John Stossel, "Freeloaders"

[Bob]

Although he's a bit ideological with his libertarianism, this is a good series. Follow the links to see all the videos. I caught this a few days ago on Fox News.

[Michael Hardner]

Although he's a bit ideological with his libertarianism, this is a good series. Follow the links to see all the videos. I caught this a few days ago on Fox News.

"Lots of America's beggars are not needy"...

How many ?

One could make that claim at any time in history but if that's the metric we use to decide whether to have social services or not, then we basically draw the line and wait for revolution to happen. This is what happened the last time libertarian was tried - Marxism was the result.

[Bob]

"Lots of America's beggars are not needy"...

How many ?

One could make that claim at any time in history but if that's the metric we use to decide whether to have social services or not, then we basically draw the line and wait for revolution to happen. This is what happened the last time libertarian was tried - Marxism was the result.

If you'd simply pay attention to the video, you'd realize he's not specifically talking about social services being available to the poor via the government. Actually, he makes no mention of that - you brought that up. He's simply referring to cash handouts that people give to beggars in the street. If the reward of free money for begging in the street was removed, perhaps these people would be more inclined to seek work.

I know this is certainly true in Jerusalem, as I see the same beggars in the same places all the time. I also admit to giving them money. It's because Jerusalem is always filled with tourists, and there is a lot of free money to be had by looking miserable and begging for money in high-traffic tourist areas. If people stopped giving them money, the reward for begging would be removed.

As far as Stossel's recommendations, he seems to be in agreement with the lady that states it is better to give money to trustworthy organizations than to beggars in the street. I think it's quite obvious that many people who beg shouldn't be begging. In Ottawa I saw it all the time - twenty-somethings begging for money and "squeegee kids". It was really pathetic.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

If you'd simply pay attention to the video, you'd realize he's not specifically talking about social services being available to the poor via the government. Actually, he makes no mention of that - you brought that up. He's simply referring to cash handouts that people give to beggars in the street. If the reward of free money for begging in the street was removed, perhaps these people would be more inclined to seek work.

So what ? It's still just story telling and nothing based on numbers, or facts.

Yes, if you put beggars in jail, that's the logical next step for the clamp down. I agree with that much.

As far as Stossel's recommendations, he seems to be in agreement with the lady that states it is better to give money to trustworthy organizations than to beggars in the street. I think it's quite obvious that many people who beg shouldn't be begging. In Ottawa I saw it all the time - twenty-somethings begging for money and "squeegee kids". It was really pathetic.

I would be in favour of that, if we all agreed to increase the level of intelligence of the discussion. Hidden cameras following select beggars around isn't helpful to the discussion - all it proves is that there is a least one person out there who is making a decent living at it.

[Bob]

So what ? It's still just story telling and nothing based on numbers, or facts.

Yes, if you put beggars in jail, that's the logical next step for the clamp down. I agree with that much.

I would be in favour of that, if we all agreed to increase the level of intelligence of the discussion. Hidden cameras following select beggars around isn't helpful to the discussion - all it proves is that there is a least one person out there who is making a decent living at it.

Ever consider the fact that some numbers are difficult to collect? You think Stossel spoke with fifty beggars and only selected the one exception in order to misrepresent the situation? Get real. Stop acting so ultra-scientific, we're dealing with social phenomenons here, which are inherently difficult to quantify. I completely accept Stossel's position, because it is completely compatible with my own personal experience at broad and narrow levels.

Who the hell ever mentioned putting homeless people in jail? The reality is that the homeless people are there because it pays better than jobs they could find, and/or it's simply much easier than jobs they could find. That's the point.

If you've got something specific from the series of videos to comment on or challenge, go for it. I think the point Stossel's making is quite simple and quite legitimate.

[Michael Hardner]

Ever consider the fact that some numbers are difficult to collect?

No.

I do consider the fact that the same governments that do the cuts, also like to cut the statistic gathering so that there's no evidence tying them to the crime.

You think Stossel spoke with fifty beggars and only selected the one exception in order to misrepresent the situation?

No, I don't think they spoke to 50 beggars and that's the point. They found one and did a story on them. Who knows how many there are ?

Get real. Stop acting so ultra-scientific, we're dealing with social phenomenons here, which are inherently difficult to quantify. I completely accept Stossel's position, because it is completely compatible with my own personal experience at broad and narrow levels.

Poppycock. Difficult to quantify so we should examine the problem via Fox news hit pieces ?

Seriously.

If you've got something specific from the series of videos to comment on or challenge, go for it. I think the point Stossel's making is quite simple and quite legitimate.

Simple yes. There are people who rip off the system. Big deal. The right has been bleating about this for years.

[Bob]

No.

I do consider the fact that the same governments that do the cuts, also like to cut the statistic gathering so that there's no evidence tying them to the crime.

No, I don't think they spoke to 50 beggars and that's the point. They found one and did a story on them. Who knows how many there are ?

Poppycock. Difficult to quantify so we should examine the problem via Fox news hit pieces ?

Seriously.

Simple yes. There are people who rip off the system. Big deal. The right has been bleating about this for years.

"Fox News hit piece"? Are you serious? Can you make it any more obvious that you didn't watch the videos? Don't waste more time in here unless you actually watch the videos. There's nothing outrageous in there, at all. If you've got a specific point you want to address, go for it. Otherwise save yourself the energy of ranting about nothing.

[Michael Hardner]

"Fox News hit piece"? Are you serious? Can you make it any more obvious that you didn't watch the videos? Don't waste more time in here unless you actually watch the videos. There's nothing outrageous in there, at all. If you've got a specific point you want to address, go for it. Otherwise save yourself the energy of ranting about nothing.

Videos ? There is 1 video linked, and I watched the first few minutes only.

Yes, there is something outrageous - the premise that a single anecdote means anything at all.

I'll be fair and watch the last few minutes now to see what happens at the end.

[Michael Hardner]

So part 4 looked like it was about Government Subsidies.

In any case, the video format doesn't allow for a reasonable evaluation of problems. It's all just shock value, so I reject it.

[Bob]

It's not "shock value", at all. If you suffer from ADD and are unable to watch any video longer than a few minutes, that's fine. But you're continuing to talk about videos you haven't watched. It's ridiculous. John Stossel is hardly just some ridiculous journalist that you can just write off. It's clear you haven't come to this thread to contribute anything. Spare me your little "anecdotes don't equal science" argumentation. We've seen it before, and not every thread can be turned into a game of statistics. You're acting like you just discovered the scientific method and can no longer evaluate anything based on experience and intuition, anymore.

Edited April 6, 2011 by Bob

[Michael Hardner]

It's not "shock value", at all.

If you suffer from ADD and are unable to watch any video longer than a few minutes, that's fine. But you're continuing to talk about videos you haven't watched. It's ridiculous.

If you can't make an argument in writing, then the argument is pretty much worthless. I have never heard anybody try to claim that a television-based argument is a valid way to make a broader argument of any kind. I have never heard a reluctance to watch TV characterized as ADD.

You have no idea how interesting this discussion is to me.

[Bob]

So here you are, still posting, and still not saying anything specific about the videos posted. Rather, you just babble about generalities (i.e. "Fox News hit piece") and ask for "evidence" to disprove claims that weren't even made in the videos - which you'd have known had you actually watched the videos prior to commenting.

[Bob]

So part 4 looked like it was about Government Subsidies.

In any case, the video format doesn't allow for a reasonable evaluation of problems. It's all just shock value, so I reject it.

Right, which have nothing at all to do with the first part regarding panhandlers. Perhaps you need some medication for your ADD so that you might have the patience to actually watch a full twenty minutes of video before running back in here to comment on something you haven't watched.

[Pliny]

"Lots of America's beggars are not needy"...

How many ?

One could make that claim at any time in history but if that's the metric we use to decide whether to have social services or not, then we basically draw the line and wait for revolution to happen. This is what happened the last time libertarian was tried - Marxism was the result.

Where was libertarianism tried? The closest thing to it was probably under Andrew Jackson in the States.

Oh....I see, the US is a Marxist State....I read ya!

[Pliny]

I liked the videos, thanks Bob!

[Michael Hardner]

So here you are, still posting, and still not saying anything specific about the videos posted. Rather, you just babble about generalities (i.e. "Fox News hit piece") and ask for "evidence" to disprove claims that weren't even made in the videos - which you'd have known had you actually watched the videos prior to commenting.

As I said, I watched the first few minutes and the last minute or so. I didn't watch the whole thing.

[Michael Hardner]

Right, which have nothing at all to do with the first part regarding panhandlers. Perhaps you need some medication for your ADD so that you might have the patience to actually watch a full twenty minutes of video before running back in here to comment on something you haven't watched.

Ok. Here's my comment - there are fake panhandlers out there.

I am not on any medication.

I am not under any obligation to watch 20 minutes of video. I can counter any point made with facts.

The fact is that the wealthiest Americans (where the video was made) are doing better and better, and seeing their tax rates lower and this has been happening since the 1950s. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, so the priority of government should be to move to restore the balance between rich and poor. It doesn't have to be the same rich-poor gap that existed in the 1950s... the 1960s or 1970s would be fine with me.

[Michael Hardner]

Where was libertarianism tried? The closest thing to it was probably under Andrew Jackson in the States.

Oh....I see, the US is a Marxist State....I read ya!

These things happened worldwide in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

[Pliny]

These things happened worldwide in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Governments of course felt they wanted a piece of the action.

The gap between rich and poor has widened because governments have disappeared?? We have only had our health care system since 1967. The government has waged war on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and the gap widens. Government does not get it's revenues from the poor. Who do you think they will favour? Government, at all levels, national, provincial and municipal, takes 50% of most peoples income. And your idea that it is increasingly from the poor is misguided. The basic claim on your income tax rises just about every year. Corporate income taxes, do only contribute about, if I recall correctly, 3% of the total and have always done so. The middle class is where the bulk of taxes come from. Increase them, in the form of fines, fees, tolls on public services such as transit, parking, utilities, water, inflation, etc., and the lower margin, those on low and fixed incomes are pauperized.

I think you really have to take a look at what constitutes the essence of "help". Most people on the street have already been "helped" and know that you can't help them but you do have things you can provide for them. For the most part, they don't want your "help". They have been down that road and discovered only a pretense of understanding and ultimately a betrayal. Especially, if it is your "job" to help them. If it is your job then you don't really give a crap and your paycheque is more important to you than they are. Their importance is one of utility to your standard of living. They understand that.

They are at the point where true help to them means they become more efficient at being bums. They are sick and tired of the usual kind of "help". They have no friends, except others on the street, who don't want friends trying to "help" them. They will take what you give and ask for more but they know that "help" obligates them. Better that "help" come from someone whose job it is than someone they might have an obligation to, especially those religious nuts. Who wants help from them? You become obligated to listen to what they consider, bullshit. When you are really bottomed out maybe you'll tolerate them.

The world was supposed to come to an end with welfare reform in the US in the nineties. There were going to be millions starving in the street. All manner of social calamity would result. It didn't happen.

So what can one do to help? Basically, get the co-operation of thoise in need helping someone else. You seem to get a certain satisfaction out of what you think you are doing - advocating for the "help" of the poor. It gives you a sense of worth and self-esteem. I'm a mean right-winger and you are a socially concerned citizen. Don't you think those people on the street would like to be like you and really enjoy the opportunity to help someone else?

I would like to help as well. But I don't want to help by strenghtening your idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It isn't help in any sense of the word. People remain on welfare because help failed them not because they are needy. If help were real it would extract them from need.

You say the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. And then you argue it the other way. Government programs have really helped. Which is it, Michael? Government is helping or not? Who are they helping - you - you can feel better about yourself and I can be an inconsiderate, hard-nosed, greedy right wing capitalist. Screw that idea!

Edited April 7, 2011 by Pliny

[Michael Hardner]

The gap between rich and poor has widened because governments have disappeared.

Are you admitting what I think you're admitting ?

We have only had our health care system since 1967. The government has waged war on poverty, illiteracy, drugs, Iraq, Afghanistan, Serbia, and the gap widens.

Not exactly. The war on poverty in the US was a success.

So what can one do to help? Basically, get their co-operation in helping someone else. You seem to get a certain satisfaction out of what you think you are doing - advocating for the "help" of the poor. It gives you a sense of worth and self-esteem. I'm a mean right-winger and you are a socially concerned citizen. Don't you think those people on the street would like to be like you and really enjoy the opportunity to help someone else?

I'm not helping anybody, I'm stating an opinion.

I would like to help as well. But I don't want to help by strenghtening your idea of robbing Peter to pay Paul. It isn't help in any sense of the word. People remain on welfare because help failed them not because they are needy. If help were real it would extract them from need.

I believe that this is true, but if you want real help for them how much will it cost?

[Bob]

The fact is that the wealthiest Americans (where the video was made) are doing better and better, and seeing their tax rates lower and this has been happening since the 1950s. The gap between rich and poor continues to widen, so the priority of government should be to move to restore the balance between rich and poor. It doesn't have to be the same rich-poor gap that existed in the 1950s... the 1960s or 1970s would be fine with me.

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the video. I see you're succeeding in derailing the thread into irrelevant topics by baiting Pliny.

Pliny, take a moment to consider that nothing Michael Hardner has stated has anything to do with the videos posted. Also consider that without even watching the videos, which are pure common sense from a stand-up journalist like John Stossel, were immediately written off by Michael Hardner as a "Fox News hit piece". What was "hit", exactly? Only Michael knows.

[Bob]

I am not under any obligation to watch 20 minutes of video. I can counter any point made with facts.

You're certainly under no obligation to watch anything. One would expect you to actually watch the video rather than address "points" that were never made. You watched a few minutes of the video, by your own admission, and then your ADD prohibited you from being able to complete the video. You then proceeded to come in here and ramble about "social services", which have nothing to do with the original video posted. You're just reaching and pulling things out of thin air, which instantly reveals to anyone that has watched these videos that you HAVE NOT watched the videos. Don't you see how ridiculous your comments are? Your building strawman after strawman, it's so pathetic.

Watch the videos, I'm sure they won't hurt you. Or, feel free to continue to posting irrelevant tangents without watching the videos. Perhaps after fifty random posts you may accidentally stumble on a perspective that actually was a part of the videos.

[Pliny]

The war on poverty in the US was a success.

There's that side of your argument, and the other side is the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer?

I believe that this is true, but if you want real help for them how much will it cost?

Help isn't measurable in monetrary terms, Michael. you seem to equate it with money.

[Pliny]

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the video. I see you're succeeding in derailing the thread into irrelevant topics by baiting Pliny.

Pliny, take a moment to consider that nothing Michael Hardner has stated has anything to do with the videos posted. Also consider that without even watching the videos, which are pure common sense from a stand-up journalist like John Stossel, were immediately written off by Michael Hardner as a "Fox News hit piece". What was "hit", exactly? Only Michael knows.

You are right, of course. that he didn't watch them is obvious. He didn't even recognize that the bum on the street was John Stossel himself.

He believes he has heard all the arguments and his mind is made up.

We are only making him feel helpful. A trait only extant in liberals and measurable in fiat dollars.

[Michael Hardner]

And of course, none of this has anything to do with the video. I see you're succeeding in derailing the thread into irrelevant topics by baiting Pliny.

Not at all - this is an ongoing discussion Pliny and I have - related to these videos.

...were immediately written off by Michael Hardner as a "Fox News hit piece". What was "hit", exactly? Only Michael knows.

A hit against the destitute.