Politics: A new beginning

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
As I said to Hank, I think that (except insofar as the program necessarily expanded to accomodate more who qualified) there is a correlation, but no causation.

So let me guess this straight. The number of unwed mothers in the 130 or so years before welfare remained relatively static, but then grew substantially after the introduction of welfare. However, this is only a correlation and welfare is not a causation of that occurence. Do you suggest this was merely a coincidence or were there other factors that contributed to the explosion?

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man

But that's a whole different issue than whether the existence of _any_ "welfare" program in general will have such deleterious effects. The latter point seems to be your argument based on your statement that it is impossible to develop an effective social welfare program. (While this is a different type of social welfare program -- I'd also note that Social Security was very effective at doing what it was designed to do -- reducing poverty among the elderly.) ]

S_A_M

My argument is that "welfare programs" is a convenient name for "redistribution of income programs." Given that this is the true nature and effect of these programs, it is impossible to design them well because, by necessity, these programs earmark the money of others for the "neediest," which sets up a system where the needs of others must be qualitatively judged in an imperfect political system. Your statement regarding SS pretty much proves the point. SS was not initially designed to reduce poverty amont the elderly. It was designed as a safety net, not an entitlement program. But through the political process, the elderly were judged to be the "neediest" of the income available to be redistributed converting the backstop into an inaliable right.

[Hank Chinaski]

What is up with cancelling these flights? If there is a threat about a particular flight, I would think simply increasing the security and carefully searching each passenger would be enough. And why allow other flights with the same departure/destination points, if there is a credible threat to one?- sheees "when I heard the 2 PM flight to DC was going to be hijacked, I didn't think they meant EST. My bad!"

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So let me guess this straight. The number of unwed mothers in the 130 or so years before welfare remained relatively static, but then grew substantially after the introduction of welfare. However, this is only a correlation and welfare is not a causation of that occurence. Do you suggest this was merely a coincidence or were there other factors that contributed to the explosion?

Loads of other factors. If you think about all the changes in our sociaty between 1920 and 1980, I'd suspect you can come up with a few candidates.

Originally posted by sgtclub
My argument is that "welfare programs" is a convenient name for "redistribution of income programs." Given that this is the true nature and effect of these programs, it is impossible to design them well because, by necessity, these programs earmark the money of others for the "neediest," which sets up a system where the needs of others must be qualitatively judged in an imperfect political system.

You and I have different definitions of "well". I'll admit that no program can be designed perfectly, but your criticism seems to be more a criticism of an improper purpose.

Originally posted by sgtclub
Your statement regarding SS pretty much proves the point. SS was not initially designed to reduce poverty amont the elderly.

I think that the Social Security program, when it was passed in 1936 and began paying out in 1940 (in amounts frequently about $18-$22 per month), was principally designed to keep old folks from starving to death. (We could look for legislative history if you'd care to.) As you may know, there was no such thing as a pension for your average worker then -- and old folks (i.e. those over 65) were the poorest demographic group in America. If that's not the same purpose as "reducing poverty among the elderly" -- I don't see much difference.

By the early 1960s, those numbers had changed dramatically -- also due to unions forcing through pension plans in lots of industries in the 1950s. So, SS was "successful" at its intended purpose.

Originally posted by sgtclub
It was designed as a safety net, not an entitlement program.

Nonsense. "Entitlement program" has a legal meaning -- it is not just a buzz-word. As soon as you give someone a legal right to something (e.g. by setting up a program that is required by law to do "X" for qualfied persons) -- those persons have a legal "entitlement" to receive "X". In other words, safety nets are "entitlement programs" too.

Originally posted by sgtclub
But through the political process, the elderly were judged to be the "neediest" of the income available to be redistributed converting the backstop into an inaliable right.

So, you're mad that the SS program became the "third rail" of government programs? (I assume that must tbe the case, because you can't believe that there is any legal "inalienable right" to SS.) You may as well rend your garments and smear ashes on your face wile bemoaning the immorality and waste that arises from democracy. Blame the self-interest of American voters, particularly the baby boomers who are about to head into retirement age.

The good thing, if there is one, is that most workers under the age of about 35 expect to get $0 from SS -- so the problems will be fixed.

S_A_M

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Loads of other factors. If you think about all the changes in our sociaty between 1920 and 1980, I'd suspect you can come up with a few candidates.

I suspect that these "other factors" have a far more tenuous causal connection.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man You and I have different definitions of "well". I'll admit that no program can be designed perfectly, but your criticism seems to be more a criticism of an improper purpose.

Sort of. The welfare state is premised on the idea that we all live in and contribute to the same society and that the good of society trumps the good of the individual. This would be laudable in a perfect world. The problem is that this premise is a facade because it goes against man's inner nature, which is to be selfish for his own survival. So you have a system set up to benefit society as a whole, while it's participants' goals are to benefit themselves. Under this system, man benefits himself by convincing the decision makers that he is the neediest, and the decision makers make imperfect or political decisions onlong those lines. This is why true conservatives seek to limit government expenditures to those items that truly do benefit society as a whole (e.g., the military, police, fire, etc).

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man I think that the Social Security program, when it was passed in 1936 and began paying out in 1940 (in amounts frequently about $18-$22 per month), was principally designed to keep old folks from starving to death. (We could look for legislative history if you'd care to.) As you may know, there was no such thing as a pension for your average worker then -- and old folks (i.e. those over 65) were the poorest demographic group in America. If that's not the same purpose as "reducing poverty among the elderly" -- I don't see much difference.

By the early 1960s, those numbers had changed dramatically -- also due to unions forcing through pension plans in lots of industries in the 1950s. So, SS was "successful" at its intended purpose . . .

Nonsense. "Entitlement program" has a legal meaning -- it is not just a buzz-word. As soon as you give someone a legal right to something (e.g. by setting up a program that is required by law to do "X" for qualfied persons) -- those persons have a legal "entitlement" to receive "X". In other words, safety nets are "entitlement programs" too.

The difference is that you do not have to be poor to receive SS, only elderly. So once you are reach an elderly age, it is an entitlement.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man Blame the self-interest of American voters, particularly the baby boomers who are about to head into retirement age.

The good thing, if there is one, is that most workers under the age of about 35 expect to get $0 from SS -- so the problems will be fixed.

S_A_M

I do, and all the leaches that profit off them.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Thomas Sowell and other economists have written extensively on this, especially in the black community.

I assume this is a phrasing problem, but last time I checked the Hoover Institition was hardly "a" black community, much less "the" black community.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
What is up with cancelling these flights? If there is a threat about a particular flight, I would think simply increasing the security and carefully searching each passenger would be enough. And why allow other flights with the same departure/destination points, if there is a credible threat to one?- sheees "when I heard the 2 PM flight to DC was going to be hijacked, I didn't think they meant EST. My bad!"

I'm wondering the same, but (at least to us observers without inside intelligence), little of what has been done publicly to counter terrorism makes sense. (Do I really have to stay in my seat for the first/last 30 mins of flights out of/into DC National, but not Dulles, or any other airport within 30 minutes' flying time of the Capitol?)

Wouldn't it be a lot less disruptive, as well as less disconcerting to the air-travelling public, simply to tail any suspect plane with some F-16s? (at least until they have to shoot one down, at least).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm wondering the same, but (at least to us observers without inside intelligence), little of what has been done publicly to counter terrorism makes sense. (Do I really have to stay in my seat for the first/last 30 mins of flights out of/into DC National, but not Dulles, or any other airport within 30 minutes' flying time of the Capitol?)

1) Sitting in 1st class waiting to leave Reagan soon after the 30 minute rule was started. Across the aisle an older guy asked the flight attendant if he had time yet to go pee. she said "we'll be in the air soon, just wait." We take off and the pilot announces the 30 minute rule.

2) better safe than sorry:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107239,00.html

Six cases of mistaken identity were behind the pre-Christmas grounding of six Air France (search) flights between Paris and Los Angeles over terrorism fears, a police official said Friday.



The names of six passengers sounded similar to those of terrorist suspects provided by the FBI, prompting the French government to ground the planes, the official said on condition of anonymity.

Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy refrained from criticizing the United States when asked whether American intelligence had provided erroneous information that led to the cancellations.

"I don't think there are systematic errors. We are exchanging passenger lists," Sarkozy said. "There are problems of people who share the same name.

"It's a period of tension and a period of risk," he said on a tour of security at Charles de Gaulle airport (search). "I prefer the principle of precaution."

Pierre Debue, director of the French border police, said U.S. officials have asked France to check out a few suspicious names on passenger lists nearly every day since Christmas Eve.

One turned out to be a 5-year-old child, and another was a prominent Egyptian scientist, he said. The Wall Street Journal said two other suspected "terrorists" turned out to be an elderly Chinese woman and a Welsh insurance agent.

French police officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said errors in spelling and transcribing Arabic names played a role.

That usually poses fewer problems for French intelligence, Debue said, because France is accustomed to dealing with Arabic names because of its high immigrant population from North Africa.

3) I read somewhere that the name "Abu" is taken by one who is starting into a jihad. If true, shouldn't we arrest every Abu, and ship them to Gitmo for the legally allowed time period?

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski


2) better safe than sorry:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,107239,00.html

If we're going on names, is it too complex to pull aside the passengers with teh suspicious names for additional questioning? Surely 95% of the list is ready before the flight boards.

[Atticus Grinch]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
3) I read somewhere that the name "Abu" is taken by one who is starting into a jihad. If true, shouldn't we arrest every Abu, and ship them to Gitmo for the legally allowed time period?

I'd never heard that. Given that "Abu" means "father of," I can think of no theological basis for this being true. "Abdul" means "slave or servant of," which seems like a far more likely tradition to develop. But again, never heard of such a tradition.

Given also that "jihad" is applied to all sorts of day-to-day struggle to overcome one's own human will, it would seem the entire Islamic world would have the same first name if this were true.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
I suspect that these "other factors" [Ed Note: i.e. all of the drastic changes in American society between 1920 - 1980] have a far more tenuous [Ed. Note: than the AFDC program] causal connection. [Ed. Note -- to the rise in unwed motherhood.]

I think that you re far too quick to dismiss the separate and combined effects of such monumental changes as:

(a) the population shift from rural to urban areas,

(b) the shift in the labor force from agricultural to manufacturing,

(c) desegregation, and its ultimate impact on the cohesion of the African-American communities,

(d) the development and dissemination of contraception,

(e) the "Sexual Revolution", and

(f) the anti-War, anti-government, and anti-authority movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

Look at that list, for starters. I invite the audience to consider whether it seems likely that these "other societal changes" had a significant impact on the increase in "unwed motherhood" in America (particularly among minority women).

Or, per Club, can the rise in unwed motherhood in America be traced back principally to the development and growth of a single government program that, ultimately, gave a few hundred dollars per month to poor folks with kids?


S_A_M

[eta: This is an over-broad shot at a guy with better credentials than mine, but I think that Sowell conflates correlation and causation, and oversimplifies his analysis.]

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The difference is that you do not have to be poor to receive SS, only elderly. So once you are reach an elderly age, it is an entitlement.

I can't understand the distinction you're trying to draw. If you had to be poor to get SS, it would be an entitlement program for poor old folks. For the same reason, AFDC is an entitlement program for the poor younger folks who qualify. If you have a legal right (although not an inalienable right) to receive something -- it is an entitlement.

S_A_M

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Or, per Club, can the rise in unwed motherhood in America be traced back principally to the development and growth of a single government program that, ultimately, gave a few hundred dollars per month to poor folks with kids?

I don't understand how someone who thinks that AFDC has had such pernicious, unintended consequences can at the same time think that we're likely to have success in turning Iraq into a democracy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
I think that you re far too quick to dismiss the separate and combined effects of such monumental changes as:

(a) the population shift from rural to urban areas,

(b) the shift in the labor force from agricultural to manufacturing,

both were occuring earlier than the baby issue, and neither explain much. the northern cities took in great numbers of people moving from rural southern areas, black and white. But doesn't a family that moves to a strange city tend to get tighter? Aren't the immigrants likely to live in cohesive communities of similarly situated people?
Plus, if you live near rural areas, you'd know that people there are maybe more sexually active earlier than in urban areas.

(c) desegregation, and its ultimate impact on the cohesion of the African-American communities,

Baby problem started earlier than any ultimate impact.

(d) the development and dissemination of contraception,

We are talking about people who got pregnant, right?

(e) the "Sexual Revolution", and

people always screwed, its just that they used to get married when they got pregnant. sexual revolution may have made it okay for nice girls to do it w/o expecting a ring. sexual revolution doesn't explain leaving babies/moms on their own.

(f) the anti-War, anti-government, and anti-authority movements of the 1960s and 1970s.

hippies aren't where the problem was. I'm sure lots of Sky or Seagull's were born out of wedlock, but the dads stuck around. They had them communes and all. Don't you watch Dharma and Greg? Or ask Atticus or Fringey, they'll tell you.

Look bottom line, you can't tell much about social impact of anything with certainty. Asimov said sociaology didn't become a real science until it could be used on galactic populations.
It is just troubling that you seem to dismiss one very plausible cause/effect for what appears to be a list of maybes with no apparent relationship to the problem.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I'm wondering the same, but (at least to us observers without inside intelligence), little of what has been done publicly to counter terrorism makes sense. (Do I really have to stay in my seat for the first/last 30 mins of flights out of/into DC National, but not Dulles, or any other airport within 30 minutes' flying time of the Capitol?)

1). Sounds like at least some of the cancellations had to do with BA pilots refusing to fly with armed marshalls aboard. We won't let them fly in without, they won't fly in with, so, no fly.

2). The 30-minute rule is rationally related to our deep feelings of distrust for anyone flying into or out of DC. We just don't like them, and the bursting bladder stories make it all the more fun.

[bilmore]

Did anyone ever post definitive info on the "discouraged workers" whose massive and growing existence showed the lie of the new eco-stats?

If not, I found some, here.

(DoL stats track this group quite precisely, and, by gosh, the number is lower than usual for this unemployment rate.)