10-03-2017, 01:58 PM
(10-01-2017, 09:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:(09-30-2017, 02:02 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: I can understand his issues with understanding me, my views, what I'm saying and so forth. I have piss poor writing skills, obvious issues with grammar and I'm not nearly as well read. I can't understand his issues with understanding you, your views and so forth.
I don’t think the problem is writing skills. You are quite adequate, while Kinser has a ‘style’. Both are quite comprehensible.
Fussiness about grammar is one of my quirks. I have a didactic purpose: using bad grammar is like putting a placard that says
"Kick me!" on the back of one's coat. On the other side, Kinser is a fanatic, which shows in his lack of empathy -- which is even worse.
Quote:I’ll try to keep is simple, but it is hard to cross a values divide.
There is a blue perspective that many need help which is being provided.
There is a red perspective that there are many cheaters (predators / liars).
We have a divide between a 'red' value that people are responsible above all else to the economic elites from whom all economic blessings allegedly flow. Truth be told, those elites insist that those blessings flow as sparingly as possible to any people other than themselves. It is easy to see that slavery and labor camps (Gulags for profit and prison 'farms' like the Tucker Prison in Arkansas) can be exceedingly profitable for those who exploit captive labor, and that people who have profit and indulgence for themselves as an even higher virtue than personal liberty and a consumer society could easily resort to such despicable means of organizing a society and an economy. l have little faith in selfish greed at its crudest and its rawest, as I have seen enough literature about such -- from Dickens to Solzhenitsyn.
Most people who need help are literally helpless (like small children), are likely to be hurt by commercial exploitation (which explains why we do not rely upon child labor), became disabled through no fault of their own (military casualties, industrial accidents, congenital deformities) or were mishandled. Yes, there are hustlers, like teenagers who would rather bear a baby and get welfare and not need to attend school or go to work... but even some of these recognize the big mistake that they made and decide that it is better to work two jobs at minimum wage than rely upon welfare. There are social wrecks who might as well collect welfare as revert to crime.
Quote:Both factions will present first hand real world accounts for what they believe, sources for their own perspectives.
I can well believe most of the first hand accounts. I have personally seen cheaters who know and game the system for personal advantage. I have also personally seen people who truly need help.
To me, this is a problem of balance, of providing much needed help while making it as hard as one can on the cheaters.
If the personal advantage gets people into productive employment, then maybe welfare isn't such a bad thing. But I would squeal on a cheater. In Michigan one can get sodas on SNAP, and SNAP covers the bottle deposit. People have bought sodas, dumped the soda cans, and taken the cans back for the deposits. I'd report that fraud.
Quote:My problem is with how people discredit or throw away what the other guy has seen. Because one has seen some cheaters, does one assume that all are cheaters? Because one has seen those who genuinely need help, should one assume all those seeking help do so honestly and genuinely?
American capitalism does a poor job of offering opportunity. Someone in good shape can again (after the eight-year Obama bull market) get a job in retail, restaurant, food-processing, or foundry work around here. The welfare system encourages people to do at least part-time paid work to supplement the slight benefits. At my age I might be a reject due to the monstrous cost of medical insurance solely due to my age.
A while ago, some red folk were complaining that the blue were not listening. In this I tried to listen. I am finding that no one is listening. One’s own perspective is assumed true and over rides any other. This fits well what I’ve always believed.
Quote:The welfare ‘debate’ above may be representative of many. Neither faction is capable or willing to accept that the other faction has a point.
Both sides have a point. The guaranteed income is originally a conservative idea. After all, whatever the poor get typically goes back into the economy. Wal*Mart, Kroger, Safeway, Meijer, Spartan-Nash, Dollar General, and Family Dollar end up with customers instead of shoplifters. I would feel sorry about someone stealing a box of saltine crackers for survival, but not about someone stealing pre-recorded video (the latter a luxury).
Quote:Meanwhile, in one direction at least, on one issue at least, it seems impossible to start a conversation on the assumption that there are basic and important points on both sides that have much pertinent truth in them. And sometimes the ‘truth’ one side sees is pure stereotype. One side will try to tell the other what the other really saw in the real world.
Sorry. I tried to keep it simple. I don’t think it is a grammar problem, but in thinking in a way one is not used to.
The big issue is the post-industrial economy in which productivity outstrips employment, and in which economic rent is a huge share of the economy.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.