not that the WPA created economic recovery. Of course, people working even working in the WPA had income to spend. Spendable income fosters a stronger economy.

Which great society programs do I favor. You think you know so much about what I support, you should be able to answer this simple question.

And why was unemployment at an all time low and the WPA discontinued? You said it yourself, WWII. You can keep calling me names all you want. Someone isn't closed minded when they disagree with you. The only suggestion you've offered is more public housing and shelters. Public housing and all it's various incarnations like vouchers are a product and extension of the Great Society idealism that has proven again and again to be an utter failure.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #82 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:01:29 AM »

Quote from: Shizzo on March 04, 2015, 05:49:07 AM

What about raising minimum wage a bit? Not everyone can be Wolfs of Wallstreet with Masters degrees.

The top companies make billions in profit each year. Time to kick back a little more.

Actually there is a movement to raise minimum wage to $15 an hour in some states, Oregon being one of them. This is particularly interesting since Oregon's minimum wage is already one of the highest in the nation.

I am no economist, but when the minimum wage goes up so does the cost of goods and services. It would follow then that all wages gradually increase. This is inflation. We all have more money, but since what we spend it on costs more, we are no better off. Remember, I am an old dude who once bought gas for my car at .25 a gallon. That was 54 years ago. I think minimum wage was something like $1.25 an hour. Don't even get me started on real estate. My wife's dad bought the home she grew up in in North Beverly Hills for $50,000 when my wife was five years old. A few years ago, that home sold for $11,000,000. That's real estate inflation for you.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #83 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:07:33 AM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 11:00:54 AM

And why was unemployment at an all time low and the WPA discontinued? You said it yourself, WWII. You can keep calling me names all you want. Someone isn't closed minded when they disagree with you. The only suggestion you've offered is more public housing and shelters. Public housing and all it's various incarnations like vouchers are a product and extension of the Great Society idealism that has proven again and again to be an utter failure.

Not to completely change the subject because this is related to what we've written about, but there is an article in today's Oregonian regarding SNAP (food stamps to some). In Oregon the highest usage for SNAP is in Southwest Oregon. Portland is really the only major city in Oregon and it is in Northwest Oregon. What is in Southwest Oregon is a lot of small mining towns that are failing. It seems like there is a possibility some people actually took your advice and moved to places which have cheaper housing prices. Well, hopefully they at least have a roof over their heads even if they can't afford to buy their own meals.

Archer77 · « **Reply #84 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:13:11 AM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 04, 2015, 11:07:33 AM

Not to completely change the subject because this is related to what we've written about, but there is an article in today's Oregonian regarding SNAP (food stamps to some). In Oregon the highest usage for SNAP is in Southwest Oregon. Portland is really the only major city in Oregon and it is in Northwest Oregon. What is in Southwest Oregon is a lot of small mining towns that are failing. It seems like there is a possibility some people actually took your advice and moved to places which have cheaper housing prices. Well, hopefully they at least have a roof over their heads even if they can't afford to buy their own meals.

You have it in your head that I want to punish the poor because I dislike them. You are trying to turn this into an issue about my moral character instead of having rational discussion about a serious issue. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that able bodied person, particularly single men and women, seek opportunities elsewhere instead of being given housing in a city that can't support themselves in. All studies indicate that once you do that those people are unlikely to escape poverty.

CalvinH · « **Reply #85 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:29:59 AM »

"And the shot heard round the world was the start of the Revolution,
the minute men were ready and on the move"

Primemuscle · « **Reply #86 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:37:36 AM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 11:13:11 AM

You have it in your head that I want to punish the poor because I dislike them. You are trying to turn this into an issue about my moral character instead of having rational discussion about a serious issue. There is nothing wrong with suggesting that able bodied person, particularly single men and women, seek opportunities elsewhere instead of being given housing in a city that can't support themselves in. All studies indicate that once you do that those people are unlikely to escape poverty.

Nothing of the sort.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #87 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:44:25 AM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 11:00:54 AM

And why was unemployment at an all time low and the WPA discontinued? You said it yourself, WWII. You can keep calling me names all you want. Someone isn't closed minded when they disagree with you. The only suggestion you've offered is more public housing and shelters. Public housing and all it's various incarnations like vouchers are a product and extension of the Great Society idealism that has proven again and again to be an utter failure.

What names have I called you? I Suggested you are closed-minded. This is my opinion based on some of your replies. It is not name calling.

Archer77 · « **Reply #88 on:** March 04, 2015, 11:54:05 AM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 04, 2015, 11:44:25 AM

What names have I called you? I Suggested you are closed-minded. This is my opinion based on some of your replies. It is not name calling.

You've used pejoratives in place of arguments. What you mean by closed minded is that I'm not agreeing with you. Being open minded is contingent on the worth of the ideas being presented.

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 03, 2015, 11:20:06 PM

Okay you win. Your capacity for arguing from a purely negative viewpoint is insufferable and frankly has become boring. Look me up when your ideas for fixing the problem with all these "deadbeats" that seem to be plaguing you has worked. Hey, here's an idea you might like; give these losers free passage on a cruise ship and then sink it when it's too far out for anyone to swim ashore.

You're attributing the sentiment of the passage above to myself and my views. You've even used quotation marks on the word deadbeats to imply it is a word I used. I never used that word. Who are you quoting? Did I ever say I was being plagued by deadbeats? You also claim it is in my character to enjoy the idea of sinking a cruise ship of poor people. Like I said, you are trying to turn this discussion into an attack on my moral character.

Primemuscle · « **Reply #89 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:00:13 PM »

Quote from: Archer77 on March 04, 2015, 11:54:05 AM

You've used pejoratives in place of arguments. What you mean by closed minded is that I'm not agreeing with you. Being open minded is contingent on the worth of the ideas being presented.

You're attributing the sentiment of the passage above to myself and my views. You've even used quotation marks on the word deadbeats to imply it is a word I used. I never used that word. Who are you quoting? Did I ever say I was being plagued by deadbeats? You also claim it is in my character to enjoy the idea of sinking a cruise ship of poor people. Like I said, you are trying to turn this discussion into an attack on my moral character.

I will do others the favor of not reiterating what you've posted. I will also leave it to others to decide if your moral character is suspect.

Archer77 · « **Reply #90 on:** March 04, 2015, 12:06:10 PM »

Quote from: Primemuscle on March 04, 2015, 12:00:13 PM

I will do others the favor of not reiterating what you've posted. I will also leave it to others to decide if your moral character is suspect.

What a cop out. By the way, you haven't left it to others. You've attack my character more than my arguments. Again on the topic of not being open minded. What am I not open minded about? You haven't offered any new solutions for me to consider. You have the audacity to ask me for solutions while you provide nothing but the old failed policies. Maybe you should open your mind to other possibilities.
Are you referring to my arguments against public housing? There is a plethora of evidence that public housing is a roach motel for the poor. Once you crawl in you're not crawling back out. I would suggest that the closed minded person is you.