Contributors

Wednesday, March 30, 2011

How Does This Play Out?

I had a very enjoyable exchange with one of the many anonymous posters in comments. I'm not sure who he or she was but even though we were ideologically in different places, we actually had a reasonable and substantive debate.

The poster said something which stuck with me and left me curious.

I submit to you and your readers, that most people could handle the complexities of life if they were just allowed to do so. At some point, your mother 'cut the apron strings' and allowed you to 'sink or swim'. Unless we are all still breast-fed, adversity was overcome starting at an early age.

Conservative vs. Liberal seems to disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should be allowed to experience before 'the system' provides for that individual.

I enjoy this person's optimism and agree that people in our culture need to handle the complexities of life in a more diligent and effective way. They are very emotionally retarded about it now and I see it every day. I constantly pummel my own kids with "Figure it out yourself." In the end, it will help them.

Yet this comment evokes several questions. First, who is not "allowing them" to manage complexities? Second, what is meant by "cutting the apron strings and allowing you to sink or swim?" I would assume the latter means cutting or eliminating Social Security and Medicare. Is that correct? I'm not just asking the poster. I'm asking all of you because that seems to be a general sentiment.

By intimating that some people will "sink" (sort of Darwin's survival of the fittest thing), how do any of you envision that will play out? Social Security, for example, has been proven to have reduced poverty in the elderly. So when the plug is literally pulled on grandma, are you going to be alright with that?

As the poster said, conservatives and liberals do disagree on the amount of adversity a citizen should have to face before aid steps in. I'm just wondering if the conservatives have really thought how "sink or swim" works as a practical application in reality. We're talking about the elderly in our population here and they are already treated like crap by a culture trapped in the hubris of worshiping youth.

So, I'm hoping that the poster clarifies his comments because I could easily have misinterpreted them. Anyone else should feel free to offer their slant...as always:)

10 comments:

last in line said...

When I read the quote in blue, I didn't think of eliminating SS or medicare when they spoke of Sink or Swim. A mother cutting the apron strings off makes me picture either a teenager who is getting their first dose of adult responsibilities or a young adult who just graduated from college who is just starting out in life on their own.

"We're" not talking about the elderly, "you" are.

It's kind of like you hearing the words "free market" and immediately thinking "AIG".

juris imprudent said...

First, who is not "allowing them" to manage complexities?

Depends on which complexities and where you are. Repubs first and foremost, but Dems are a close second - don't want you to decide that complex question "should I smoke pot". Dems don't want you to have to change your life to get a job - just stay on unemployment. Repubs don't want you to decide if an abortion is right for you. The New Dealers wanted to protect small investors from getting into high risk investments - and created the qualified investor restriction. [No, that will never get old - tweaking your nose about that.]

So when the plug is literally pulled on grandma, are you going to be alright with that?

As long as you are talking about a grandma that doesn't need SS - why should anyone have a problem with that? Means test SS - if you don't need it, you don't get it. That way it still plays the anti-poverty role, but it stops being an entitlement for everyone. Isn't it stupid to give people SS when they don't need it?

I also agree with what last said.

juris imprudent said...

And speaking of Soc Sec

The deficit drain has begun. Demographics will only make it worse. In 2037, when the trust fund is exhausted, the projected deficit is $329 billion.

As for that fat trust fund, it’s filled with special government bonds that are effectively IOUs. Over the years, the fund has bankrolled other government spending, and what’s in the “lock box” are merely promises to pay.


A promise to pay - not all that different from what Bernie Madoff offered.

jeff c. said...

Hee Hee...juris ran to Kevin to try to feel better about himself..

http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2011/03/quote-of-day-hand-of-state-edition.html#disqus_thread

How can they last without you, Mark?

Serial Thrilla said...

The recent failure of markets to predict uncertainty was not a failure of free markets but a failure of fiat money and socialism.

How can anyone say this with a straight face? I suppose none of them over at TSM have seen "Inside Job." Probably more Marxist propaganda. Doesn't that make them guilty of a genetic fallacy? Speaking of which:

genetic fallacy: is a fallacy of irrelevance where a conclusion is suggested based solely on something or someone's origin rather than its current meaning or context.

So, from another thread, Juris Imprudent complained of film being a faulty medium in analysis. That's a genetic fallacy because he is concluding that something, film, is flawed because of its origin. Thanks to Last In Line for putting up the link to watch the film for free. The level of ignorance over at TSM in light of the information revealed in the film is staggering.

Haplo9 said...

>Hee Hee...juris ran to Kevin to try to feel better about himself..

You know it's strange Jeff. You seem to enjoy lurking at Kevin's place and then post over here about how horrid it is. Yet you rarely post over there, and when you do, you run away right after the first post. Even Mark lasted longer than that before running away. Why is that, I wonder? You aren't just a childish, drop-a-turd-then-leave type, are you?

Mark Ward said...

I have to say, jeff, that I agree with Hap on this one. Lurking at Kevin's site isn't going to get you anywhere.

Serial, good points on the genetic fallacy in regards to the medium of film. And there's no point in trying to understand their ideology. One thing you can rely on, though, is their consistency.

jeff c. said...

Yes but Mark you yourself have said that we can't get anything done in this country until people like Kevin Baker and his band of nitwits over there are finished influencing policy. I thought it was pretty weak of juris to run over there rather than continue the discussion.

6Kings said...

Yes but Mark you yourself have said that we can't get anything done in this country until people like Kevin Baker and his band of nitwits over there are finished influencing policy.

Yeah, woe to balanced budgets, bill of rights, etc. Can't have that because it interferes with some lefty utopia!

Hey Jeff, maybe Obama can appoint you the Correct Policy Czar and you can throw those influencing 'incorrect' policy in the gulag. The we can seriously loot this country! :|

The Progressive Left is nothing more than "Looter" mentality and a plague upon this country.

juris imprudent said...

So, from another thread, Juris Imprudent complained of film being a faulty medium in analysis.

Good gawd, you can't even characterize my criticism within a country mile. I said that film is not the medium of serious intellectual work. It is fundamentally entertainment and for M, Inside Job is the equivalent to porn. No argument about the point, no "what about?" - just pouting and hand-waving. What a bunch of intellectual degenerates.

jeff c, nice of you to care so much. Funny how you couldn't defend the utter inanity that M laid in that thread. Either here or there.

And of all fucking things - not one word from any of you 'tarded lefties about means-testing SocSec. Not agreement, not opposition - just stone deafness. Wattsamatter - I didn't conform to your fucking pea-brain stereotype?