I consider Haiti as a case study in learned helplessness.
|
I consider Haiti as a case study in learned helplessness.
Yes a textbook case. But frankly there have been times I've felt this area was the same. People crying in desperation because the lights went out a few days ,or even worse ,their cable or cell service out... ;or people hanging out in their homes for days waiting for the nanny state to come and clean the streets after a blizzard. I spoke of neighborhoods organizing clean ups before city sanitation came .But unfortunately that may be the exception and not the rule .
It goes back to the thinking that everything is of the public commons instead of the assumption of private ownership .
For years I lived in a mixed community that had a robust Haitian population .I have to say that the behavior of the general population is not inherent in the Haitian immigrant. They are as hard working as any group I've seen in this country . I think government dependency saps the energy out of people ;and it doubles down on a population that has lived under the jackboot of tyranny for so long that they resign to that fate.
I totally agree, Tom, and see that in my own family (in-laws) -- a niece who was diagnosed years ago as ADHD (not sure I agree, was a major parenting problem going on). She has knocked herself out so that she doesn't ever have to produce, except for producing two children from two different fathers.
There should definitely be a limit to handouts without personal responsibility. Even in the beginning, supervised volunteer/community service should be part of the deal with roadsides being cleaned up, public libraries being cleaned beyond the custodian staffs' contract (yes, book shelves get very dusty, plants need repotting, furniture needs wiping down, soiled and written-in books need cleaning -- I coordinated court-ordered community service for years). I know the need is there, and the workers are there too. So let's connect them.
Wow, we actually agree. If I had said that I'd get hammered.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wondergirl
I would never hammer you for talking about personal responsibility. The trick is that someone official has to do the connecting and overseeing. In court-ordered community service, the sentence is handed down by a judge. A PO masterminded the community service assignment, connected to me at a work site, and I trained and oversaw the offender at the work site, then reported back to the PO who reported to the judge. It worked real well.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
So how can we do that as a nation?
How? If you're able, you contribute something meaningful to get government dollars, period. No show, no dough. I can think of all kind of things around here that need to be done. The state seems to have abandoned any pretense of maintaining the landscape along interstates, we have enough mowing, pruning, trimming and trash collecting to keep some people busy. Libraries and other government buildings, community centers, homeless shelters, schools all can use some help I'm sure.
Therefore, requirements need to be installed and guidelines written.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
The public unions would never permit the government to do that .
Why not? It wouldn't be taking their workers.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
No ,it would be taking their jobs.
They don't have any.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
What ? Around here every sanitation worker ,and every other public job is unionized.
I thought we were talking about the unemployed who are looking for government handouts. I learned from supervising community service workers that many jobs go undone (and are spit upon) by unionized custodians.Quote:
Originally Posted by tomder55
Demarcation, no unionised worker does work reserved for others, after all the lesser mortals must do something
FYI all of you who just can't wait to raise taxes on "rich" people to cheer people up, since Gordon Brown raised taxes on the wealthy in the UK it has "cost the UK £7 billion in lost tax revenue."
Go ahead, stick it to the rich. It won't solve anything and probably will cost the government revenue but at least it'll cheer you up a bit.
What does that prove, speech, the wealthy are already using tax havens. British tax rates have always been draconian and they have convenient places to go to, like Luxemborg. Someone has missed the point here, you don't need an increase in the top rate on income because this tax is ineffective, you need an increased tax on Capital Gains, Interest and Dividends, that's where the rich derive their income
What does it prove? Just a warning...
It proves that capital chases tax havens once it has an assured income stream, rates are incidental, the idea is to pluck the goose with a minimum of honking
And our campaigner-in-chief thinks raising rates on anyone making over 250k is the answer. Sorry, it's just feel-good window dressing, a morale booster as the namesake of Obama's plan said. I won't raise much if any revenue and those who can will just find a way around it.
The Dems like to pretend the wealthy are all fat cat Republicans even though the majority of the wealthiest in Congress themselves are Democrats. You think wealthy Democrats aren't going to look after their own self-interest?
But it is telling when the progressives looks at taxes as "plucking a goose" .
Hello again;
Look.. Some folks invest. Some folks watch FOX News to find out WHAT investors think.. But, THEY ain't telling you the truth, fair and balanced or not.Quote:
Just a warning
When considering an investment, FOX would have you believe that investors look at the TAX rate instead of the potential PROFITS that can be made... That just ain't so. It's not even close. In fact, it's SOOO wrong, that if it weren't so SAD (because people BELIEVE it), it would be funny. I promise you, NO investor in the world asks what the tax rate is when presented with a winning investment... That's NOBODY.
Excon
Funny, but I almost never source Fox News so I have no idea where the hell you guys keep coming up with this Fox crap. I think it's a Fox Derangement Syndrome and I'm sure medication would help.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
What I reported was from The Telegraph, which tells us the UK lost £7 billion in tax revenue when "two-thirds of millionaires left Britain" after Gordon Brown raised their taxes. It's going to happen in France as well, and our wealthy aren't so dumb as to sit back and let the feds screw them out of their money. You think they are? Bwa ha ha!!
Their MONEY?? You mean the money they extracted from YOUR labors?? Your savings? Your benefits?? Your house?? Your children's future??
And you condone it as fair? You are screwing yourself and blaming the wrong person.
Hello again, Steve:
Just a note. I use FOX News as a metaphor for ALL right wing media, including the Limp one, Drudge, Hannity, WND, Bozell, or ANY of the others. You know who I'm talking about.
excon
Oh I know what you're talking about, shame you never use it in a relevant way.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
Hello again, Steve:
I suppose blaming the main stream media for stealing the election IS relevant..Quote:
shame you never use it in a relevant way.
As your post relates to the OP, it looks like you're party is splitting in half. We KNOW which half you're rolling with.
Excon
Dude, I'd rather take a chance on screwing things up myself than watch you screw it up for me.Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
Why yes, the FACT that the mainstream media withheld, whitewashed and covered for Obama (including that lady that interjected at the debate) is relevant (I don't believe I said they stole the election). Linking my response on Fox News is not.Quote:
Originally Posted by excon
I don't want you screwing YOURSELF, but you are trying to. Just don't blame ME for your screw ups.Quote:
Originally Posted by speechlesstx
Don't try to screw me either.
Here's a deal, you take care of you and I'll take care of me. I'll leave your stuff alone and you leave my stuff alone. See how that works?Quote:
Originally Posted by talaniman
By the way, we now know which way Obama will go, $1.6 billion in new taxes in exchange for nothing. Mitch McConnell literally laughed out loud at Geithner's proposal.
So instead of getting serious about working together for a solution he's busy telling people to Tweet congress to pass his grand new compromise of all for nothing. Aren't you guys about tired of a Twit-in-chief yet?Quote:
Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, says he “burst into laughter” Thursday when Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner outlined the administration proposal for averting the fiscal cliff. He wasn't trying to embarrass Geithner, McConnell says, only responding candidly to his one-sided plan, explicit on tax increases, vague on spending cuts…
Heard fast Eddie Rendell today. He called the insulting proposal an'opening bid ' in the negotiations . But we know very well that the President intends it to be 'my way or the highway off the fiscal cliff'. Tal already signaled it would be OK by him . So did Ex's Senator .
Yes, he's obviously not changed from his initial "I won" attitude and has no intention of any compromises... all the while blaming the GOP for "obstruction" as did Reid's spokesman after Boehner promised any Senate bill sent via his rule changes would be DOA (as Reid has done to House bills when he was busy not passing a budget).
Actually, maybe we'd be better off if that's how Congress worked -.the Senate kills all House bills and the House kills all Senate bills.
Hello again,
Marco Rubio said that it doesn't matter if you're RIGHT on economic matters, they're NOT going to listen to you if they think you want to deport their grandmother.
He's right. Are you going to, or better said, CAN you, or SHOULD you shift a policy of demonizing Hispanics to one of welcoming?? Said another way, DO you still think all 12 million undocumented aliens should be thrown out??
excon
No one is demonizing Hispanics, but we do have rule of law which your president finds as a mere inconvenience to his unilateral rule. Apparently you do, too and are just fine with promoting the false narrative that we want to deport their grandmas. But you know Republicans are preparing their own DREAM plan, and with Rubio and Cruz in we're going to make inroads with Hispanics... while your side does all they can to paint them as inauthentic, extremist sellouts.
Hello again Steve,
In other words, you DO want to evict all of them. Why can't you say that?
excon
I don't know what anyone else has said ;but I said I'm welcome to a plan for what you guys call a "path to citizenship " after the border has been secured so we can have a reasonable expectation that we don't get another 20 million illegals in the next 2 decades . That to me is a bottom line . Now don't say I'm not open to compromise because my gut instinct is to kick out people who's 1st act in a country they want to live in is an illegal act.
Steve is right by the way . When any minority doesn't toe the party line it is the left who demonizes them . Oh wait that's right... all you guys jumped right on the Miguel Estrada nomination bandwagon.
I thought the border HAD been secured.
The very first requirement for any immigrant from any country who doesn't know English should be to connect with a native speaker who will be part of an amazing corps of English-teaching volunteers that can be easily created. The tutoring can be done at every public library in this country. Of course, there will be benchmark testing along the way until a certain standard has been achieved by the immigrant.
Cuban immigrants got instant sanctuary running from Castro but Mexicans have to have a fence to keep them out when they have been migrating north for centuries.
So illegal depends on the laws in place subject to change.
Hello again, Steve:Quote:
Yes, he's obviously not changed from his initial "I won" attitude and has no intention of any compromises..
Although you SAY that he didn't compromise during his first term, you just didn't like the compromises he made. In fact, in the stimulus, he devoted roughly a third of the money to tax cuts that he assumed Republicans would like. You did not. Likewise, his framework for universal health care included free-market elements that he thought Republicans would embrace. You did not.
So, he's not going to do that again.
Is he going to compromise on the tax RATES going back the Clinton era levels for the richest of the rich? No. He campaigned on it. He won. Even MORE people than voted for him want to raise taxes on the rich. That ISN'T going to happen.
So, it's not HIM who's refusing to compromise. It's the party of NO.
Excon
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:08 AM. |