Population Explosion and How to Fix It

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198

It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.

You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.

Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.[/quote]

Well done. Good use of hyperbole. The problem is that your theories were debunked in the 40’s with game theory and the fall of laissez faire economics. History is on my side, especially recent history. I would be willing to concede you points if you were willing to assign the same level of accountability to corporate bad actors as you are to individuals. I would also be willing to concede you points if you agreed that we should quit spending more than all other industrialized nations combined on military spending; especially when huge portions of the defense budget are spent on equipment designed to fight countries in conventional warfare. Before you go down the â??youâ??re unpatrioticâ?? route, know that I spent 10 years in service and loved every moment of it. That doesnâ??t mean I think spending 2 billion on a Stealth fighter will little current world application is a good idea.

Also, you still haven’t answered any of my criticisms of your theories. Calling me names, while entertaining and damn near poetic, doesn’t answer the question of how do we stop spending money on other people’s irresponsibility. Your ideas will only manage to squeeze air from one end of the balloon to another. You cannot give me one example of how to eliminate current public programs without creating another crisis. There are plenty of examples of knee-jerk legislation with mountains of unintended consequences. Take the State of Coloradoâ??s legislation in 2006 that was designed to be tough on illegal aliens. The law required anyone applying for public assistance to show proof of citizenship, which included birth certificates or passports. Besides creating a market for forgery, it also caught a large number of mentally ill people in its net who simply did not know how to go about getting such documents. Another example is Californiaâ??s three strikes law. This law, designed to be tough on repeat violent offenders resulted in the state spending $30K a year warehousing petty repeat offenders that were a threat to nobody but themselves, e.g. possessory offenders.

Here are some examples of good programs that work. One comes from that bastion of liberal thought, the great State of Texas. See Texas was spending 8 cents of every State dollar on incarceration, which most people would agree is not a great way to spend money. The State created a system of 50 “diversion courts” in which Judges had great flexibility and latitude on sentencing. Also, individuals were required to appear before these judges on a weekly basis, informally, and give an account of their activities. A study done shortly after the program’s inception demonstrated that for every dollar the State spent on this program, it was getting nine dollars back in reduced recidivism and decreased bed space in the penal system.

Another example, a DA in Colorado that I know, created a heavy equipment training program in a few of his jails. Rates of recidivism without the program were 50 percent at 3 years, and 75 percent in 5 years. Recidivism in the program was 25 percent.

I apologize to the thread for my hubris yesterday. I donâ??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up. I am not a defender of the status quo and I think good ideas come from all sides. What I donâ??t subscribe to is simplistic solutions to complicated problems that simply donâ??t work in a society that values personal freedom and compassion.

OK, discuss.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.

[quote]TQB wrote:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.[/quote]

What a modest proposal…

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
I donâ??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.
[/quote]

Intriguing.

As an aside, what exactly, in your own words is a “neo-con” and who in this forum exemplifies that title?

Just trying to get some perspective here. Thanks.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:

I donâ??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.
[/quote]

Are you aware of what “neo-conservative” actually means? I don’t think there are many of them here.

OK.

This country was founded on the basis of personal freedom. Compassion is a personal choice, while using tax dollars collected from all for what some have decided is compassionate is theft, not to mention impossible without coercion.

I’m not suggesting that collective social insurance is wrong, merely that it is a personal choice to take part in such a system, so using tax dollars is immoral if even one taxpayer does not support such spending.

[quote]SteelyD wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I don�?�¢??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.

Intriguing.

As an aside, what exactly, in your own words is a “neo-con” and who in this forum exemplifies that title?

Just trying to get some perspective here. Thanks.[/quote]

Neo-con is actually a term that has been bastardized a little over the years. It started as a term Bush conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz used to describe themselves. They were fiscal conservatives that wanted to break from the social conservatives ruled by the likes of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority of the Reagan/Bush 1 era.

I use the term more like it is used today, meaning hyper-conservative. These are people that are a little schizophrenic between libertarian ideals (keep the government out of my business) and social conservatives that like to legislate morality. Sometimes this legislation comes in the form of financial pressure, i.e. withhold money from programs you find morally repugnant. Other times it comes by way of withholding privileges like marriage or adoption.

As to who on this forum fits the bill, Maximus and Gregus seem to fall into this category. Again, I am using the term as it is most used in the common vernacular.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I don�??�?�¢??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.

Intriguing.

As an aside, what exactly, in your own words is a “neo-con” and who in this forum exemplifies that title?

Just trying to get some perspective here. Thanks.

Neo-con is actually a term that has been bastardized a little over the years. It started as a term Bush conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz used to describe themselves. They were fiscal conservatives that wanted to break from the social conservatives ruled by the likes of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority of the Reagan/Bush 1 era.

I use the term more like it is used today, meaning hyper-conservative. These are people that are a little schizophrenic between libertarian ideals (keep the government out of my business) and social conservatives that like to legislate morality. Sometimes this legislation comes in the form of financial pressure, i.e. withhold money from programs you find morally repugnant. Other times it comes by way of withholding privileges like marriage or adoption.

As to who on this forum fits the bill, Maximus and Gregus seem to fall into this category. Again, I am using the term as it is most used in the common vernacular.
[/quote]

I was under the impression that what most distinguished neo-conversatives was willingness to use military power to spread American ideals abroad. I would call what you described a true conservative, both fiscally and socially.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:

I don�¢??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.

Are you aware of what “neo-conservative” actually means? I don’t think there are many of them here.

What I don�¢??t subscribe to is simplistic solutions to complicated problems that simply don�¢??t work in a society that values personal freedom and compassion.

OK, discuss.

OK.

This country was founded on the basis of personal freedom. Compassion is a personal choice, while using tax dollars collected from all for what some have decided is compassionate is theft, not to mention impossible without coercion.

I’m not suggesting that collective social insurance is wrong, merely that it is a personal choice to take part in such a system, so using tax dollars is immoral if even one taxpayer does not support such spending.[/quote]

Replace the word â??compassionâ?? with enlightened self-interest. The reason we create safety nets is primarily for the unpredictable. While I am an able-bodied worker now with means to pay my obligations; that could change for reasons beyond my control. Our current recession is a good example of that. Many of those approaching retirement age today were Depression era children who did exactly what they should have done. They worked hard, put away their pennies, and invested. What they could not have accounted for was a collapse of the financial market that created a vortex sucking the life out of the economy.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
SteelyD wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
I don�??�?�¢??t post much in this forum, but I do notice that neo-cons rule, so I wanted to have a little fun and get some people riled up.

Intriguing.

As an aside, what exactly, in your own words is a “neo-con” and who in this forum exemplifies that title?

Just trying to get some perspective here. Thanks.

Neo-con is actually a term that has been bastardized a little over the years. It started as a term Bush conservatives like Paul Wolfowitz used to describe themselves. They were fiscal conservatives that wanted to break from the social conservatives ruled by the likes of Jerry Falwell and the Moral Majority of the Reagan/Bush 1 era.

I use the term more like it is used today, meaning hyper-conservative. These are people that are a little schizophrenic between libertarian ideals (keep the government out of my business) and social conservatives that like to legislate morality. Sometimes this legislation comes in the form of financial pressure, i.e. withhold money from programs you find morally repugnant. Other times it comes by way of withholding privileges like marriage or adoption.
[/quote]

Interesting. I wouldn’t lump ‘libertarian’ (small L) in with neo-con. I think ‘conservative’ has lost its meaning in the language.

I would generally equate ‘neo-con’ with “Republican” (capital ‘R’, ie the Party). The Left has won the language-war in that they’ve managed to equate “social conservative” with ‘conservative’. George W. Bush, a fiscal liberal (proven by his record) and social conservative fits the bill-- essentially socially conservative Democrats – (which I believe the modern Republican Party has become) Newt Gingrich, maybe not so much. Ron Paul, DEFININETLY not a ‘neo-con’, but some would consider ‘hyper-conservative’ (or, libertarian). For the record, I don’t think ‘Maximus’ fits the ‘neo-con’ label. I haven’t really followed ‘Gregus’ post to know.

All-- sorry for the hijack, but we can’t have a conversation unless we’re speaking the same terms.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:

Replace the word â??compassionâ?? with enlightened self-interest. The reason we create safety nets is primarily for the unpredictable. While I am an able-bodied worker now with means to pay my obligations; that could change for reasons beyond my control. Our current recession is a good example of that. Many of those approaching retirement age today were Depression era children who did exactly what they should have done. They worked hard, put away their pennies, and invested. What they could not have accounted for was a collapse of the financial market that created a vortex sucking the life out of the economy. [/quote]

I agree:

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
I’m not suggesting that collective social insurance is wrong, merely that it is a personal choice to take part in such a system
[/quote]

There is great survival benefit to collective arrangements such as social insurance, but a legitimate collective must be voluntary. I am well within my rights to go it alone, even if it may not be the best choice in the long run.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198

It’s your brand of brain dead pseudo compassionate ivory tower snobbery that has been financing the downfall of this nation since the 60’s.

You think you are so morally exalted with your unfettered willingness to spend other people’s money on other’s people’s lack of responsibility when all you ever accomplish is an endless whirlpool of dehumanizing spirit crushing dependence with all the horrors of crime and abuse that accompanies it.

Go whack yourself off to your 7th grade text book some more. It probably has a g-string centerfold of LBJ in it.

Well done. Good use of hyperbole. The problem is that your theories were debunked in the 40’s with game theory and the fall of laissez faire economics. [/quote]

Actually according to modern economics the poor people you are using to prop up your case would have been better off sans socialist intervention.

So the great depression is a great example for the argument. BUT itâ??s a great example of how wrong you are.

While the public may agree with you about spending money on jails, itâ??s because the public is stupid. Statistically speaking, spending money on prisons is one of the most effective methods of crime prevention.

There is actually a whole chapter on it in the book freakanomics. It works better than more cops, or rehabilitation programs or most of the other things that have been tried.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/ ï?? it will change your mind about a lot of things.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198

Actually according to modern economics the poor people you are using to prop up your case would have been better off sans socialist intervention.

So the great depression is a great example for the argument. BUT itâ??s a great example of how wrong you are.

While the public may agree with you about spending money on jails, itâ??s because the public is stupid. Statistically speaking, spending money on prisons is one of the most effective methods of crime prevention.

There is actually a whole chapter on it in the book freakanomics. It works better than more cops, or rehabilitation programs or most of the other things that have been tried.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/ ï?? it will change your mind about a lot of things.

I will see your URL and up you one:

The gist of this article is that the numbers reached by your UCLA economists were reached by not counting as employed those working in workfare programs. Sometimes the question is not whether something will work itself out without government intervention, but rather at what cost will the problem work itself out. If your house catches on fire, the fire will eventually go out without the fire department doing anything, but at what expense? It may even end faster if for example a gas main catches and blows your house to splinters. The programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance that were born out of the Great Depression were never designed to be an end-all. They were designed to be a stop gap, because 1 in 20 people were homeless, and 1 in 4 were without work. As to prisons being a great deterrent for crime, Freakonomics or not, good luck finding a DA who will endorse that idea. That said, locking up violent offenders is a must. They have violated the public trust and cannot be aloud to live in society for security reasons. This does not mean that we should stop looking for ways to prevent crime in the first place and in the second place look for ways to lower recidivism.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
@ pwrlifter198

Actually according to modern economics the poor people you are using to prop up your case would have been better off sans socialist intervention.

So the great depression is a great example for the argument. BUT it�?�¢??s a great example of how wrong you are.

While the public may agree with you about spending money on jails, it�?�¢??s because the public is stupid. Statistically speaking, spending money on prisons is one of the most effective methods of crime prevention.

There is actually a whole chapter on it in the book freakanomics. It works better than more cops, or rehabilitation programs or most of the other things that have been tried.

http://freakonomicsbook.com/ �?�¯?? it will change your mind about a lot of things.

I will see your URL and up you one:

The gist of this article is that the numbers reached by your UCLA economists were reached by not counting as employed those working in workfare programs. Sometimes the question is not whether something will work itself out without government intervention, but rather at what cost will the problem work itself out. If your house catches on fire, the fire will eventually go out without the fire department doing anything, but at what expense? It may even end faster if for example a gas main catches and blows your house to splinters. The programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance that were born out of the Great Depression were never designed to be an end-all. They were designed to be a stop gap, because 1 in 20 people were homeless, and 1 in 4 were without work. As to prisons being a great deterrent for crime, Freakonomics or not, good luck finding a DA who will endorse that idea. That said, locking up violent offenders is a must. They have violated the public trust and cannot be aloud to live in society for security reasons. This does not mean that we should stop looking for ways to prevent crime in the first place and in the second place look for ways to lower recidivism.

[/quote]

That article doesn’t really refute the points of the UCLA study. It says, basically that they can’t claim that the depression would have ended sooner without the new deal because “sadly we will never know”. Then claim the new deal improved the situation, based on… wait for it… election results. Bush got re-elected, I guess that means what he did in he second term was great for the country. That’s some pretty lousy logic.

I’m going to go with the UCLA study versus an article that uses the popularity of a political figure to “prove” economic theory.

As for prisons being a great crime deterrent, the fact that DAs don’t endorse it makes no difference. They won’t endorse it because of politics. It isn’t popular. It does however work. Point here being, it’s a proven method of crime prevention and not a stupid way to spend money, even if it’s unpopular. So your point about Texas misusing funds is off the mark.

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Well done. Good use of hyperbole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Now discuss >>>
[/quote]

I have made my views clearly known all over this board. I’m not rehashing it again for yet another thoroughly lost bookworm.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Well done. Good use of hyperbole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Now discuss >>>

I have made my views clearly known all over this board. I’m not rehashing it again for yet another thoroughly lost bookworm.[/quote]

You’re right, I am a bookworm, if by that you mean I am not afraid to read a book for fear I may be infected by the information. Iâ??ll also put my life experiences next to yours or anyone elseâ??s on this thread. I have given concrete examples of programs that work, and of ones that had bad outcomes. You have insulted me personally without knowing the first thing about me except that I disagree with you.

[quote]tom8658 wrote:
TQB wrote:
I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled.

What a modest proposal…[/quote]

Well spotted, Sir

[quote]pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Well done. Good use of hyperbole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Now discuss >>>

I have made my views clearly known all over this board. I’m not rehashing it again for yet another thoroughly lost bookworm.

You’re right, I am a bookworm, if by that you mean I am not afraid to read a book for fear I may be infected by the information. Iâ??ll also put my life experiences next to yours or anyone elseâ??s on this thread. I have given concrete examples of programs that work, and of ones that had bad outcomes. You have insulted me personally without knowing the first thing about me except that I disagree with you. [/quote]

Your recommendation of a modern 7th grade textbook for reliable information told me everything I’ll ever need to know. You’re a walking academic tragedy. So cocksure and confident in your towering erudition while the whole of reality wails it’s opposition. Keep talking about programs chief. That’s where it’s at.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Well done. Good use of hyperbole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Now discuss >>>

I have made my views clearly known all over this board. I’m not rehashing it again for yet another thoroughly lost bookworm.

You’re right, I am a bookworm, if by that you mean I am not afraid to read a book for fear I may be infected by the information. IÃ??Ã?¢??ll also put my life experiences next to yours or anyone elseÃ??Ã?¢??s on this thread. I have given concrete examples of programs that work, and of ones that had bad outcomes. You have insulted me personally without knowing the first thing about me except that I disagree with you.

Your recommendation of a modern 7th grade textbook for reliable information told me everything I’ll ever need to know. You’re a walking academic tragedy. So cocksure and confident in your towering erudition while the whole of reality wails it’s opposition. Keep talking about programs chief. That’s where it’s at.
[/quote]

OK cock-knocker, now here’s what I know about you. You have so much free time on your hands that you’ve managed to post over 7,500 times on T-Nation, the sum of which amount to one giant elephant fart. You’re also easily stumped. Nobody else was confused with the 7th grade text reference. The inference was that by the time you’re in the 7th grade you ought to know better than to spout the kind of simplistic crap that passes for debate on this forum of mindless chatter. Your last post is the third time you’ve insulted me for possessing any level of intellectual curiosity, all the while pontificating in blistering prose.

You strike me as the bully in school who beat up the kid with glasses, because he was smarter than you were. The problem you have here is that you can’t bully me for a number of reasons, one being I spend most of the time you’re on this site in the gym. By the way, the reason youâ??re so frustrated and have that sickening knot in the pit of your stomach is that you and those who think like you are sinking into obscure irrelevancy like all those before you who clung with utter desperation to the status quo because they were unable or unwilling to adapt.

I’m always amazed by hyper-conservatives and their Herculean grasp on the painfully obvious, i.e. if everyone would act responsibly, the world would be a better place. Congratulations on your ability to point out what my 15 month old son could figure out. You know what would end povertyâ?¦ thermo-nuclear war or the plague. That doesn’t mean I’m wishing for that shit to happen. Also, I could save money by moving my family from a house to a four-person tent, but that also is not going to happen. The moral of my diatribe is that the ends don’t justify the means. If solving problems comes at the expense of a host of people enduring unthinkable misery, then it is the job of those who can, to quit being intellectually lazy and think of a better way.

Many of these posters rant as if there was a day long ago when unmarried women didn’t have children so the government devised a program to incentivize out-of-wedlock child bearing. Or perhaps there was a day when everyone had a job and were able to feed their families on a single income, but Uncle Sam created welfare to give people a reason not to work. Am I taking crazy pills or are some of the posters here simply so awestruck by Limbaugh, Oâ??Reilly, and Hannity that they are afraid to go off-script? In either case, Iâ??m bored and Iâ??m out. Peace.

Hmm… pretty sure I know the fallibility of man. Liberals have a much more utopian vision, and that is why they are so naive and dangerously destructive.

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
pwrlifter198 wrote:
<<< Well done. Good use of hyperbole. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<< Now discuss >>>

I have made my views clearly known all over this board. I’m not rehashing it again for yet another thoroughly lost bookworm.

You’re right, I am a bookworm, if by that you mean I am not afraid to read a book for fear I may be infected by the information. IÃ?¢??ll also put my life experiences next to yours or anyone elseÃ?¢??s on this thread. I have given concrete examples of programs that work, and of ones that had bad outcomes. You have insulted me personally without knowing the first thing about me except that I disagree with you.

Your recommendation of a modern 7th grade textbook for reliable information told me everything I’ll ever need to know. You’re a walking academic tragedy. So cocksure and confident in your towering erudition while the whole of reality wails it’s opposition. Keep talking about programs chief. That’s where it’s at.
[/quote]

Also, I’m not an academic anything. I spent six years of my young adult life jumping out of airplanes, carrying an M-16. I earned my degrees while working full-time in the military and then not until I was in my thirties. I have seen with my own eyes, your ideas in practice, so I don’t have to imagine anything.