What one issue do you struggle with the most?

[playtime]

It's not about criminals, it's about trying to sexualize children in school, from preschool on.

she certainly didn't just mean the school environment if you read her post:


The unchallenged (perceived) ability of the left to assault children. (see my sig)

Touch a child sexually, whether with your genitals, your hands, your words, your ideology, your surgical tools or your chemicals, and DIE.

Commiecrats are doing that, not republicans. Don't you have a problem with that?

.

lol ... i have a problem with anybody ASSAULTING children. as for involving a 'school environment' it's a case by case scenario starting with being honest about every walk of life - AGE appropriate.

how radical.

 

[Foxfyre]

Quite true, but that's not the essence of what a deterrent is.

A deterrent is that which would keep other would-be murderers from murdering...

Thomas Sowell once quipped that proof that the death penalty is a deterrent is the fact that he has never murdered an editor.

I don't think it has to deter all in order to be worthwhile in that it might deter some. It probably wouldn't deter the kid who inadvertently kills somebody in a liquor store robbery or crimes of passion or something like that, but I think it likely deters a lot from premeditated murder.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hoping for an interesting, illuminating conversation here.

The one major issue I struggle the most with is the death penalty. My impulse is to be against the death penalty, because (a) I don't see it as a deterrent, and (b) because I kinda like the idea of letting someone rot for killing someone else. HOWEVER, if someone I love were murdered, I may want that killer to be made dead ASAP. I've never been in that position, so I can't tell how I would react.

What's yours?

10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

Here’s a closer look at public opinion on the death penalty, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.

www.pewresearch.org

Something else I struggle with is whether government should provide any welfare at all. As Benjamin Franklin once wrote:

". . . I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. . ."

I could not deny a hungry person food or a warm coat against the cold and would want him or her to have shelter. But I wonder how many we have made sufficiently comfortable in poverty that they simply have no incentive to attempt to escape it?

This morning on the news they were reporting millions, as much as 40% of the working age population, of able bodied people who were on extended unemployment for so long during COVID, extended even after they could have gone back to work, that they got used to being able to play video games all day or otherwise not work. Tens of thousands of federal workers allowed to work from home during COVID now want to continue that and not go back to the office. Tens of thousands of teachers wanted to continue video teaching long after that was no longer necessary.

Here is New Mexico, our ultra leftist governor told everybody they didn't need to go back to work until their unemployment benefits ran out.

How much does government 'help' encourage people not to help themselves, leave it to government to help others, and otherwise create a lazy or uncaring or dependent or entitlement mentality population?

 

[CowboyTed]

Hoping for an interesting, illuminating conversation here.

The one major issue I struggle the most with is the death penalty. My impulse is to be against the death penalty, because (a) I don't see it as a deterrent, and (b) because I kinda like the idea of letting someone rot for killing someone else. HOWEVER, if someone I love were murdered, I may want that killer to be made dead ASAP. I've never been in that position, so I can't tell how I would react.

What's yours?

10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

Here’s a closer look at public opinion on the death penalty, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.

www.pewresearch.org

I understand your dilemma but I will point out that what you would be looking for is revenge or closure which the death penalty would not provide anymore than life without parole.

This is one of the reasons we don't allow relatives on jury panels...

There is also the likely hood of mistakes. There are mistakes and death penalties doesn't allow to get that life back.

By the way, look at a major serious crime prison like Florence, Colorado... It is barely like living...

 

[OhPleaseJustQuit]

You have demonstrated many times that you don't know good from evil.

Pot, meet kettle.

That's really funny, coming from a demon such as yourself.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Tell that to people that are retired or disabled and on fixed incomes.

.

You all do not give a flying fuck about those people when there is an (R) in the White House so save me your fucking crocodile tears

 

[OKTexas]

she certainly didn't just mean the school environment if you read her post:


The unchallenged (perceived) ability of the left to assault children. (see my sig)

Touch a child sexually, whether with your genitals, your hands, your words, your ideology, your surgical tools or your chemicals, and DIE.





lol ... i have a problem with anybody ASSAULTING children. as for involving a 'school environment' it's a case by case scenario starting with being honest about every walk of life - AGE appropriate.

how radical.

So you think pushing gender bending propaganda as early as preschool is appropriate? Or using puberty blocking drugs on preteens and double mastectomies on girls as early as 12 or 13 yoa is a good thing? That's exactly what commiecrats are pushing. Isn't it hard enough on a child that is coming of age without filling their heads with all that crap?

.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And I care.....................................................why, precisely?

Good is good and evil is evil and you can't be both at the same time. Moral relativism is for wimps.

Is is Good to cheat on a spouse?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

From a cost prospective, the death penalty would be good if it didn't take 20 plus years to carry out by saving on the expense of a long incarceration. However, the way things are now, it probably cost more to execute someone that it would be to simply lock 'em up and throw away the key.

if you're looking at it that way then it's the cheapest not to imprison them at all

Because it takes so long to execute people it doesn't provide a deterrent which it should. Instead of some states working on getting rid of the death penalty, they should be working on ways to expedite these cases so it will be a deterrent. I would go one step further and say we should take the baddest in our juvenile jails, send them down there, and make them watch an execution.

 

[Mac1958]

How much does government 'help' encourage people not to help themselves, leave it to government to help others, and otherwise create a lazy or uncaring or dependent or entitlement mentality population?

It's a fair and important question. To me it's about finding a point of equilibrium that is essentially a "goldilocks" zone, at which we providing a reasonable safety net but not going too far. My guess is that finding would involve MANY tweaks and better ideas than where we are now. I'd think an answer would also involve better resources for helping people escape this awful cycle they're in.

And there's the bigger problem. Both ends of this issue make perfectly fair and reasonable points, and if we were still capable of communication, collaboration and innovation, we could find that "goldilocks" zone and run with it.

Instead, we keep looking for one-sided band aids instead of thinking big picture.

 

[Mac1958]

I understand your dilemma but I will point out that what you would be looking for is revenge or closure which the death penalty would not provide anymore than life without parole.

This is one of the reasons we don't allow relatives on jury panels...

There is also the likely hood of mistakes. There are mistakes and death penalties doesn't allow to get that life back.

By the way, look at a major serious crime prison like Florence, Colorado... It is barely like living...

That's essentially my impulse. It's just impossible to imagine how I'd react if such a thing hit close to home. But yeah, that's my general feeling on it.

 

[Leo123]

My one, main issue is canned ground coffee vs fresh ground coffee beans. At least it was this morning.

No brainer, go with the beans.

 

[g5000]

Something else I struggle with is whether government should provide any welfare at all.

This is an issue I have been doing a lot of thinking about lately.

I am strongly leaning toward Milton Friedman's idea of a "negative income tax". Most people would probably be surprised to learn a guy as libertarian as Friedman was supportive of a negative income tax. But his reasoning was that it is better to give the poor money directly rather than through the myriad welfare programs which currently exist.

The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) has been around since our nation's founding. Thomas Paine suggested a UBI for everyone over the age of 21, and a Social Security fund, in Agrarian Justice:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twentyone years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

 

[Foxfyre]

It's a fair and important question. To me it's about finding a point of equilibrium that is essentially a "goldilocks" zone, at which we providing a reasonable safety net but not going too far. My guess is that finding would involve MANY tweaks and better ideas than where we are now. I'd think an answer would also involve better resources for helping people escape this awful cycle they're in.

And there's the bigger problem. Both ends of this issue make perfectly fair and reasonable points, and if we were still capable of communication, collaboration and innovation, we could find that "goldilocks" zone and run with it.

Instead, we keep looking for one-sided band aids instead of thinking big picture.

President Trump had the right formula I think and it was working. He didn't dismantle the welfare system in any way but he initiated policies and eliminated hindrances that made it more attractive and profitable for people to help themselves. As a result the poverty level went down significantly and tens of thousands no longer needed SNAP or other government help. COVID temporarily reversed all that in 2020 and Biden has extended all those reversals so that a substantial percentage of our work force is no longer motivated to work.

 

[Leo123]

Hoping for an interesting, illuminating conversation here.

The one major issue I struggle the most with is the death penalty. My impulse is to be against the death penalty, because (a) I don't see it as a deterrent, and (b) because I kinda like the idea of letting someone rot for killing someone else. HOWEVER, if someone I love were murdered, I may want that killer to be made dead ASAP. I've never been in that position, so I can't tell how I would react.

What's yours?

10 facts about the death penalty in the U.S.

Here’s a closer look at public opinion on the death penalty, as well as key facts about the nation’s use of capital punishment.

www.pewresearch.org

Killing is different than murder although it has the same result, a homicide. It's really the intent of the perpetrator that we legally try to decide. IMO, those who commit serial murders should be put to death. I see no reason for the State to support such human debris. Murdering another human for personal gain/profit should, IMO, also be a death penalty offense. That being said the 'Devil's in the details' with the presentation of evidence at a trial. IMO, the death penalty should only be meted out in the face of incontrovertible evidence. Also, if a perp is that mentally ill, they should be quickly and efficiently culled from the herd.

 

[Foxfyre]

This is an issue I have been doing a lot of thinking about lately.

I am strongly leaning toward Milton Friedman's idea of a "negative income tax". Most people would probably be surprised to learn a guy as libertarian as Friedman was supportive of a negative income tax. But his reasoning was that it is better to give the poor money directly rather than through the myriad welfare programs which currently exist.

The idea of a universal basic income (UBI) has been around since our nation's founding. Thomas Paine suggested a UBI for everyone over the age of 21, and a Social Security fund, in Agrarian Justice:

Having thus in a few words, opened the merits of the case, I shall now proceed to the plan I have to propose, which is,

To create a National Fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twentyone years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property:

And also, the sum of ten pounds per annum, during life, to every person now living, of the age of fifty years, and to all others as they shall arrive at that age.

Yes I have studied Friedman's theory on that and while it has some merit--it would not remove the incentive to work as much as welfare does and it could eliminate a lot of the bureaucracy--but it also has its problems. Like Marx, he didn't take into account human nature or a government that depends on the welfare vote for a lot of its power. The earned income credit that has broad bipartisan support has much the same effect as the 'negative income tax' would have.

George W. Bush had an initiative for government to help those private charities and agencies who help the poor instead of giving so much directly to the poor, and it wasn't a terrible idea, but it was blasted by his opposition as too often violation of church and state as so much private charity is religious based.

One guy in Texas suggested giving the poor all the rice and beans and powdered milk they wanted, help with healthcare and other necessities, maybe establish warehouses where people could be issued cheap, simple clothes, but don't give them money directly they could spend on booze or drugs or steaks or tattoos. In other words make sure the hungry are fed but make it so boring that they will go to work and support themselves to escape the boredom. That might be the best idea yet to break the welfare cycle.

 

[g5000]

President Trump had the right formula I think and it was working. He didn't dismantle the welfare system in any way but he initiated policies and eliminated hindrances that made it more attractive and profitable for people to help themselves.

Such as?

What policies did Trump initiate and what hindrances did he eliminate?

 

[g5000]

 

[Foxfyre]

Such as?

What policies did Trump initiate and what hindrances did he eliminate?

He removed thousands of unnecessary rules and regulations that prevented companies from expanding, hiring, innovating. He reformed tax policy so that all tax payers, especially lower earning ones, would have significantly more take home pay. A huge percentage of jobs created in the Obama era were part time jobs with few or no benefits. Trump's policies, especially removing some of the most onerous parts of the ACA, allowed companies to put people back on full time jobs with benefits as well as hire more since there was no penalty for hiring. Personal and family incomes increased by thousands in ALL demographics, even among the hard core unemployed and we enjoyed the best economy I've seen in my lifetime. His policies discouraged businesses from moving to Mexico or China or elsewhere and encouraged many companies to return to the USA along with their jobs. The stock market was healthy and stable and all our IRAs and 401ks benefitted. A significantly higher percentage of the work force was working than under Obama. Welfare went down, thousands no longer needed SNAP, and life was good.

 

[g5000]

He removed thousands of unnecessary rules and regulations that prevented companies from expanding, hiring, innovating.

Um...no. Not even close.

Under the administration’s regulatory agenda, the OMB website shows 498 pending actions are listed as deregulatory and 133 as regulatory, as defined by the executive order. That’s a ratio of nearly 4 to 1.

But the numbers shrink dramatically when you search only for “economically significant” actions: 32 deregulatory and 20 regulatory. That’s less than 2 to 1. (There are also 19 major actions labeled as “other.”)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2018/08/03/has-the-trump-administration-repealed-22-regulations-for-each-new-one/

He reformed tax policy so that all tax payers, especially lower earning ones, would have significantly more take home pay. A huge percentage of jobs created in the Obama era were part time jobs with few or no benefits.

Now you are just making shit up. Again.

Trump was elected on third base and he convinced you he had hit a triple.