Legacy (& abortion rights...)

A funny thing happened when I considered the pro-life side of this issue.  All of a sudden I found ACTUAL cases of the violation of women's rights. Bob is clearly and adamantly opposed to imposing any restrictions on pregnancy and birth, but NOT opposed to imposing any restrictions on pregnancy and birth CONTROL.  Bob is OK with one violation of human/women’s rights in his public policy, but not another.
There are a lot of references with oodles and oodles of facts figures and statistics and empirical evidence, about how women's rights are being infringed upon every day in this country: 
http://www.monitor.net/monitor/9804a/blockwomen.html
http://www.au.org/site/News2JServSessionIdr001=vkiiw8cze1.app1b&abbr=cs_&page=NewsArticle&id=5804&news_iv_ctrl=1056
These are just two of dozens that I found about ACTUAL violations of women's rights as opposed to POTENTIAL.  Needless to say, trying to find statistics for a POTENTIAL problem was hard to find!
In his 12.11.08 17:43 post, our friend Bob introduces his hypothetical  courageous woman:
“Consider a woman, confronted with coerced sterilization, courageously saying, “No!”
“Well, she didn’t have to apply for assistance and now she won’t get it.  What happens next?  The children still need diapers, food, clothing, shelter, medical care; not to mention 24 hour child care”
Now consider another woman, confronted with carrying an unwanted pregnancy to term and being a burden on society, being both courageous and socially responsible and saying, “No!”
Well, she didn’t have to go to the PUBLICLY-FUNDED, but Catholic-run hospital who refused to give her an abortion, but since she has no money she can’t get one.  What happens next?  She is forced to go on welfare because the child needs diapers, food, clothing, shelter; not to mention 24 hour child care, all of which could have been avoided if she had been allowed to get an abortion.  
Oral contraceptive $20/mo
Tubal ligation $2000Abortion $600  
850,000 abortions in the US/yr
Prenatal care $5000
Child rearing $6000/yr
The abortion would have cost the taxpayers $600, but instead the tax payers have to pay $5000 for prenatal care and delivery, and $6000 a year until this child is 18.  There are 850,000 abortions each year in the US which adds up to $600 X 850,000 =  $510,000,000, as opposed to 850,000 unwanted births at ($5000 + ($6000 X 18 )) X 850,000 = $113,000 X 850,000 = $96,050,000,000.  That’s not even factoring in our friend Bob’s hypothetical courageous woman. 

I will be more than happy to foot my share of the $510,000,000 bill. I wonder how willing our friend Bob would be to pay the $96,050,000,000 bill.

Unlike our friend Bob, I have no qualms about expressing my positions on many issues
1. I am an Atheist. Like our friend Bob I would like some empirical evidence.
2. I am Pro-choice, but as I have CLEARLY indicated also pro- responsibility.
3. I am Moderate politically but have Liberal leanings. Freedom with responsibility, permissiveness with regulation.
4. I am Pro-gun, but also pro-responsibility.
5. I am pro-death penalty, but only with some very strict conditions.
6. I am pro-welfare, but also pro-welfare reform.
7. I am anti-helmet law unless those laws encompass not only motorcycles, but all occupants of all motor vehicles.
8. I am for equal rights for women but also for equal responsibilities.
9. I am pro-gay marriage.
10. I am pro-gays in the military.
11. I am pro-women serving in combat (equality is after all a double-edged sword).
12. I am pro-abolition of the electoral college, and going with popular vote.
13. I am pro-legalization of prostitution, but with regulation.
14. I am pro-legalization of drugs but with regulation.

Unlike our friend Bob, if you ask me my stance on an issue I have the backbone to tell you. Unlike our friend Bob I am willing to offer solutions rather than attacks.

Hmm, this has all got a little personal, don't you think?
For my part I enjoy a good robust exchange of views as much as the next guy, often just for the hell of it, and a critical analysis of every statement is often a strong part of that. But I know that one person's rational critic can come off as another's unmitigated attack, and I've apologised to you previously for also coming off overly agressive.
Personally I don't find much similarity between bob and commodore, the later is forthright in his views if a little reticent to defend them while the former is fiercely analytical and rational.
I agree that labels can too often be unhelpful having been coined by one side to frame the debate in favourable terms, 'prolife' is a good example of this. However I do have no problem stating that I'm prochoice, profreedom, proliberty.
I really struggle to see bob's opposition to family planning in his posts. It seems to me that we all agree on the free and easy access to a range of birth control measures, that we all agree that there should be free and legal access to abortions, the only place where we differ is that bob and I feel that the moment that the choice to make use of any of these services comes under the coercement of the state then a serious line has been breached.
Finally if you're tallying the cost benefit of abortions, don't forget to include that drop in crime over the last two decades that's been atributed to the rise in abortions.

“It was merely a stepping stone to attack birth control and abortion.”

“It” Gently pointing out that the assertion "There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money" is not supported by anything.

My statement, demanded by you, “I believe that men and women should be free to choose whatever means of birth control they wish as long as the practice does not harm other people and within the limits of affordability and safety... A prudent welfare system will make means of birth control available to its clientele.”

That is a strange way to attack birth control.

My statement, demanded by you, “I don't feel the government should have any role in these decisions, except for late term pregnancies.”

That is a strange way to attack abortion rights.

“especially my last reference about polygamy”

What on Earth has polygamy got to do with forced sterilization, abortion or birth control? Pretty much nothing at all. Like all of the other links as I pointed out in voluminous detail.

“he can’t hope to attack a complete thought.”

One complete thought, which I think I repeatedly objected to, and which I believe you should rethink: forced sterilization.

“the façade falls away and his true motives are revealed he demonstrates his lack of character and integrity... I feel no remorse about exposing him. In fact I just consider him to be pathetic.”

Oh, come on.

“I would not be surprised to find out that he was from upstate New York and was an acquaintance of our good friend Commodore. Their debating styles are very similar.”

Talk about prejudice. Actually, I’m from Phoenix, Arizona, and Commodore and I don’t agree about much.

Bob

Here is the alpha and omega of this exchange:

Davamanra wrote assertions, which he couldn’t defend when questioned.

He also proposed forced sterilization which is really offensive.

He attempted side-steping his lack of evidence and defense of forced sterilization by, questioning my views on birth control and abortion. These questions had nothing at all to do with his lack of evidence and proposed forced sterilization.

So, if I were nasty and vindictive, I could quote Davamanra and say that he, “demonstrates his lack of character and integrity...I have no respect for him or his point of view...I feel no remorse about exposing him. In fact I just consider him to be pathetic.”

But I won’t, because I am not nasty, vindictive, lacking in character and integrity, and certainly not pathetic.

Here is a link to prove it: http://classics.mit.edu/Plato/republic.6.v.html. Please read in its entirety.

Bob

“Bob is...NOT opposed to imposing any restrictions on pregnancy and birth CONTROL.”

Well, how would you respond to a birth control method that released toxic chemicals into the environment causing injury and death on a large scale? Do you approve or disapprove?

Bob

lkm wrote:

I think given the current overwhelming gender bias in all western democracies it behooves all of us to engage with this issue because it is a choice politically provided and although you feel it is a choice solely, and rightly, belonging to women, its provision rests upon the shoulders of mostly old white men. Saying it is none of your business is an abdication of your democratic responsibility and will leave it up to those men who feel it is their business, those who preach it as an abonimation.
Now having said all that, I really think bob's been pretty clear in his position, the only possible ambiguity in it is when he considers a person to exist, that would impact upon:
"... as long as the practice does not harm other people"

lkm,
In a desire to bring this back to a reasonable discussion with a reasonable person, I would like to throw out a point to consider with respect to a "practice does not harm other people."
In a country like Sierra Leone, a woman becomes pregnant. Whether by rape, accident or personal choice, given the impoverished conditions, the mother has no prenatal care, in fact due to malnutrition her own health is at risk, let alone the potential child's. The infant mortality rate in Sierra Leone is 16% and the under five mortality rate is 28% (NOT apocryphal evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_infant_mortality_rate).

One in four children condemned to dying long, slow, agonizing deaths through malnutrition, dehydration and disease. You could consider these children the "other people" that are being harmed. This also does not address the developmental damage that is done by the mlnutrition, dehydration, and disease to the children who are "lucky" enough to live past their fifth birthday. Malnutrition can cause stunted growth irreversible brain damage and mental retardation. Again, not apocryphal evidence:http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/appeal/ECCE/Advocacy_letters/NUTRITION.pdf
There is also the issue of impoverished mothers being more likely to die in childbirth. http://www.unfpa.org/mothers/index.htm There is also the high likelyhood that a malnurished mother can suffer even more extensive health problems due the fetus parasitically feeding off the mother during pregnancy.

Could it not be reasonably argued that the practice of reversible sterilization could prevent harm to the mother and her potential children? This was a point that I was trying to bring across while I was dodging the salvos of attacks from our friend Bob.

THIS POST IS DIRECTED TO LKM AND OTHERS WHO ARE WILLING TO HAVE A REASONABLE DISCUSSION! IT IS TO BE DISREGARDED BY THOSE WHO CAN'T!!

I think life is complicated and nuanced; that it is not useful to label and unequivocally commit oneself to public policy positions. Wiggle room is always a good idea. Some examples:

Pro-choice. Can you really be 100% pro-choice. I know some people can; but the very vast majority of people feel that if a normal healthy baby at 40 weeks can be delivered without any more danger to the mother than a very late term abortion, that the baby should be delivered, cared for and allowed to live.

Pro-life is even easier. If the mother will die if the six week old fetus is not aborted; very few people in real life would say no.

Liberal, conservative, moderate, socialist, capitalist, etc. don’t mean anything without context.

Pro-gun: But how far? AK-47s. Grenades, Cannons? Atom bombs? If it could be shown with excellent examples, evidence and theory that removal of all guns would reduce the crime rate, including homicide, by 90%, would that change your position? 99%?...

Pro-death penalty. For what crimes? Providing what kind of defense? With what level of confidence of guilt? Even if all of the victims of this penalty were Black? If 10% of the people executed, even with all the restrictions, were later determined to be innocent? 50%? 99%? ...

Anti-helmet. Even if it could be shown with excellent examples, evidence and theory that 50% of the fatalities could be avoided with helmet use? 99%? For children under 18? For innocent pedestrians?

Pro-welfare is so broad it’s meaningless. There are literally tens of thousands of individual policy decisions and practices required in any welfare system; each one subject to many possible implementations. How should the seizure of trust accounts in child custody cases be handled. If more than one person is on the trust? Lottery winnings if multiple people claim parts of the same reward? What rate of interest should be applied? What part of the state’s expenses should be charged to the father? Mother? And on and on and on.

Equal rights for women but also for equal responsibilities. Does that mean maternity and paternity leaves should be identical? What about provisions for breast feeding?

Pro-women serving in combat. Even if it could be shown with excellent examples, evidence and theory that you’d lose the war? Or that casualties would be 10% higher? 50%? 500%....

I don’t think anything is these broad public policy areas is all that simple. Dogmatic labels and commitments just inhibit flexibility, thinking and understanding.

So I’m agnostic.

Bob

Through personal experience I have learned that there is a lot of information that you will never find in empirical evidence. For the same reason that a person is unlikely to publicly admit to a crime, another person is unlikely to publicly admit to an act of fraud or abuse. Larry Craig wouldn't publicly admit to being homosexual, Mark Foley wouldn't publicly admit to inapproprite activities with minors. Good luck trying to find empirical evidence to find out how many priests have molested children!
With respect to the issue of having more children to receive a higher welfare benefits, as I said on numerous occasions my references were television reports from several years back. These perpetrators of fraud did not publicly admit to this, but were confronted and their activities were exposed. Did these reports expose ALL the fraudulent activity? Of course not, therefore empirical evidence could not be gathered. However, trends can be extrapolated based on actual fraud exposed and estimation of unexposed fraud.
Is Larry Craig the ONLY closet gay in the senate? Not likely! But given a cross section of American society, and the estimations of the amount of closet gays in the US, it can be reasonably extrapolated WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE that there are probably two to five more closet gays in the Senate (and maybe a couple of female senators who experimented in college! LOL).
So where does that leave us? Psychology, sociology and criminology are soft sciences. The best they can ever do is spot trends and predict what some, not all, people will do. I have stated this on numerous occasions.
From PERSONAL EXPERIENCE I know that there are women who will get pregnant to try and trap a man into marriage. This happened to me TWICE! What other circumstances might motivate women like this to get pregant? Surrogate mothers are willing to carry a child for generous compensation. Is it too far a stretch to extrapolate that there are women who would get pregnant for a welfare check? Do I have exact numbers? Of course not. So what would be an acceptable form of empirical evidence?

lkm, since I consider you to be reasonable and rational, what would be considered acceptable evidence of this activity to you?

“It” Gently pointing out that the assertion "There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money" is not supported by anything."

To gently offer this link again:
http://www.rickross.com/reference/polygamy/polygamy69.html

As well as this one:
http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9084

This offers clear support for my assertion.

If these good, wholesome God fearing people are capable of this, can it reasonably be extrapolated that there are a significant amount more?

I don't have references to the news programs that I watched with respect to this issue, but I can summarize what was talked about.

In one report with respect to black market organ donation in India, they interviewed a woman with three kids who was selling her kidney in order to get money to feed them.

In another report, welfare recipients were selling their food stamps for 50% their face value in order to get cash to pay for their drug addiction.

In another report in an inner city in the US (I don't remember the city, it was several years ago that I saw this report) a woman was asked why she had five children while on welfare. She basically said that she and her first two children could not afford to live on what they received, so she had more children to supplement her income.

As I said, I don't have the references and I tried to explain this.

However, to demonstrate that people can become desperate and resort to extreme measures while on welfare, I would like to gently submit this link:

http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_real_welfare_problem

I hope it can reasonably be extrapolated without empirical evidence that people are capable of committing this type of behavior. Of course most people on welfare are decent people who are just trying to get by, I never implied anything different, but it is necessary (as was my experience in the military) that certain "integrity keepers", as I like to call them, need to be put in place as checks and balances for the bad apples who ruin it for everybody.
Since 9/11 I haven't flown, not because I'm afraid of flying (although being a former aircraft mechanic I would certainly have a good reason!!) but simply because of all the hassle. 19 extremist wackos pull off an horrific act of terrorism and I have to walk around carrying my shoes through the airport!

If this single aspect of the reversible sterilization procedure were to be set aside could we please have a civilized discussion on this topic?

If this single aspect of welfare reform could be set aside could we please have a reasonable discussion on this topic?

I am making one last attempt to diffuse this situation and get back to a reasonable discussion. Let us PLEASE put this one single issue behind us and get back to being civilized.

Davamanra, you seem to have a problem with logic. For instance,

“In one report with respect to black market organ donation in India, they interviewed a woman with three kids who was selling her kidney in order to get money to feed them.”

How is this evidence that "There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money"

How many extra kids did the woman have in order to receive more money? There is nothing at all in your statement to suggest any number—0, 10, 100, -50, 20i, the square root of 2. Nothing. No information or assertion at all. The statement is utterly silent on the issue.

How can it be any clearer? The two statements are completely unrelated.

Black market organ donation with women selling their kidneys to feed their kids may take place; if so, it is very deplorable. But that doesn’t mean she has more children to get more money from welfare. I suspect that would not be a paying proposition in India.

What is it that you don’t understand?

Bob

“http://www.religionnewsblog.com/9084
This offers clear support for my assertion.”

Where? I read the whole article—all 1500 words. Polygamists have children who receive aid to dependent children. There may be welfare fraud and other fraud. The article doesn’t state that there is any fraud, but the possibility sort of hangs there.

These guys have had peculiar ideas about having lots of children for over a century--regardless of the welfare system, if any.

But, there is nothing about any child or children being conceived for the purpose of receiving more money from the state. Nothing at all. Zero. Not a hint.

How can it be any clearer? The article doesn’t say anything at all about families having more kids in order to receive more money.

There is no support at all—nothing. How can you say, “This offers clear support for my assertion,” when it doesn’t?

Bob

“welfare recipients were selling their food stamps for 50% their face value in order to get cash to pay for their drug addiction.”

This has nothing at all to do with families having more kids in order to receive more money from welfare.

Drug addiction, welfare fraud, and families having more kids in order to receive more money are just completely unrelated. Drug addition and welfare fraud may be terrible. So are coal mine deaths in China. One has nothing at all to do with the other.

Families having more kids in order to receive more money is not supported by the existence of drug addiction, welfare fraud or coal mine deaths in China.

How can this be any clearer?

I could go on and on, but you get the idea, I hope.

Bob

“I hope it can reasonably be extrapolated without empirical evidence that people are capable of committing this type of behavior.”

It can’t be reasonably extrapolated without empirical evidence that people in any significant number will have more kids in order to receive more money from welfare.

Essentially, all you have is a guess. People can guess lots of different things, but good public policy is usually better served by reliance on facts.

Bob

For crying out loud, Bob!
Are you going to keep harping on this one sentence? You want letter perfect empirical evidence to substantiate this one single sentence? If so there is none.
If this is the game you want to play then fine,

"There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money"

If your assertion is that this specific type of welfare fraud has never happened, is not happening now, or will not happen in the future

OR

If your assertion is that the specific type of welfare fraud is so insignificant as to be inconsequencial,

Then I would like to respectfully, gently, and kindly ask you to present letter perfect empirical data to support these assertions.

If you cannot then we have reached a stalemate and it is time to drop this.

Despite this one single sentence that you are fixated on we do share similar views on numerous other issues. I don't understand why this one single sentence out of everything else is so important to you, but to continue in this manner is ridiculous.
Since we both live in Phoenix how about we get together in person and discuss this like rational human beings. We could meet at a Starbucks or something get completely wired on caffeine and talk about this until we're blue in the face, but to continue debating this over the internet is completely ridiculous.

I did a little review and discovered this reference that I posted on
11.11.08 at 22:43.

http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/FYI50.cfm

THIS ARTICLE DOES IN FACT OFFER, TO THE LETTER, EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE OF MY STATEMENT.

PLEASE, BOB, I BEG YOU, READ THIS ARTICLE SO WE CAN DROP THIS STUPID ARGUMENT!! I'VE EVEN PASTED IT TO THIS POST SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLICK THE LINK. ALSO, ANYBODY ELSE THAT QUESTIONS MY CREDIBILITY OR THINKS THAT MY EVIDENCE WAS APOCRYPHAL, READ THIS!!


Robert Rector Senior Policy Analyst Recent evidence from a carefully monitored New Jersey state experiment shows that limiting the value of welfare benefits can have a dramatic impact in reducing illegitimate births among women on welfare. In the experimental program, a four percent reduction in the dollar value of monthly wel- fare benefits was found to cause a 29 percent decrease in future illegitimate births among women enrolled in the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program. In all states-except New Jersey-AFDC mothers who have additional children while on welfare receive an automatic increase in welfare benefits. But in 1992, black Democratic Assemblyman Wayne Bryant won passage in the New Jersey legislature of an innovative welfare reform known as the "family cap." Under the family cap, mothers already enrolled in AFDC no longer receive an automatic increase in AFDC benefits after giving birth to additional children. The family cap went into effect in October 1992 with a ten-month grace period. Thus the limitation on benefits applied to children born after August 1993. To launch the program, New Jersey required a waiver from federal regulations, and this was granted by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). In accordance with HHS guidelines, New Jersey evaluated the effects of the family cap policy with a controlled scientific ex- periment using random assignment. In the controlled experiment, AFDC recipients were randomly assigned to two different groups: an "experimental" group, which was subject to the family cap benefit limitation, and a "control" group that was exempt from the limitation. This procedure per- mits a scientific evaluation of the behavioral effects of the family cap by comparing the experimen- tal group subject to the cap with the control group exempted from the policy. In the New Jersey experiment, mothers in the control group received benefits according to con- ventional welfare policy, with a net increase of $44 in monthly welfare benefits for each additional childbirth. By contrast, mothers in the experimental group were subject to the new family cap; they did not receive an increase in AFDC benefits when they gave birth to additional children. The im- pact of the family cap on the value of welfare benefits for AFDC mothers was quite small. The $44 benefit increase eliminated by the family cap constituted only 4 percent of the total monthly welfare benefits received by the average AFDC mother in New Jersey.

V7#5M5


Despite its modest impact on the dollar value of welfare benefits, the family cap policy was found to have a substantial effect in reducing out-of-wedlock births among AFDC recipients. During the first 10 months after the cap went into effect (from August 1993 to June 1994), births among AFDC mothers subject to the family cap were significantly lower than births to AFDC mothers in the con- trol group who were exempt from the cap. During the ten-month period after August 1993, 5.46 percent of AFDC single mothers in the ex- perimental group bore children out of wedlock, compared with 6.75 percent of mothers in the con- trol group exempt from the cap. Thus, welfare mothers under the cap had nearly one-fifth fewer illegitimate births than did welfare mothers in the exempt group. The New Jersey evaluation, moreover, indicates that these figures actually underestimate the ef- fect of the family cap policy. Although the random assignment of individuals into "experimental" and "control" groups eliminated most demographic differences between the two groups, small dif- ferences remained. Differences in former marital status, schooling, ethnicity, and other factors indi- cate that the experimental group (subject to the family cap) was composed of individuals who were more likely to have children out of wedlock than the control group. (For example, mothers in the ex- perimental group had a slightly lower education level and included somewhat more black women than did the control group-both of these factors have been found to increase the probability of out- of-wedlock births.) After compensating for relevant demographic differences between the control and experimental groups, the New Jersey evaluation found that the family cap actually had resulted in a 29 percent reduction in illegitimate births among New Jersey welfare mothers. I Critics of the family cap claim that the policy has not caused an actual reduction in the number of illegitimate births but merely a delay in welfare mothers reporting births to the welfare office. The critics assert that since mothers subject to the family cap no longer receive higher AFDC benefits upon the birth of an additional child, the absence of this reward makes the mothers less prompt in notifying the welfare bureaucracy of births. However, under the family cap AFDC mothers still have a strong financial incentive to notify the welfare bureaucracy of any child birth. The family cap limits only AFDC benefits; mothers on AFDC in New Jersey and subject to the cap still receive increased Food Stamps and Medicaid bene- fits for each additional child born. Therefore, each AFDC mother still has the incentive to notify the welfare bureaucracy of a child's birth in order to ensure the child's enrollment in these other welfare programs. Examination by New Jersey officials of the ten months of data available reveals a drop in the number of actual births, due to the cap, not merely a delay in birth reporting. The New Jersey family cap was based on the moral principle that the welfare system should re- ward responsible rather than irresponsible behavior. Proponents maintained that it is both irresponsi- ble and immoral for unmarried women already on the public dole to have additional children and to expect the taxpayers to give increased welfare to support those children. With the family cap, New Jersey proposed to stop rewarding such irresponsible behavior. Few expected the modest limit on benefits to result in a significant drop in births to welfare mothers. The fact that the experiment has caused a surprisingly large drop in illegitimate births, and hence in welfare dependency, enhances the case for the policy.

THIS PUBLIC POLICY IS NOT BASED ON HOT AIR BUT ON THE CONCLUSIVE RESULTS OF A CONTROLLED SCIENTIFIC EXPERIMENT.

Congratulations. Evidence. A real basis for thinking the issue through.

Studies of politically charged issues of this nature have to be considered carefully. As we all know, advocacy can distort results. A few examples I keep for fun are:

The 1992 EPA study of the effects of second hand smoke.
The 1997 report by Collier and Thomas, “School Effectiveness for Language Minority Students”
The FDA statement of April 20, 2006 on Marijuana
The 2007 Mathematica Policy Research federally funded study of abstinence education

All of which are demonstratively and grossly BAD, BAD science. And all of which have resulted in public policies, which may or may not be desirable, but are definitely not based on valid objective data.

You have to take government studies with a couple of table spoons of salt; in politically charged areas, the whole salt shaker is required. I leave to your imagination what's required for studies by advocacy groups.

Such as one by, of all people, Robert Rector, from 2007 concerning “a fiscal analysis of households headed by immigrants without a high school diploma.” Which would be included in my list of infamy above, except it wasn't funded by the government.

So, with this history, my approach to this study is likely to be very skeptical. I’m sure you can understand why after all of my past unhappy experiences.

It will take me awhile.

Bob

I just wish you had read this way back when I posted it originally, so we could have avoided all this hostility! LOL

Along these lines it has to be acknowledged that there is a tendency in human nature to act irresponsibly when consequences are mitigated or to act unethically when incentives are presented. Whether you want to call it coerced sterilization or not, if people can't be trusted to act responsibly certain conditions must be considered with respect to public assistance. This experiment showed a reduction in out-of-wedlock pregnancies by 29%! As much as I hate to admit it the conservatives have a point here, but taking away welfare is obviously not the answer. This is where I regard my idea as "imposed responsibility."
If someone has a better idea I'm all ears, but considering these staggering numbers, I hope you can agree that something needs to be done.

By the way, I agree, the studies you posted are quite laughable! Being an ex-smoker that second hand smoke one gets me especially!

I appreciate your perspective with respect to evidence to back up assertions, and I assure you, my assertions are carefully thought out and objective, but I don't expect you to take my word on that, but ya gotta wonder how a person can be both a gun totin', convict killer and a pinko commie faggot liberal-leaner! The answer is simple. I scrutinize just like you. That's why there are conditions attached to all my labels.

Again, I didn't propose the idea of sterilization as a condition lightly. If it were not to be a reversible procedure I would in fact be adamantly opposed to the idea myself. Conventional contraception would be a preferable option, but as the article I referenced pointed out, without consequences people cannot be trusted to be responsible. This sad truth is universal and that is why I talk about things like permissiveness with regulation and rights with responsibilities, etc.

I'm glad we cleared the air, Bob. Now I hope you realize that I didn't just pull that statement out of thin air. I did honestly get that information from a news program a few years back, something like Dateline or 60 Minutes or 20/20 or something.
Now maybe we can have some constructive and enlightening discussions about these issues. Talk to ya later.

An interesting find, it would be more interesting if there was some sample sizes to give a significance to the numbers, so we could see if the birthrate drop actually meant anything, and for the study to have lasted several years to rule out a transitory effect, also it would be more pertinent if AFDC hadn't been replaced already with something design to tackle this sort of welfare depdency. But still very nice. It would have been interesting to see a companion study looking at any possible associated fall in living standards and quality of life for the affected children, and a follow on to find any possible drop in educational and social achievement in the disadvantaged children.

It is ironic though all this concern about whether we're paying people to have children when several countries are explicitly trying to do just that for demographic reasons and failing miserably.

It does seem to me that what we're really talking about here, with regards to welfare dependency, is the perpetuation of an underclass financed by the state. The issue is not with the children but who is having them. Puting aside the ethics of welfare required sterilzation it does seem that as solutions go, it is rather of the deckchair variety when what is required is a concerted effort to steer the ship. The cycle of poverty must be broken and dependency left behind, but that nesecitates a much more integrated holistic solution than this.

Siera Leone is a very interesting case study. It has the third worst child mortality in the world, the twelth worst life expectancy, the eleventh highest fertility rates the very worst maternal mortality rate and the fourteeth highest infection rate of HIV. Clearly not a happy country, although it maybe improving now they're at peace.
What's happening there seems to be what happened here 150 years ago, you have as many children as you can because most of them are going to die before they get old enough to take care of you before you die. being sterilized would reduce the number children had and therefore the likelyhood of having any surviving children in old age and thus dying ealier, the converse is that a 1 in 50 chance of death would be avoided and who needs children anyway. I would suspect the incidence of HIV would go up as safe sex would be harder still for a woman to insist on.
Fundamentally the resources spent on any such sterilization drive would be far better spent on improving basic healthcare coverage, I think it would have a far better dollars/goodness there, especially as they're starting from such a low point.

lkm wrote:

An interesting find, it would be more interesting if there was some sample sizes to give a significance to the numbers, so we could see if the birthrate drop actually meant anything, and for the study to have lasted several years to rule out a transitory effect, also it would be more pertinent if AFDC hadn't been replaced already with something design to tackle this sort of welfare depdency. But still very nice. It would have been interesting to see a companion study looking at any possible associated fall in living standards and quality of life for the affected children, and a follow on to find any possible drop in educational and social achievement in the disadvantaged children.

It is ironic though all this concern about whether we're paying people to have children when several countries are explicitly trying to do just that for demographic reasons and failing miserably.

It does seem to me that what we're really talking about here, with regards to welfare dependency, is the perpetuation of an underclass financed by the state. The issue is not with the children but who is having them. Puting aside the ethics of welfare required sterilzation it does seem that as solutions go, it is rather of the deckchair variety when what is required is a concerted effort to steer the ship. The cycle of poverty must be broken and dependency left behind, but that nesecitates a much more integrated holistic solution than this.

Siera Leone is a very interesting case study. It has the third worst child mortality in the world, the twelth worst life expectancy, the eleventh highest fertility rates the very worst maternal mortality rate and the fourteeth highest infection rate of HIV. Clearly not a happy country, although it maybe improving now they're at peace.
What's happening there seems to be what happened here 150 years ago, you have as many children as you can because most of them are going to die before they get old enough to take care of you before you die. being sterilized would reduce the number children had and therefore the likelyhood of having any surviving children in old age and thus dying ealier, the converse is that a 1 in 50 chance of death would be avoided and who needs children anyway. I would suspect the incidence of HIV would go up as safe sex would be harder still for a woman to insist on.
Fundamentally the resources spent on any such sterilization drive would be far better spent on improving basic healthcare coverage, I think it would have a far better dollars/goodness there, especially as they're starting from such a low point.

lkm,
With respect to paragraph 1: True, a sample size and long-term study would add more accuracy to this experiment, but the undeniable fact of the experiment is that human nature shows a propensity toward irresponsibility when consequences are mitigated.
Sociology, psychology, criminology, and economics are all soft sciences. As such the best they can do is predict trends not actual hard numbers. Of course this clear correlation with human behavior and a reduction in accountability would have been more than enough to prevent this latest financial crisis had conservatives not been living in such denial!! But that's another story!!
As for the long term effects to living standards, this is why the idea of abolishing welfare is completely unrealistic. I also acknowledge that unintentional pregnancies do happen despite a conscientious effort on the part of the responsible women on welfare. This is why I consider my condition of a reversible/temporary (coerced if you will) sterilization of welfare recipients to be a necessary evil. To deny women supplemental income with respect to additional children is not the solution.
Paragraph 2: When a person has nothing to lose as is the case with the extreme form of poverty of these third world countries, the consequences of unwanted pregnancy are less significant. In these individuals myopic perspective one more child is no big deal, but on the grander scale the impact is devastating.
Paragraph 3: Very, very true. This is why the required reversible/temporary sterilization is only one condition of many that I propose for welfare reform. In my post on 13.11.08 at 3:05 I presented this proposal (this is also why I get upset about repeating myself! LOL).
Paragraph 4: Your point about HIV is well taken, however taking care of ten HIV patients is far easier than taking care of a hundred. The RATE of HIV might go up, but the actual NUMBERS would fall. As I stated in my reply to paragraph 2 since the consequences would be insignificant to these people an "imposed responsibility" would be a necesary evil.
Paragraph 5: I have to respectfully disagree. In my post of yesterday at 20:03 these numbers clearly show how much extra resources could be applied to healthcare with the instution of my necassry evil.
As I said I don't make these proposals lightly. I have carefully thought out the implications and the impact of these necessary evils. If it weren't for the sad reality of the results of the welfare experiment, I might be in denial of these truths myself.
I would LOVE to be a complete bleeding heart, pinko, commie, faggot, liberal if it weren't for the sad reality that the conservative's arguments have a LITTLE validity! For this reason I am a reluctant, but objective, moderate.

I think I need to elaborate on what I mean by sample size. Supposing that this wasn't a serious study, just a requirement of the federal government, and the main interest was in lowering the welfare bill, there is nothing in the article which states the groups A and B were of equal size. One could well imagine that group A, the group recieving the welfare cut, was made substantially bigger, for a bigger saving. There is also nothing in the article stating their actual size. So if we we were to assume the smallest size possible for the groups, group A, the group recieving the cut, could be 5000 women, and group B could be only 400 women. That's a saving of thirty thousand dollars, having a really big group A. So in actual births that's 273 in group A and 27 in group B, scaled to comparable group sizes that's 273 and 337.5, yippee a drop of almost one fifth in the birth rate, and because of the group size disparity I'm sure group A end up with far more undesirable than group B inflating the birth rate, so maybe if you adjusted for that we can make to 29%. However, that original 18.3% drop is just five extra births, and so the question is, is five extra births out of 300 births to 5400 women actually statistically significant? At this point I'd like to calculate the the standard deviation in the numbers, but it's been so long since I've done that, I'd rather just leave it at a suggestion that it isn't.
Of course all of this is just supposition based on the facts supplied in the article, all or none of it may be true, but without further information it's impossible to say and thus impossible to draw any conclusions.

For argument's sake let's assume your concerns are valid.

http://www.euthanasia.com/cap.html

This article shows that not only is this a double edged sword for the conservative cause, but it also reinforces my premise about human behavior with respect to pregnacy and consequences.
The anti-tax conservatives would love this family cap concept to be true, but the pro-life consevatives would have a conniption fit!!
Again it reinforces the aspect of deterrence for child birth and demonstrates a tendency toward more casual attitudes towards pregnancy because of the mitigation of consequences.

http://www.euthanasia.com/famcap.html

This article also comes back to sad truth about reduced pregnancies. On the positive side the family cap has made more welfare recipients more motivated to use birth control, which would also be a kick in the teeth for the religious right!!
Needless to say the family cap, although effective in reducing, but not eliminating, illegitimate births causes unacceptable hardship to those affected.

With respect to welfare I personally don't believe the five year limit is a good idea. There are far too many cases where people are unable to be COMPLETELY self-sufficient and will still need a supplement to their income, but to be partially self-sufficient is still better than being totally dependent. It is not a simple black and white issue. Conditions need to be placed on welfare. Unconditional support creates dependence, but severing ALL support is detestable.
As an experiment the family cap is very illuminating to the issues but it is most definitely not IMHO an acceptable option.

Er... why are you linking to a site with 'Euthanasia' in the title?

I made a post here before, but I wasn't logged in and it hasn't come up.

Tobias, "euthanasia" is just the domain name! Ya gotta read the article, my man! LOL

Davamanra tends to link to huge numbers of lengthy articles that have nothing to do with what he’s writing about with the admonition, “read in its entirety.” So I wouldn’t worry about it. Just ignore it.

Although, it may be he's moved on from foreced sterilization to executions for being too old, or, perhaps too low an IQ, or, perhaps some othter characteristic that doesn't please him.

Who knows? But best watch your step.

Bob

That's unfair, both pieces are related to the new jersey family cap that we've both been discussing over the last few days.

Thank you lkm.

Although, admittadly, such a Family Cap may act (though possibly Unintentionally) to raise the average IQ of the population. If those of a lower intelligence were more likely to end up taking the family cap, the effect would be a raise in Intelligence. If discrimination still goes on (and it will; there's no way to fully stamp it out) other features will increase in the population. If it was shown that physical attractiveness made someone more likely to get a job (e.g. by unconscius discrimination on the interviewers part) then people who aren't would be more likely to have the Sterilization, and so wouldn't pass their genes on. It's Eugenics, but using a more gentle approach than the historical styles (forced sterilization of people with bad genes). It would be more of a coerced sterilization of people with bad genes.

You're not thinking this through. The family cap prevents those already on child welfare receiving an increase upon the birth of a further child, thereby further impoverishing the family. Clearly then the rational, intelligent thing to do in that situation is to avoid having further children. Therefore the people who will continue to have children regardless will be less responsible, intelligent group. The situation is self selecting for a lower IQ, not a higher one.

Intelligence and rational decisions don't necessarily correlate, however.

Here is the analysis I indicated I would perform on the Rector study, which, it was asserted, supported the statement: “There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

There are two elements to this statement:

1. Does an increase or decrease in welfare benefits available per child increase or decrease the number of births? To put it more mathematically: Is the fertility rate directly related to welfare benefits per child?

2. A significant motive for the relationship is pecuniary; that is children are produced for the purpose of receiving additional money from welfare.

The first element is, in principle, amenable to empirical data collection and analysis as in the New Jersey cap experiment.

The second element is much more difficult. That determining human motives is a near impossibility may be illustrated by the difficulty of determining even one’s very own motives. The New Jersey cap study offers no evidence at all about motive. It’s hard to imagine how they could. Even if a relationship between fertility and welfare benefit per child were shown, this would not demonstrate motive.

On the subject of the relationship between welfare benefits per child and fertility there are a number of issues.

I. The Oddity of the Purported Relationship

In 1994 the total welfare benefit in New Jersey to a single mother with two children receiving no child support was $2,200 per month (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html), including AFDC, food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance (such as section 8 housing assistance payments), utilities assistance, WIC, commodities program, various tax benefits and numerous other programs.

Doesn’t it seem odd that increasing the welfare benefit by 2% to 3% ($44 to $64 depending on the source) would increase fertility by 29% according to the Rector analysis? There’s just something wrong about that picture. What would happen if benefits increased by, say, 30%? Would the female really have an additional ten children?

The oddity of the purported relationship is made even more manifest when one considers that the family income in very frequently supplemented by child support and other family support, which would be unaffected by the state cap.

Even more frequently family income is supplemented by various off-the-books income producing activities such as bartending, waitressing, exotic dancing, prostitution, drug and other contraband sales, etc. Bartenders and waitresses, even in low class establishments, can earn $100 a day; exotic dancers $500 a day, even low class prostitutes $1,000 a day, and drug dealers even more.

What we have is a total medium welfare income, including all benefits and unreported income, in excess of $4,000 per month. The increase in gross income from another child hovers around 1% of total income.

II. The Absence of Any Actual Economic Incentive

The marginal cost of a child is probably in excess of $44 or $64 per month in diapers, clothing, furniture, etc., excluding food and medical care which would be provided by welfare. Thus, the economic benefit of having another child would probably be negative. It is not a rational economic decision to have another child in order to obtain a welfare benefit of $44.

III. Cherry Picking Demographics

Let’s consider the 29% figure, which was developed with “Adjustment for demographic differences between the two groups was performed by the standard statistical technique of multivariate regression analysis.” There are two problems with this:

Why is it that the study didn’t have appropriate stratified samples to start with? This is very frequently done in statistical analysis; why not here? The problem with post-hoc adjustments is the researcher is free to cherry pick demographic differences. In this case, for instance, the Black population could be divided into those who lived in majority Black areas and those who did not. Blacks who lived in a majority Black area did not display a difference in fertility rates. Depending on what one wanted to prove one could adjust, or not adjust, for this demographic characteristic.

IV. Expectations

This was certainly not a double blind study. The subjects and the researchers all knew who was getting more money and who wasn’t. How do you control for expectations communicated to the subjects? Ever since the 1924 Hawthorne experiments, social science researchers have recognized the importance of the effect of observers.

V. Reporting Problems

If you knew you weren’t getting any more money for having a child, wouldn’t that reduce the likelihood of reporting the birth of the child to the welfare agency?

VI. Long Term

There is no attempt at all to access total fertility. A one year delay (the study only covered ten months) in births would have far less significance than a reduction in total fertility for which there is no evidence at all.

In conclusion:

The study made no attempt to address motive.

And,

The empirical evidence asserting a fertility rate directly related to welfare benefits per child suffers from numerous problems, particularly including the probable magnitude of the relationship.

And,

There is no attempt to determine total fertility.

Thus, this study does not support the assertion that “There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

Bob

Well, I'm impressed. It occured to me, isn't the fertility rate of both groups actually depressed compared to the nationsl average anyway?
Without a control group not on welfare, surely there's no way to differentiate a drop in fertility caused by state oppression from a rise in fertility caused by state largess?

bobunf wrote:

Here is the analysis I indicated I would perform on the Rector study, which, it was asserted, supported the statement: “There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

There are two elements to this statement:

1. Does an increase or decrease in welfare benefits available per child increase or decrease the number of births? To put it more mathematically: Is the fertility rate directly related to welfare benefits per child?

2. A significant motive for the relationship is pecuniary; that is children are produced for the purpose of receiving additional money from welfare.

The first element is, in principle, amenable to empirical data collection and analysis as in the New Jersey cap experiment.

The second element is much more difficult. That determining human motives is a near impossibility may be illustrated by the difficulty of determining even one’s very own motives. The New Jersey cap study offers no evidence at all about motive. It’s hard to imagine how they could. Even if a relationship between fertility and welfare benefit per child were shown, this would not demonstrate motive.

On the subject of the relationship between welfare benefits per child and fertility there are a number of issues.

I. The Oddity of the Purported Relationship

In 1994 the total welfare benefit in New Jersey to a single mother with two children receiving no child support was $2,200 per month (http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-240.html), including AFDC, food stamps, medicaid, housing assistance (such as section 8 housing assistance payments), utilities assistance, WIC, commodities program, various tax benefits and numerous other programs.

Doesn’t it seem odd that increasing the welfare benefit by 2% to 3% ($44 to $64 depending on the source) would increase fertility by 29% according to the Rector analysis? There’s just something wrong about that picture. What would happen if benefits increased by, say, 30%? Would the female really have an additional ten children?

The oddity of the purported relationship is made even more manifest when one considers that the family income in very frequently supplemented by child support and other family support, which would be unaffected by the state cap.

Even more frequently family income is supplemented by various off-the-books income producing activities such as bartending, waitressing, exotic dancing, prostitution, drug and other contraband sales, etc. Bartenders and waitresses, even in low class establishments, can earn $100 a day; exotic dancers $500 a day, even low class prostitutes $1,000 a day, and drug dealers even more.

What we have is a total medium welfare income, including all benefits and unreported income, in excess of $4,000 per month. The increase in gross income from another child hovers around 1% of total income.

II. The Absence of Any Actual Economic Incentive

The marginal cost of a child is probably in excess of $44 or $64 per month in diapers, clothing, furniture, etc., excluding food and medical care which would be provided by welfare. Thus, the economic benefit of having another child would probably be negative. It is not a rational economic decision to have another child in order to obtain a welfare benefit of $44.

III. Cherry Picking Demographics

Let’s consider the 29% figure, which was developed with “Adjustment for demographic differences between the two groups was performed by the standard statistical technique of multivariate regression analysis.” There are two problems with this:

Why is it that the study didn’t have appropriate stratified samples to start with? This is very frequently done in statistical analysis; why not here? The problem with post-hoc adjustments is the researcher is free to cherry pick demographic differences. In this case, for instance, the Black population could be divided into those who lived in majority Black areas and those who did not. Blacks who lived in a majority Black area did not display a difference in fertility rates. Depending on what one wanted to prove one could adjust, or not adjust, for this demographic characteristic.

IV. Expectations

This was certainly not a double blind study. The subjects and the researchers all knew who was getting more money and who wasn’t. How do you control for expectations communicated to the subjects? Ever since the 1924 Hawthorne experiments, social science researchers have recognized the importance of the effect of observers.

V. Reporting Problems

If you knew you weren’t getting any more money for having a child, wouldn’t that reduce the likelihood of reporting the birth of the child to the welfare agency?

VI. Long Term

There is no attempt at all to access total fertility. A one year delay (the study only covered ten months) in births would have far less significance than a reduction in total fertility for which there is no evidence at all.

In conclusion:

The study made no attempt to address motive.

And,

The empirical evidence asserting a fertility rate directly related to welfare benefits per child suffers from numerous problems, particularly including the probable magnitude of the relationship.

And,

There is no attempt to determine total fertility.

Thus, this study does not support the assertion that “There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they would normally have simply to receive more money.”

Bob

Let's address the issue point by point.

To address your first question: The fertility rate may not be affected, but the number of actual births most definitely is.

To address your second question: I humbly concede that a rephrasing of this single statement is in order.

“There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they normally would have simply to receive more money."

Is hereby retracted and replaced by:

“There are a number of abuses to the program where families have more kids than they normally would have if there were no mitigation of consequences."

That statement can and has been verified, substantiated and proven conclusively without question through empirical evidence and my references.

However, the PLAUSIBILITY of the occurrence of my original statement cannot be disputed because of the evidence that I have presented with respect to welfare fraud. I may not have the actual reference to the news program I watched, but I would not have made the original statement without actual basis in reality. However I respect that you wouldn't be willing to just accept hearsay testimony.

Now we can have a civilized discussion.

In response to I. The Oddity of the Purported Relationship:

ANY mitigation of consquences can make some, not all, people less responsible. The welfare safety net is a factor in a potential mother initially being less responsible with respect to out-of wedlock births. (it is in one of my references, but please don't ask me to go back again and find it again! )

If, as you suggested, the benefits were increased by 30% I feel I can safely predict that my original statement would in fact have TONS of imperical evidence to support it.

There is a grey area in that some people will still have children even with a welfare cap in place, and some would definitely have children if the benefit were great enough. The only question is what is the tipping point for the individual recipient? Rector's analysis did not show an increase in fertility, but an increase in out-of-wedlock births. BIG difference. 29% may be a stretch of the analysis, but the existence of a significant drop of births cannot be ignored.

II. There may not be an incentive, but there is a mitigation of consequences. The rephrasing of my statement corrects this dispute, but doesn't change the issue of births while on welfare.

III. Agreed, the 29% figure could be skewed but without correction the number was still 19.2%.

IV. Even if several more corrective factors were to be considered, a figure of 10% would still be significant.

V. Granted, and this reveals another form of fraud. "Between spell" births.
"In their policies, all states with a full or partial family cap include
exemptions to the family cap for families in specific circumstances.16 Most
states have the same exemptions, as shown in figure 2. For example, to
account for a pregnancy that occurred before the family started receiving
assistance, 20 states exempt families with children born less than 10
months after the family’s initial receipt of benefits. In addition, states
commonly exempt children not living with their biological parents. This
exemption typically occurs when the custody of the child is legally
transferred or the parent is deceased, incarcerated or incapacitated. Most
states exempt families who leave assistance for a specified period of time,
give birth to a child, and return to the rolls, that is, they become pregnant
“between spells.” Some state officials we spoke with expressed concern
about this exemption because of the potential that families are
circumventing the family cap on benefits by leaving assistance and

reapplying once a new child is born."

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01924.pdf


VI. Again total births and total fertility are two entirely different things.

With all due respect Bob, you need to be as careful with symantics as I obviously do!

You did a lot of hard work Bob. As I had done trying to present my references. Ain't fun is it! LOL

Getting all the way back to the original issue, A simple, safe, reversible sterilization procedure, although not desireable, could be an effective condition in welfare reform. As I said I would love to be a full blown liberal, but reluctantly I have to acknowlege, that the conservatives have a point.

I believe it is now time to put the controversy of this single sentence to bed. I have amended it in a way that still satifies my original intention, to control welfare abuse, but in a way that has less sinister implications.

Let us please continue with civilized and constructive discussions.

P.S. In reference to an earlier allegation, I am NOT pro-euthanasia, but am pro-assisted suicide.

Just saw an ABC News report about The Big 3 Auto execs still using expensive corporate jets depite preading poverty. In fact they took these private jets at a cost of about $20,000 as opposed to a comparable commercial flight at a fair of $288 coach or $837 first class, on a trip to Washington to plead their case!! Gm's CEO made $16M last year, Ford's CEO made $28M and not only do they get to use these jets, but their families do as well! Both Ford and GM have a fleet of 8 jets at a cost of about, and I'm being conservative, $20M each. So despite all their claims of poverty they have shown blatant irresponsibility, by not attempting to find a more cost effective travel method, say through fractional or shared ownership, but they actually think they deserve their fat paychecks after demonstration such clear incompetence! They also have the nerve to say the corporate jet travel is non- negotiable.
Well, everything is negotiable. If they don't want to negotiate, I say fine let them go belly up and then nationalize the industry and start making the vehicles they should have been making 20 years ago, clean fuel efficient hybrids and electric cars. There argument will be that America won't buy them. That's OK because they will already have a guaranteed initial market in the form of exclusive government contracts. From there sales will take off the way they did with the private Hummer sales. Those redneck "be 'Mercan, buy 'Mercan types will all of a sudden have their patriotism questioned if they try and buy foreign vehicles and expose their hypocracy. Unconditional Bailout? No fu@kin' way!

When I first heard about the automotive bailout, I thought I was hearing things!

I say let them go belly up. If they can't compete in a "free market" then they don't deserve to limp along at our expense. The things our government spends our tax dollars on blow my mind.

If you're going to spend $700bn to bail out the banking sectors incompetence it would be perverse to refuse $25bn to bail out the auto sectors incompetence.

Where are those republicans who wouldn't finance something that aids society, like theaters, or train lines? Oh, right, they're financing their friends in companies.

Quote :

Yes, my friends, I am a true Maverick: A republican with no money.

John McCain on SNL

Hypocrits.

So we can get our political systems pretty good, but not good enough so that they can run our economies. But Capitalism as currently understood doesn't work either.

Back to fundamentals. I'll read some Marx and some Smith and get back to you.

Redsand11j wrote:

Where are those republicans who wouldn't finance something that aids society, like theaters, or train lines? Oh, right, they're financing their friends in companies.

Quote :

Yes, my friends, I am a true Maverick: A republican with no money.

John McCain on SNL

Hypocrits.

So we can get our political systems pretty good, but not good enough so that they can run our economies. But Capitalism as currently understood doesn't work either.

Back to fundamentals. I'll read some Marx and some Smith and get back to you.

Capitalism, as presented by the Republicans, is basically plutocratic anarchy. "We're rich, so we can do what we want. The only thing we want a government for is to keep the huddled masses off our lawns and to protect us from foreign invaders, using the huddled masses as cannon fodder. The only welfare system we want is to mitigate the consequences of our reckless and irresponsible financial actions."

Pure communism is the other extreme and without any motivation to better oneself, people become demoralized slaves of the state.

The middle ground is democratic socialism. A free but regulated state, where the interests of ALL are taken into consideration. Take away the stigma attached to the word "socialist" and the middle class conservatives might actually recover from their brainwashing and think for themselves!

McCain can claim to have no money, but if that SOB were to sell a couple of his houses he'd be rolling in it!!

Quote :

If you're going to spend $700bn to bail out the banking sectors incompetence it would be perverse to refuse $25bn to bail out the auto sectors incompetence.

I agree, which is why I support neither.

Locksley wrote:

Quote :

If you're going to spend $700bn to bail out the banking sectors incompetence it would be perverse to refuse $25bn to bail out the auto sectors incompetence.

I agree, which is why I support neither.

A couple differences I see is the financial institutions have nothing to stand on but their finances whereas the auto manufacturers have auto manufacturing to fall back on. If the auto manufacturers had stuck with building cars and related products and stayed out of financing with instruments like GMAC they wouldn't be in the mess they are. They can, by falling back on manufacturing dig them selves out of their own hole. The financial institutions need bailing out or they will go completely belly up, but I am in no way advocating and UNCONDITIONAL bailout. Give them essentially a loan to be paid back WITH INTEREST as well as a long list of other conditions that will ensure their solvency in the future. Essentially they will conform TO THE LETTER the conditions set down to them by the loan agency, the US Government, and will make the government a silent shareholder (except of course with respect to enforcing the conditions) and the US government will receive a royalty/ dividend as a shareholder after the original loan is paid off. This would ensure risk free revenue to the government in the future. If the company goes belly up after the loan is paid off then the government doesn't LOSE money, they just don't MAKE money. If however the the company goes belly up BEFORE the loan is paid off then the Government is in no worse shape than they would have been by giving an unconditional bailout.

You make some good points, but I think the abuses will continue unless something drastic is allowed to happen. Maybe a collapse would be the best thing...

That's the sad thing about it. Drastic things have already happened in the past and regulations were put in place, but with the Republican's "convenient" memory they forgot these past abuses (actually ignored) and proceeded to remove the regulations that would have minimized how drastic the situations got again. That my friends is called negligence.

The so-called "toxic loans" were instituted during Clinton's presidency, but the effects took until Bush's presidency to show up. Both parties are to blame.

Firstly, what exactly doesn't work about capitalism? It's just a recession, happened before and will happen again, but it's not the end of the world.
Secondly, what's with the McCain bashing? He made an astute point about the election, he lost because Obama outspent him 8 dollars to one, how is that not an important thing to take notice of? In terms of personal wealth Obama is still considerably richer than McCain, just because his wife has vast personal wealth doesn't mean McCain has any access to it, or a right to call it his. That's implicit sexism.
Thirdly, the american auto industry is in large part in such dire straits because for the last 20 years they have been making boneheadedly idiotic, moronic, negligent strategic business decisions, to a degree far worse than anything in the financial sector. They deliberately chose short term profits over the continued existence of their companies. The fact that their collapse is coinciding with a world downturn is purely coincendental, without the financial collapse iit would have only taken another year or so for them to reach this piont anyway.

"The so-called "toxic loans" were instituted during Clinton's presidency, but the effects took until Bush's presidency to show up. Both parties are to blame."

Just because you CAN exploit a loophole doesn't mean you SHOULD. That's where the Republicans IMHO deserve most of the blame. They just turned a blind eye to the problems that were developing and were in denial about the repercussions.

"Firstly, what exactly doesn't work about capitalism? It's just a recession, happened before and will happen again, but it's not the end of the world."

Capitalism with regulation will minimize the longevity and severity of recessions.

"Secondly, what's with the McCain bashing? He made an astute point about the election, he lost because Obama outspent him 8 dollars to one, how is that not an important thing to take notice of? In terms of personal wealth Obama is still considerably richer than McCain, just because his wife has vast personal wealth doesn't mean McCain has any access to it, or a right to call it his. That's implicit sexism."

If McCain actually DID remain faithful to his campaingn finance reform belief, then I most definitely respect that, but seeing his asymmetric tactics during the debates and his character assassinating speeches brings him right back down to the level of the rest of the republicans.

"Thirdly, the american auto industry is in large part in such dire straits because for the last 20 years they have been making boneheadedly idiotic, moronic, negligent strategic business decisions, to a degree far worse than anything in the financial sector. They deliberately chose short term profits over the continued existence of their companies. The fact that their collapse is coinciding with a world downturn is purely coincendental, without the financial collapse iit would have only taken another year or so for them to reach this piont anyway."

With respect to car sales, the Big Three actually did OK over the last 20 years. What brought them down was their financial divisions. GMAC, Ford Credit, and Cerberus (appropriate name) Capital Management all over-extended themselves in the same way that the rest of the financial industry did and got dragged down with them. Granted, they also made a lot of boneheaded, idiotic, moronic, negligent business decisions in the auto manufacturing divisions, but those were not the nails in the coffin. It is definitely not a coincidence that their financial problems coincide with the rest of the financial industry.

"Capitalism with regulation" is capitalism, your government is meant to provide the regulation, if it didn't that's a problem with your government not capitalism. So I ask again, what exactly doesn't work about capitalism?
"If McCain actually DID remain faithful to his campaingn finance reform belief"
Are you actually suggesting he ran an illegal campaign? The Steve Schmitt campaign may have been atrocious but it ran no more negative ads than Obama did.
Like I said, the the big three chose short term profit over long term viability. They chose to sell technically simple pickup trucks and SUV's to american consumers avoiding the energy tax rather than develop safer more fuel efficient vehicles, abandoning to foreign imports the actual car market, simply put the big three don't make cars anymore. This strategy, though profitable was quite plainly doomed from the beginning as from the mid-nineties it was clear that at some point governments would get serious about carbon and that peak oil lay somewhere off ahead. Either of these things would scupper any car company that hadn't developed for them, didn't have technological advanced efficient cars, you know, just like the big three just now.
The big losses for the big three aren't yet from credit deals but from a massive plummet in sales, a plummet starting back last year during the oil shock, the fact that they can't get financing to put off collapse for a year is the main influence of the credit crunch.

[quote="lkm"]"Capitalism with regulation" is capitalism, your government is meant to provide the regulation, if it didn't that's a problem with your government not capitalism. So I ask again, what exactly doesn't work about capitalism?
"If McCain actually DID remain faithful to his campaingn finance reform belief"
Are you actually suggesting he ran an illegal campaign? The Steve Schmitt campaign may have been atrocious but it ran no more negative ads than Obama did.
Like I said, the the big three chose short term profit over long term viability. They chose to sell technically simple pickup trucks and SUV's to american consumers avoiding the energy tax rather than develop safer more fuel efficient vehicles, abandoning to foreign imports the actual car market, simply put the big three don't make cars anymore. This strategy, though profitable was quite plainly doomed from the beginning as from the mid-nineties it was clear that at some point governments would get serious about carbon and that peak oil lay somewhere off ahead. Either of these things would scupper any car company that hadn't developed for them, didn't have technological advanced efficient cars, you know, just like the big three just now.
The big losses for the big three aren't yet from credit deals but from a massive plummet in sales, a plummet starting back last year during the oil shock, the fact that they can't get financing to put off collapse for a year is the main influence of the credit crunch.[/quote

Capitalism with the proper level of regulation is what I would refer to as "European Socialism." Europe has a much more symbiotic relationship between govt. and business than the US.

I am suggesting that McCain ran an iilegal campaign, just not one as faithful to his ideals. I suspect that he accepted money from sources that he would have disapproved of under his reform, but those are not illegal sources. Obama did accept money from these type of sources, but I think he just managed to collect more money because people believed in him and were desperate for change.

I agree, the Big Three did go for short term profit, but the Japanese were suckered into it as well. They also produced their fair share of big trucks and SUV's and luxury sport sedans.
My theory is that the oil companies got together with the Big Three and bribed them into first marketing big, fast, powerful and ignoring safety and fuel economy. If the only advertising you see is for bigger faster more powerful, that is what you are going to use for comparison. If the only advertising you see is for fuel economy and safety that's what you will use for comparison. In the first case you will pursue bigger faster more powerful, but in the second you will pursue safer and more fuel efficient. Notice how the advertising in the nineties quietly slipped from safety/fuel economy to speed/power/and size?

As I said the Japanese have also followed this trend, but they are still around. The quick buck mentality isn't as prevalent with the Japanese but it is still there, but they didn't dump tons of money into financing like the Big Three did. They were more dedicated to producing cars. As such they are suffering but not bleeding out. Had the Big Three spent a little less time worrying about their bonuses (like Enron execs did) and more time (and money) focussing on R&D and quality and not gone for the fast buck in the finance department they would have the financial cushion they need to ride this out.
This is where the "capitalism with regulation" comes in. First the government requires that they maintain a financial cushion so that they can ride out any financial crisis. Second that executive salaries have a cap and that bonuses are ONLY received if earned. Third that a certain amount of resources are devoted to R&D and quality control.
These are only a few of a number of conditionns that I would impose on a bailout plan.

I was just reading this article about that Nadya Suleman, a single, unemployed, disabled woman, suffering from depression, and living with her parents, who is already collecting public assistance for some of the SIX kids she already has and now she has given birth to EIGHT MORE CHILDREN!!!

Hey Bob,

Here's your damned imperical evidence!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090212/ap_on_re_us/octuplets

http://www.mahalo.com/Nadya_Suleman

And yes, read the entire article, especially the facts section in the second article (of hundreds of articles on this subject)! You want to defend this irresponsible nutjob? That's fine by me as long as YOU are the one paying the $1.3MILLION that it's going to cost to raise these kids! You want to condone this kind of activity, YOU can pay for it!!! And don't you dare trivialize this as being an isolated incident. This is just an extreme and therefore notable example of thousands of other situations that have gone on or are going to go on in this country. ONE WOMAN's irresponsibility is going to cost the taxpayers $1.3 million, I wonder how many other women have done something similarly irresponsible? Are you going to pay for them as well, Bob? Or are you just going to attack people like me who were at least offering solutions and then just bury your head in the sand and let someone else pay for it??
Let's hear all your eloquent rhetoric now!! But before you start boring us with your long-winded points, I want to see a copy of the $1.3million cashed check!!! Put your money where your pompous mouth is!! You wanted imperical evidence, here you are!!

By the way, this doesn't mean for one second I'm back on this forum. I'm still disgusted by the way some of you let your egos and pride get in the way of constructive discussions. You may not like what I have said, but I am not going to sugar coat the harsh reality of the world. If you want to live in denial about certain aspects of human nature and think that you can form a clean slate city-state based on some kind of fairy tale you are living an illusion. Bob may not like what I had to say, but clearly he needed a rude awakening from his little dream world. Thankfully a perfect example to demonstrate my point came along in the form of this Nadya Suleman.
This forum was in dire need of an injection of some objective, rational, and intellectual stimulation since the last time I posted. Hopefully something constructive will come from this.

Quote :

This forum was in dire need of an injection of some objective, rational, and intellectual stimulation since the last time I posted. Hopefully something constructive will come from this.

Good to see you back, but I'm gonna have to disagree on this statement. We've had some good discussions going on if you take a look in the other sections.

give it up, locksley. He's a lost cause.