On narrow vote, Supreme Court leaves CDC ban on evictions in place

No. Communism is extreme left, it's totalitarianism. If it isn't totalitarian at first, it will be soon enough.
Hard left are AOC, Bernie, Michael More, the 'democratic socialists' ( which I agree is not true socialism, but 'social democrat' or FDR democrat ).

So you oppose any and all forms, variations of, the social safety net? Okay, and you'll replace it with what? Charity?
Please explain.

You approve of China's forced labor, slave labor, exploitation of workers in certain sectors?

Let me ask you a question.

If you had the ability to get everyone in congress and the senate, including the president, to go along with your ideas on how to run a country, how would you run it? ( just the basics, the salient bullet points).

Would you mind?

 

1) AOC etc insist on maximum personal freedoms (in particular the freedom to not work or to strive), and want it funded via the profits of capitalism. If anything, they're libertarian capitalists. There's absolutely nothing 'socialism' about their philosophy.

2) No, I'm an ardent supporter of social safety nets - in the form of Public Education and Public Healthcare. I'm virulently opposed to Welfare in it's current form. I can't speak to charity, but yes .. in instances of the very old, the young, or the disabled not having family support - charity isn't a bad idea. When we provide the fundamentals (public education and healthcare) there are few remaining obstacles to the self-reliance we should all have - and most of them are personal so irrelevant in terms of social structures. Having said that, and living in a nation with excellent public healthcare and education, I can guarantee that this is 'in theory' only. We have all the same social problems as America. Provide an extra resource, and people will just swallow it and say it wasn't enough. Provide more and they'll do the same .. ad infinitum. You cannot fix the alcoholic with drinks. You have to frighten him into quitting. Human nature MUST be accounted for, in all our decisions.

3) Where did I say I approved of Ch!na's 'forced labour'? The Chinese have operated via collectivism for thousands of years. It was only in the 20thC they stupidly tried to convert that habit to State Communism.

4) I would run it as a Capitalist Democracy, obviously. It's the only context in which we're all free determine our own path, and in which there are the opportunities to do so. It's also the only context which allows the collectivism I prefer (which is, after all, just another path).

 

What country are you in? I'll answer your statements, in a minute.

We are in a capitalist democracy with social safety nets. No one argues that the welfare system needs overhauling, but it's not a simple issue, there is complexity there. Conservatives say the system is creating a welfare dependency state, and they have a legitimate beef, and, I can't find fault with that argument, where the system rewards the number of children, it's not a stretch to think some less than scrupulous individuals are going to game the system. However, to taking it away from mothers who cannot support the children on their own will hurt children, and for me, that's pretty hard to do, so what is the solution? See? It's not that simple.

Maybe you're thinking of a graduated phaseout, with a more minimalist approach, to disincentivize system abusers while the incentives gradually replace the system, keeping welfare minimalized at a level it doesn't give incentives for abuse, but it's almost there anyway, in cases where there are no children, such as SSI. My brother is on SSI, and he canot work more than 3 hours per day due to his disability, and he gets very little from the government, not enough to really live on, and depends on me to help him survive, so there is plenty of incentive there for him to work, but he cannot, so I don't agree with the system there, he should get more. I can hardly afford to support anyone but myself, which is the reason i never married or had children.

Charity is a positive thing, but it is not the answer.

 

You do know that Trump appointed Gorsuch, Barrett and Kavanaugh right? Two of which you placed as being in the middle?

Trump voters never wanted an activist ultra-conservative SC. They just wanted justices that would follow the Constitution. Especially after Hillary said that she wanted to appoint SCOTUS justices that would interpret the 2nd Amendment as being a collective Right (meaning guns could be regulated to the extremes all in the name of the collective) instead of an individual Right as was decided in Heller. Something she said was wrongly decided.

 

AOC is a self avowed Democratic Socialist. And she has called for the end of the capitalist system.

 

1) A Commonwealth nation.

2) In the case of the Welfare State, 'complexity' is an excuse for failure to improve it. And it's far more than 'some' people gaming the system. We are animals, creatures of nature .. and so we take the path of least resistance. That path ordinarily (in nature) leads to better survival and preservation of resources, but we have removed the signposts and declared ourselves free from obligation of following that path - instead going the opposite direction. It's a disaster, from any angle. Meantime, we cannot sidetrack improvement with irrelevancies. Those experiencing the transition will finder it harder than those on the other side, but that's life. Change is always painful. If we refuse to change because a comparitively tiny number (as compared to all future beneficiaries) might be compromised, we have failed horribly.

3) I don't need a graduated introduction personally, but I can't see any way to improve social security unless money is taken out of the equation. Once you remove cash, the incentive to abuse the system is gone. It will guarantee that only those in genuine need will avail themselves .. and it's these we should be preserving resources for.

 

Of course. I double down on the post to which you responded. You can't destroy peoples' lives for safety.

 

No such thing as a democratic socialist. Democracy is a political system and capitalism is an economic system. They are independent of one another. She is a plain old government social spender. I should also mention that democracy and socialism can't really coexist. In order to maintain a socialist economic system you need an authoritarian government.

 

I beg to differ. To improve anything you must understand it's relative complexities, dynamics, nuances.

you are making lots of vague assumptions

Now it just sounds like you are ready to toss a bunch of folks out on their keester, long before we understand the scope of the problem.

sounds like simplistic thinking, to me.

Not always, but you must have in mind something you presume will be painful, so you have a policy in mind, then.
Well, Then let's have it. What are you talking about, precisely? Is it the cutting people lose, this is the 'change' ?

Why do you even say something like that? Who is going to refuse to change? Have you implemented something and observed this behavior?

No, you haven't, then why are you speculating about that which you have no expertise in. Oh, okay maybe you've done this before in come country? You're a public administrator of some type with this type of experience? This is how you know this? Please advise.

Or,

Is your idea just to cut back on welfare, cut people loose? This is the 'reform' you have in mind? I mean, that would explain your comments.

Basically, all I'm hearing from you is just to cut it down, cut people loose, that's it.

That doesn't sound like a well thought out, studied, nuanced, comprehensive based-on-study plan.

Now then,

If you are not in some of the commonwealth states, the commonwealth countries, most of them are parliamentary, right?

 

It's to avoid sacrificing lives, that we take measures against danger.

 

1) Unless in trying to accommodate every 'complexity', you end up helping few and harming many. Which is exactly what the Welfare State does. Survival for the many, means we cannot waste time and resources on feting 'preferences'. That's the action of the Arisocrat, not the Jesuit.

2) When it comes to Welfare, the cure is the disease. And no one need ever be 'tossed out', if they prefer not to be. Anyone genuine in their desire and commitment to bettering their circumstances, should be provided with the materials of survival. Specifically - housing, healthy food, education, and healthcare.

3) Change is always painful, for someone.

4) I have no interest in 'cutting back' on social security, no. My proposal is that cash is taken out of the equation, so that those who would otherwise abuse the system will be eliminated (via their own lack of interest, when it no longer pays off). This would mean far more resources for those in genuine need.

5) Yes, my nation is parliamentary.

 

Sacrifice is a curious word to use here. In other words if we believe that destroying peoples' lives will lead to preventing other people losing their lives even though we have no evidence that it would, we should view that as a sacrifice?

 

You have a bad habit of making broad claims in a cavalier fashion. What are your credentials, might I ask? Armchair philosopher? Educated? Government employed with degree in the social arts? Let me know.

Now you're entering into that realm known as the 'boring platitude'. You didn't get the memo?

Do you really think you know what the cure, or the disease is? Aren't you just pretending?

I should hope so.

Always? Really? Didn't you get the axiom in college that the sure fire tip off to a fallacy is the word 'always' in a sentence?
See, you strike me as someone who is full of himself ( assuming you are a 'him' ). You write in a fashion like someone who doesn't scrutinize thought processes through to their logical conclusions.

Well, if you take cash out of the system, indiscriminately, you are, in essence, cutting back, because it will effect everyone on the program, indiscriminately. Everyone, both the good and the bad.

This is what I mean, you haven't thought your thinking through. You just blurt stuff out in a cavalier fashion, just as someone who is full of himself would do. I hate to sound put down-ish, but I'm afraid you do need to hear this, for your own good.

 

No, it won't. It won't hurt the genuine, because the genuine are looking for that opportunity to rebuild and move forward. It will only 'hurt' those who've been abusing the system. The best thing about this approach is that those who aren't interested will leave of their own accord. No harm, no foul.

This model is based on observations of thousands of years of successful human societies. To suggest it's not proven is quite funny, from where I sit

 

What do you know about the current system? It's already designed to dispense with those who are not genuine

My brother, who had a head injury and couldn't work, became permanently disabled, it took him three months of paper work to qualify for SSI.

You really sound like you are not that knowledgeable about the current system. Have you any experience with it in your country? Perhaps it's different there than here.

Model? We have a model now? Elaborate.

Nevermind. That's vague, of very little academic and pragmatic value. Anyone can declare anything.

Be very careful. crank, I know all the pseudo debate tricks, and posturing is one of them.

Let's take a closer look at that last sentence, see, it clearly tells me you do not put much thought into your writing.

Why are you concerned with the humorous value of the proof of your premise?

You just wrote that if I assert that your statement is not proven, that to you, this would be humorous.

Why is that even important? And, even if it were funny, which it wouldn't be, but let's say, for the sake of argument, it would be, what does that even mean?

And why does it depend on 'where you sit'?

Do you understand my point? Your writing is sloppy, your ability articulate your thoughts is poorly focused

See, what I just did is tear to shreds your very poorly written sentence. I did that because it beckoned for it.

I do know what you are doing though, or trying to do, it is a form of posturing.

Posturing comes in a couple of varieties. In your example, you are attempting to trivialize my argument in your misguided belief that doing it will buttress your argument by puffing yourself up, ie., lower my argument, elevate yours. No, it doesn't actually do that.

And it doesn't even come close, for one thing, it's sloppy as hell and you don't even do it that well.

But, let's just deal with your point, in essence what you are really trying to say, is that your premise is beyond debate,

And, there is only one proper response to that claim.

Since you have given me nothing to convince me whatsoever it's beyond debate, the only proper reply is no it's not.

What you could do is provide me with something of substance to back up your point of view, something beyond your vacuous assertions.

Because I can work with that, because all you have given me thus far are some opinions, opinions are fine, but they are not fun
to debate, because with opinons the debate ends quickly. You give an opinion, the other person says I disagree, or 'yeah, me too. And the conversation ends.

That isn't much fun. but, if you provide something of substance, something to substantiate your position, that gives me something to work with, something to further the discourse, to further the debate, it might convince me you are correct, or I might see some flaws in it, or I might find some other links based on the content which qualify it some way, or point out you have misunderstood it, or any number of things might happen

But, if all you do is just shoot off your opinion, anyone can do that. And what is really annoying is someone shooting off the mouth, as it were, by someone who is so full of himself they really think they are the cat's pajamas, that they know what they are talking about, but they give little clues that the do not know what they are talking about, and that, like I just wrote, that's annoying. Now, I realize I myself am no doubt annoying to others when I'm miffed at annoyance, but sometimes I can't help myself. Bear with me. I always say humility goes a long way. If I make a longwinded vacuous claim, some unsubstantiated something or other, some wild assertion, in order to be humble, I might preface it with, ' I should think it would be true that......" or "Wouldn't you agree that....." or something like that. See? Be humble, don't be full of yourself. Hey, if you got a PHD on the subject, trot it out, and we will defer to your wisdom, I mean, if you have hard credentials, you have earned the right to make bold statements, but if you don't, humility goes a long way. Just sayin'. My guess is that you are not a Phd. You don't write like someone who has that kind of academic achievement.

By the way, crank, how old are you? (ballpark, if you don't mind my asking)

Perhaps, maybe, I'm saying, like, if you really want to debate this thing, how about upping your game, hmmm?

Back up your words, do some research, find some links, find some sources that corroborate your assertions. Do some work.

You game?

Crank?

 

1) Plenty. I've lived and worked with it my entire adult life, and travelled and lived in other societies and cultures, where I made comparisons and did research etc. And no, the Welfare State absolutely DOES NOT dispense with the non-genuine. It REWARDS the non-genuine. That's the damned problem. People like your brother suffer, because the non-genuine are absorbing all the resources.

2) I'm talking about the theoretical (better!) model, as proposed.

3) Cool. I love a sloppy dialogue!

4) Okee dokes then. If it helps to regard me as rustic, you should do that!

5) Older than dirt (actually mid 50's). Why?

 

I'm 70.

The problem, Crank, is bigness.

Governments are big, solving problems is not easy. Poverty is a veritable quagmire.

Bad people, no matter how well thought out the plan, are going to game the system.

In America, getting welfare (SSI) isn't that easy, unless you are a poor woman with few skills but with children and have few prospects.

If you are handicapped, SSI isn't that easy, either. It took my brother 3 months and the amount he gets is not enough to live on.

We do our best, that doesn't mean we don't strive to do better, but simplistic solutions do not impress me.

When you say the non-genuine are living on the dole, you are giving the impression that they are the majority in the system,
and I doubt that is true. There will always be a few that game the system, but I don't think your characterization is accurate. In America, 80% of the SSI budget goes to the handicapped, and that's not a bad accomplishment, in my book.

Simplistic thinking, especially when it's not well thought out, doesn't inspire me, that you are really onto something.

But, you know the old saying, you don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

You think you can do better if you were in charge?

I don't love sloppy dialog. I loathe mushy minds.

If you can manage, I would appreciate your sharpening your focus.

This idea that indiscriminate shrinking budgets is going to rid the system of cheats doesn't strike me as a well thought out proposition, so I question your credentials, it doesn't sound like someone someone who is educated on the subject, or real experienced in the industry would. It sounds more like something a simplistic ideologically driven republican would think of, given that it is indiscriminate (because republicans are typically more concerned with the budget size than what the program can do), though perhaps a moderate republican.

 

So what does the Biden administration plan to do with the inevitable coming wave of evictions does he have a plan for this at all? Cuz it turns out if you make eviction illegal or a moratorium on it turns out there will be a percentage of scumbags who will simply skate by for free and of course it hurts the rest of the honest people or what are you going to do about it?

 

1) Yes, bigness is why we can't possibly - not even in a fantasy world - cater to individual preferences and situations. There are seven billion of us, and counting. The only way that can be managed is via solid parameters for behaviour. Pin the rules up where everyone can see them, and let the chips fall where they may. Those who choose not to follow the rules can't say they weren't warned.

2) Where did you get the idea that it would be easy? Writing the rules is easy, individuals choosing to adhere to them is not. And the fallout from failure to follow the rules will be extremely not easy. But the justice is there in the fact that those determined to survive, can choose to do so - and will receive all the help they need.

3) Remove the cash from the system and far FAR fewer will game the system.

4) The disabled (and elderly and young), when without family support via no choice of their own, should have maximum support. When the gamers are removed, this becomes possible.

5) You think it would be 'simple' for people who've grown used to not playing by the rules, to suddenly have to toe the line? I don't.

6) I'm saying those in receceipt of benefits who are not physically disabled or brain injured, are gaming the system if they're been in receipt of benefits for longer than about twelve months. If you're not elderly or disabled, benefits are a pathway out of poverty - not a career.

7) Not me personally, no. It's an economic model and philosophy, not a personal talent.

8 ) Your perception of a sloppy mind is apparently quite different to mine. Dexterity and insight are more important than language, IMO. I won't ignore the potential genius of the peasant, because he doesn't have the benefit of a posh education. But hey, you do you!

9) Any change MUST be indiscriminate. To demand especial individual consideration for those lucky enough to have been born to the richest peoples and societies on earth, is grotesque. Let's remember that number again ... seven billion.

 

That solution well, It will effect everyone, far fewer people in need won't get helped, which is more than 99% ( given that cheats only comprise a fraction one percent) and since they are, by far, the greater number, your solution will affect those in need far more than those who game the system. Your premise isn't even logical -- it arises from your lack of knowledge.

this argument rises and falls on the efficacy of your solution, which is not a solution.

I've said no such thing. The degree of difficulty or ease of getting SSI is the same for everyone.

Per the SSA, "Social Security, along with the Office of the Inspector General, identifies and aggressively prosecutes those who commit fraud. Our zero tolerance approach has resulted in a fraud incidence rate that is a fraction of one percent."

Methinks you are seeing a problem where it has pretty much been solved. A fraction of one percent is a pretty good stat.

I'm referring to the words you choose here on this forum. Dexterity is irrelevant to that point, and 'insight', not seeing much coming from you.

"genius of the peasant?' what in hell are you talking about and what does that have to do with the topic? Not very insightful, I'd say.

Your comment in #8, exemplifies precisely my point, your verbiage wanders, you give in to irrelevance, you go off point, your ideas aren't well thought out, and are often simplistic.

In short, you really sound like you do not know what you are talking about.

Another example of a poorly thought out sentence.

The first sentence is nonsense. It's a broad absolute statement and completely meaningless.

The second sentence refers to affluent persons which is off point, we haven't been discussing the plight of the affluent. If you want to bring up the affluent, what points would you like to address? But, don't just randomly go astray and toss off topic ideas into the subject at hand.

 

Welfare FRAUD has nothing to do with Welfare ABUSE. They're two entirely different things. Abuse is rife, fraud is minimal. How you have confused the two is a mystery, but I'm guessing it's lack of ammo.

Meantime, the rest of your post tells me I'm working 100 paces ahead of you.

 

Democrats create a problem the expect government to fix it with central control. The sheep follow obediently.

 

OP wouldn’t be supporting this if he was a landlord. It’s funny how libs try to tell other people how to live
It’s also very typical

 

So again I ask, what is Biden's plan for the coming mass of evictions?

 

They have great ideas about pay, until they have to pay!!!