Who will take on Obama in 2012?

And that ruling has been disputed and criticized repeatedly. And one would think that the fact that it gives the federal government the ability to "pass practically anything they want" should be a pretty big tip-off as to whether or not it's being interpreted properly. That doesn't sound at all in keeping with the decentralized nature and purpose of the government as originally conceived.

What does "questions the legality of" mean? Be specific. Stop making me call out the wishy-washy phrasing every time you make an accusation, please.

I'm saying that if Rick Perry is elected President, and even if he gets almost everything he wants, no states will ban minority voting rights.

This does not follow from any conservative position. They're simply most concerned about it, because it happens to be the abuses that have the most effect, and because they're the abuses we're dealing with right now.

I don't know what point this makes. You're just describing what's happened, which nobody for states' rights denies. They agree with it completely, which is why they're upset.

I'm taking a short break from arguing with four people concurrently. This has become like a simultaneous chess exhibition.

I see. I was legitimately asking, even after living in Texas for several years, I only know that him as that snakey guy that worked for Al Gore but talks like George Bush.

Dude, doesn't every traditional Republican believe states should have greater control? In fact, every right leaning moderate to neo conservative believes that. I feel like you could support any candidate up there and they would atleast verbally confirm that they believe this.

See, emotionally, I see him as (yes I have said this before) really freaking fake. Just talking points with a country "workin' man" accent. I don't really understand your statement "he doesn't pull punches", but if plain English is this guy not pulling punches, then I would disagree and say that he actually pulls tons of punches.

It's funny though, his foreign policy is what people in the foreign policy bizz (military. ME) actually want. I can totally confirm this.

I was just in training for two weeks with a bunch of ground pounding Army guys. I, being Air Force, am very far away from the whole combat thing. I sat around about 10 soldiers talking about Ron Paul's foreign policy for HOURS. We talked about blowback, we talked about sovereignty, we talked about HORRIBLE conditions. These guys are gone for 18 months in the majority of cases. I talked to a Sergeant that has been in the Army for 9 years. He has been in the desert for SIX of those years. And he has a wife and children! He has been in Iraq, Saudi, Afghanistan, Kuwait, and Korea. We are fighting so many wars and spending so much money that even our own military is tired of it.

I must admit, Ron Pauls foreign policy is the only reason I am taking your bet, Chris. It has people excited. People actually believe that we can strengthen our country with these guys at home and further rescue our economy with the money we will save taking care of OUR country for a change.

Dude. I look like I am from Jersey Shore I am fist pumping so much when Ron Paul debates. I get nervous when he speaks, too! He gets so excited and passionate that he has trouble getting out his message. For instance, his stance on Iran during the last debate. You have to actually read more about the blowback he briefly mentioned to understand where he is coming from. He is actually totally correct on that issue, but the media flipped it over and called him crazy for it.

__________________
If I had a dollar for every existential crisis I've ever had, does money really even matter?

Vermont has no National Guard choppers to help with cleanup from Hurricane Irene because they are all in Iraq




You're doing it wrong, America

You know, if Ron Paul uses talking points at this next debate instead of talking passionately while the networks pick and choose the next days Ron Paul sound board clips, he could ruin some of the other contenders.

- I'm very electable, I've been elected 12 times already!

- I've always been against the wars, and predicted they would not be successful.

- I've voted against every tax increase.

- I predicted the housing bubble and bust.

- I've been campaigning to audit the Federal Reserve for 30 years, and everyone else is only just now suggesting the same.

- I was in the Air Force for a number of years and in this campaign I've raised more money from military personnel than everyone else on this stage combined. I've even raised more than their commander-in-chief, President Obama.

And if you become President most of those guys will be out of a job because we won't need much of a standing army when America withdraws into isolationism.

__________________
It reminds me of a toilet paper on the trees
- Paula

No worries, it's a fair question, but I think Perry's got an unassailable answer for it. Though it could stick, anyway, because, well, things like that just stick sometimes.

They argued about it a bit in the last debate. I think Santorum, for example, took issue with it. In general they all feel this way, but to varying degrees. And I tend to think that if someone supports something when asked, but doesn't make it a focal point, there's a good chance it never actually gets followed through on.

But mainly, it's the economic stuff. He understands the basic climate you need to create for growth and employment to thrive. In particular, like Hermain Cain, he harps on the need for "predictability" in regulation so that businesses aren't always having to adjust to a changing set of rules. I really think he "gets" the fundamentals of growth.

It's not enough to balance electability or even stated positions; I think you also need to gauge the likelihood that a given position is just a position, versus something the candidate actually feels strongly enough about to push through, even when they take flak for it. Because, make no mistake, they will take flak for it. Perry strikes me as far less likely than, say, Romney, to let that sort of think eat away at the margins of his stances. And given some of the fairly un-conservative things Bush did, I'm starting to think that's more important than it used to be.

Hmm, I'm not sure how else to say it, but I'll try: he is blunt. He doesn't give lots of politician-like answers. He doesn't artificially inject nuance where it might not belong just so his answers to things sound softer than they should be. Whether he wins or not, I think a major candidate speaking bluntly about financial and economic reality is good for the country.

I certainly understand the appeal, I just think that a good deal of our foreign policy is taking care of our country, just in less direct ways. But I get the appeal, I really do. I'm not in the army (thank you for your service, by the way), but my country's been at war for about 40% of my life now, so there's certainly a foreign policy fatigue there. I just think he goes too far with it. I don't think real isolationism is even possible, let alone wise. It's one thing to say we should wrap-up what we're doing, but it's another to say we should have next to no interest or presence in all these places.

I think Ron Paul would be a lot more dangerous (as a candidate, I mean) if he moderated this a bit, and perhaps proposed a less dramatic cut in defense spending. I think the country is absolutely ready to recede from some of these theaters and even cut the defense budget a bit, but I don't think they're going to accept a full-scale withdrawal of the sort Paul is talking about.

I think they called him crazy for his conclusion. He may be technically correct about our past with Iran, but I don't think that validates his current position, which is basically: who gives a crap if Iran has nukes? I'm not sure how one would go about defending that position. It definitely matters if a rogue nation has them. Particularly one that pops its head up every few months to remind everyone that it thinks Israel should be wiped from the map.

Paul's answer to this is generally that the only reason anyone has a problem with us is because we're "over there" in the first place, but there are very relevant, modern examples of this not being true (like Iraqi sanctions), and it would seem to require a total isolationism. And it also ignores instances where the world presents to us--as it inevitably does from time to time--a situation where isolationism looks morally untenable, and I don't know what Ron Paul does in that situation. Ignore it?

McCain hit him on this pretty hard, Godwin be damned, in one of the '08 debates when he raised the spectre of Nazism and how it fits into this sort of worldview. Paul didn't really answer, he just sort of shook his head and the debate moved on, but melodramatic as it may be considered to bring up the Nazis, I think it was a fair point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
No, I didn't. The Supreme Court has given the federal government the ability to pass practically anything they want using the commerce clause. The reality is since the New Deal the states only exercises the powers the federal government allows them to have. The war between the state and federal government is over. The states are totally subservient to the states except when the SC steps in on a technical basis.

And that ruling has been disputed and criticized repeatedly. And one would think that the fact that it gives the federal government the ability to "pass practically anything they want" should be a pretty big tip-off as to whether or not it's being interpreted properly. That doesn't sound at all in keeping with the decentralized nature and purpose of the government as originally conceived.

Conservatives have this incorrect notion that all the framers of the Constitution agreed on their interpetation of a very decentralized federal government. The guy they like to quote most about this is Thomas Jefferson who wasn't in the country when the Constitution was written and was initially opposed to it because he thought it gave too much power to the central government. Its most articulate defender was Alexander Hamilton who was a big believer in a strong central government and advocated broadly interpeting the Constitution and the use of implied powers. The reality is the Constitution was a compromise document and this debate has been going on since the beginning. Real power on how to interpet it resides in the people and since the New Deal they have overwhelmingly supported a strong national government. Being nostalgic for a United States that no longer exists with states, particularly southern ones, misusing the concept of state rights to abuse minorities is over. That is the real legacy of state rights. The real and only effective way to limit federal power is to elect politicians who are less interested in using the federal government to address social problems that affect the country as a whole and not just individual states, not by trying to redo the last hundred years. But neither elected Republicans or Democrats are willing to do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
Rick Perry questions the legality of the Civil Right laws of the sixties so it is clear he is not for reasonable federal oversight.

What does "questions the legality of" mean? Be specific. Stop making me call out the wishy-washy phrasing every time you make an accusation, please.
I was incorrectly thinking of Ron Paul who has explictly criticized the 1964 Civil Rights Act and said he would not have voted for it. His son recently made similar comments, but apparently is more of a politician than his father as he quicly retreated when he got flack for it. But that is the two hundred pound gorilla in the room when arch conservatives talk about strong state rights. To limit the federal government's power as much as they would like would mean the federal government could not enforce national civil rights legislation in the individual states. Perry's views on limiting the federal government is so narrow he has taken a position I wasn't aware anyone had a problem with, the 17th Ammendment which allowed the direct election of Senators.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
Are you ignoring history or are you saying the 1960s Civil Rights movement and the federal legislation protecting minority rights in the South was not necessary?

I'm saying that if Rick Perry is elected President, and even if he gets almost everything he wants, no states will ban minority voting rights.

Reply below (forgot to use bold):
No state in the South ever banned voting rights, but they passed laws that made it virtually impossible for Blacks to vote. Rick Perry's America would allow states, and we know it would be Southern ones, to chip away at voting rights for minorites.

Quote:
Originally Posted by will.15
The point I was making is conservatives are only concerned about abuses of government at the federal level.

This does not follow from any conservative position. They're simply most concerned about it, because it happens to be the abuses that have the most effect, and because they're the abuses we're dealing with right now.

Conservatives of the state's rights variety were not concerned about Southern states treating blacks as second rate citizens. Nothing the federal government is currently doing is comparable to that.

I despise Capitalism now, the current policies of the Republican party; i.e. cut programs that allow the impoverished to survive and balk at relief funds for disasters , in order to accommodate corporate entities and the wealthiest Americans, while selling it as; "If you're master is doing well, then you will too." Not to mention the Democrats, a closeted corporatist party that handed over billions in bail out and then some in the form of a passive bail out, or otherwise known as tax breaks. Not forgetting the big break that Big Pharma got out of the healthcare law that was intended to render healthcare as a basic human right. I'm officially a Socialist, the conservatives have shoved the center so far right that there's no way back, the proletarians in this country are completely out of options in terms of representation.

A passive form of eugenics as a means of fiscal conservatism, sounds a little like. . .






A private drug company would decide to hold a cure for cancer, seeing that it's more profitable to treat the disease over a prolonged period. Our political leaders are the pimps of the citizens and the suppliers for fiscal aristocracy.


"It has resolved personal worth into exchange value" Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto. I'd say we're there.

__________________


...uh the post is up there...

They're not masters, they're employers, and it's true. As proof, observe: the dramatically increased standard of wealth over the last 30-40 years. The ridiculous ability and affordability of most things. This is an error common to most people who complain about capitalism: they take it all for granted. They look around and assume everything we have is just there, and would've been there under any other system. But it wouldn't.

You are arguing not with capitalism, but with reality. Scarcity will always exist. There is no other system of government that will have enough health care to treat everyone properly. There is no other system of government that will not have the poor and destitute. The fact that capitalism does not eradicate such things completely is not much of an argument against it, and in fact it looks perspective-less alongside all its benefits.

Most of this is not even disputable. People can disagree about which specific policies are best, or when to make exceptions, but there's simply no plausible way to argue about the fact that this stuff leads to growth, and that growth has led (and will continue to lead) people of all income brackets to enjoy dramatically higher standards of living. Any modern ideology that does not acknowledge and account for this is simply not a serious one.

I am not rich. I am not stupid. I am not evil. And despite that, I am telling you, in no uncertain terms, that while I certainly disagree with most of what you've said, some of it is not just wrong in my opinion, but literally, objectively, factually false. Now, are you interested in discussing and acknowledging these things, or do you just want to keep ranting about how horrible capitalism is, with no effort to let anyone examine your claims? Because it's starting to sound like the latter.

I would simply ask that you acknowledge that what's good for some is not good for all. I see Nietschez's Slave and master morality fighting it out. People who are denied bargaining rights and hence less ability to prosper, and the disabled and elderly are most assuredly going to be hurt by conservative policies, so you can see why out of necessity they would not be for any of this. it could be argued that many of so called "socialist" policies of FDR helped a little, at least in terms of infrastructure. In a capitalist society, those who own the means of manufacturing are essentially masters and reap the highest profits from it, they certainly get pandered to more.

This statement is symptomatic of the Capitalistic mentality; "Oh well, people die, why should I waste money on trying to fix it." That numb, sterile world view where it's illogical to address basic human needs or at least trying to reduce the amount of human suffering. You frame my argument as though I'm saying that just because there's some inequality or vulnerability for some that invalidates an entire economic system, no, it's that you shrug it off and chalk it up to numbers and equate human life to statistical numerations.

Well, see, now we're getting somewhere.

Absolutely. And that will be true of any system. My opinion of capitalism (which I think is shown in the results quite clearly) is that it produces the most good for the most people. And, just as important, that it creates situations where whether or not people do well depends on them more than others, rather than the random proclamations of bureaucrats who impose top-down solutions. That's better in the abstract, and in reality.

Who? If you're talking about Wisconsin, I say bring it on, because the union arguments coming out of there were straight-up crazy.

The fact is that these people are going to be hurt, regardless. If we run out of money, the person suggesting we cut back on our spending is not the one depriving you, they're just the ones who are acknowledging the problem and proposing an answer. Your criticism of conservative policies implies that we can just keep things the way we are, but we can't. That's not a viable option.

So it's not cuts .vs. no cuts, it's cuts .vs. stick our head in the sand, raise taxes (hurting plenty of other folks in need of help and jobs in the mean time), and delay the day of reckoning a bit longer. But as long as the program is insolvent, it'll just happen again, and people like you will say the exact same thing, because there will always be someone suffering hardship. People who depend on Medicare won't be hurt by conservative policies, they'll be hurt by the forward progression of time. Conservative policies are merely a reaction to the financial reality of the situation. A situation created by exactly the kind of mindset you're putting forward right now. The idea that we can cure all ills, and until we have, something must be wrong with us, and that there's some perfect world waiting for us if only we find the right political system.

Infrastructure is a necessary part of our economy. I have no problem with that. But the overwhelming majority of social spending is not on infrastructure. Not under FDR, and not under Obama.

Absolutely true. And as citizens we need to make sure the law is followed. But thankfully, in our system, rich people still only get the one vote, and money does not guarantee one election by a long shot. We have lots of examples of that. So they have to pander to the populace as a whole, too, if they want to have any prayer of getting elected.

The phrase "masters" is a misnomer, since nobody's forced to work for them. And the problem with the phrase "control the means of production" is that it acts like the means of production are just sitting there, and someone happened to take them. In reality, they create the means of production. They take the risks that others aren't willing to, and the overwhelming majority of them fail, and when they don't it's because they've found something society deems valuable. And their reward comes not from politicians, but from consumers, collectively.

Uh, no. I didn't say anything even remotely like that, and it's ridiculous to pretend that this represents capitalism.

No, it's perfectly logical and morally upright to try to reduce human suffering. But that means human suffering in all times, not just at this precise moment. Let's try a thought experiment to demonstrate this:

If we gave $1 trillion to someone in need, they would never need again, right? Great. So we can help people by giving them $1 trillion. But that would force us to cut so many other things that it would actually cause more suffering in the long-run. So would $1 billion. Or even $1 million. Our economy can't function at all at the level of taxation that would require, so we'd actually be creating more suffering by acting as if we could afford to give that all away. Still with me?

If you agree with this much, then we've established a very simple, important principle: it is possible to give away too much, and create more suffering in the long-run. The only question is how much is too much, and at what point we create more suffering than we prevent. That's the question we're grappling with. And as far as I can tell you haven't advanced any argument that attempts to answer this. You've just told me people are suffering now, which is not in dispute and doesn't make figuring this out any easier.

What else am I supposed to conclude? You mention suffering and nothing else, as if the mere existence of it is supposed to be an argument against something. If you want to make a more specific argument, go right ahead, but so far you haven't.

No, I'm talking about numbers because the problem we're talking about is numerical. I don't lack empathy and I think it's quite important, I just don't think you can reconcile matters of financial insolvency with it.

We need to think about the numbers, because they matter, and they have a direct effect on suffering. You say I shrug off suffering to talk about numbers, but I say people shrugging off the numbers is what causes so much of the suffering in the first place.

I don't have a problem with capitalism, but I do with Rick Perry's version of it. From a Los Angeles Time editorial commenting on his book:

Perry expresses deep nostalgia for the laissez faire, robber-baron era at the turn of the 20th century, when government stayed out of the way of business, unions were weak or nonexistent and the Progressive movement hadn't yet taken off. He extols the virtues of men like Andrew Carnegie, John D. Rockefeller and Cornelius Vanderbilt for their charitable activities, implying that moguls know better about how to care for the poor than the government or liberals. Unmentioned are the social crises that fueled Progressive-era reforms: the open warfare between labor and capital, and the staggering gap between rich and poor that spawned violence and misery nationwide. We've already seen how that vision plays out, and it's not a model for the future; it's a warning from the past.

Well, let's see. They mention two problems. Let's look at each really quickly:

1) The "war between labor and capital."

They need to be more specific about this complaint, to say the least, if we're going to critique it. But the most basic of abuses we have actual laws against now, so they need to get into which of these laws--if any--Perry is actually talking about rolling back. And, of course, they also use a subtle little rhetorical trick in talking about how things "fueled Progressive-era reforms," which allows them to treat all the policies that resulted as if they were a direct response to battles between labor and employers, when in reality some (again, depending on what they're referring to specifically) were just part of a general, overcompensatory backlash. There's nothing that says that anything these issues "fueled" is therefore an irrevocable part of it.

It is also telling that they only feel the need to invoke the specter of working conditions (if that's what they're doing; again, it's really vague), without stopping to ask themselves why there was such clear demand for such jobs. Presumably, it was because there were no superior alternatives. That's the dirty little secret of such policies: it doesn't help the working man in general, it helps the working man who keeps his job at the expense of the job that is never created. It certainly doesn't create wealth, it merely reapportions it differently; in this case, it concentrates it in the hands of fewer workers, resulting in less employment. The workers who benefit sure like it, but what of the ones who don't? They're forgotten.


2) The "staggering gap between rich and poor that spawned violence and misery nationwide."

This is circular. Actually, almost every argument about income inequality is circular. Since it's undeniable that standards of living have consistently risen across the board, people are left not to complain about being worse off, but about the relative speed of wealth growth among different income brackets. But statements like this never actually arrive at a specific complaint, or an elaboration of their alleged injustice. They say income inequality is unsustainable not for any economic reason, but only because people won't stand for it. But that's not a reason. And in fact, it's self-fulfilling, because the more people write about how people won't stand for it, the more likely they are not to stand for it.

Actually, everyone who has worked has paid into it. A lot of well-off people end up being very fortunate, then develop a myopic attitude that everyone has the ability to save back money for themselves to pay for retirement or medical needs, but as even you have said, there's the issue of scarcity. The mere fact that he suggest states, who have a difficult enough time funding schools and often time essential services take on entire entitlement programs and life sustaining care is downright laughable and what's more a diversionary tactic used to exonerate the government from dealing with it, just say they want it gone, don't try to side-step the issue by playing the "state's right's card, by this measure if a state decides not to allocate the funds, then an entire crop of people are goners. My Mom worked as a bus driver for five years, until she got too sick, because the insulin she was on was not controlling her sugar properly, because by law a driver of a bus must not have the type of diabetes she had, she had to quit and apply for Medicare to prolong her life, and I may be mis-reading your comment, but it sounds like you're inferring that just because you meet the criteria you shouldn't accept it, if so then I'll say this; you can have your ideology and live according to it, but my mother was no freeloader, she paid her taxes and kept me well fed and I am extremely grateful for the help that she rightly deserved, be it private pension OR government program.

Perry's fiery 'Fed Up!' may come back to haunt him
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press – 16 hours ago
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) — Maybe Rick Perry's not so "Fed Up!" after all.
Just nine months ago, the Texas governor released a rhetorical bomb-throwing book under that title. He dismissed Social Security as a New Deal relic that smacked of socialism. He said states' rights trump all else. He suggested that the Supreme Court's nine unelected "oligarchs in robes" could have their rulings overturned by two-thirds votes in both houses of Congress.
Now that the Republican is running for president, his campaign has begun distancing itself from some of the candidate's own words on issues such as Social Security and states' rights.
Pulling back won't be easy because "Fed Up! Our Fight to Save America From Washington" is anything but the nuanced list of general positions that fills the pages of most presidential candidates' books.
Politicians "typically don't take strong positions. They are largely biographical and usually not specific at all," said Adam Bellow, editorial director of Broadside Books, a division of HarperCollins Publishers, who edited Sarah Palin's two books. "It is unusual," Bellow said of "Fed Up!," ''but we are in an unusual moment."
Perry, who's shot to the top of many public opinion polls among the GOP contenders, hasn't shied away from bashing Social Security. Last month in Iowa, he said the program "is a Ponzi scheme for these young people." Later, he told reporters, "I haven't backed off anything in my book. So read the book again and get it right."
Campaign spokesman Mark Miner said "no one can argue that Social Security isn't broken."
"The goal was to put these issues on the table and ensure they're addressed," Miner said.
But, in his book, Perry goes well beyond criticizing the program's financing problems and vilifies the entire concept as a failed social experiment.
"Like a bad disease," he wrote, New Deal-era initiatives have spread. "By far the best example of this is Social Security." The program "is something we have been forced to accept for more than 70 years now."
Already, Perry communications director Ray Sullivan was reported as saying that the book is not meant to reflect Perry's current views on Social Security — even though "Fed Up" was published just last year.
While skewering the program might help Perry with tea party supporters, it could cost him with elderly voters in Florida and other important states were he to win the nomination, said GOP strategist Ford O'Connell.
"He definitely needs to cut back on the volatile rhetoric and couch his words more carefully or they can come back to haunt him," O'Connell said.
Polling by the Pew Research Center in June found that 87 percent of Americans see Social Security as good for the country. "The views of the public are, it's overwhelmingly positive," said Carroll Doherty, the Pew Research Center's associate director.
Perry's GOP rivals are expected to use the book against him, emphasizing the idea that he might be too extreme for independent voters.
"This year, Republicans believe that losing the election means losing the country," said Alex Castellanos, a Republican strategist who has worked for Perry opponents but is now unaligned.
"Any candidate who displays general election weakness, because his radical views scared seniors, independents, or soccer moms, would be disqualified in the GOP nomination process. A vote for such a candidate in a primary would be seen as a vote for Obama in the general."
Already, Perry has pulled back from his unequivocal position on states' rights.
In "Fed Up!" he writes, "If you don't support the death penalty and citizens packing a pistol, don't come to Texas. If you don't like medicinal marijuana and gay marriage, don't move to California." Elaborating in July about New York's decision to allow same-sex marriage, he said, "that's New York, and that's their business, and that's fine with me."
Perry has since clarified that he's against gay marriage anywhere, and last month signed a pledge that, if elected, he would back a constitutional amendment defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman, which would preclude a state's choice.
He devotes an entire chapter to lambasting the Supreme Court, anticipating that the justices one day issue a ruling forcing nationwide gay marriage on the country. As a check on judicial power, he proposes allowing Congress to override the high court with a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate.
"While ideas like that may sound very cogent to Perry, he may have a real problem explaining them," GOP strategist O'Connell said.
The governor has long known his book could be problematic in a national campaign. As the polls closed on election day 2010, giving Perry his third full term as governor, he told The Associated Press that "Fed Up!" proved he was too conservative to seek the White House.
"I think probably the best display, the best concrete evidence that I'm really not running for president is this book," Perry said, "because when you read this book, you're going to see me talking about issues that for someone running for public office, it's kind of been the third rail, if you will."

But they haven't paid in as much as they take out, by definition, or the program wouldn't be insolvent and cuts would not be necessary. There is a gap between what is paid in and what is paid out, and other taxpayers make up the difference, which is growing all the time. So my point stands: if you want to say it's easy for people to turn their back on those who need help, it is just as valid to say it's easy to blindly support insolvent programs when the cost of doing so falls on someone else.

I don't think rich people think this at all. And I don't think it really matters if they do or not. None of the arguments I've presented to you, you may have noticed, suggest anything like this.

Why? They take on all sorts of other crucial systems, like the examples I continually give you about disaster relief, which you keep ignoring. It's easy to say they can't do it now, because now they've been relying on the Federal government and planning (or not planning) accordingly, and they haven't had any opportunity to try anything other than the mandated, top-down, one-size-fits-all approach.

And what are you worried about, exactly? That the states won't manage it very well and the programs will become unsustainable? Because that's what we have right now. You're basically arguing against a system that might fail in the way the current system already has! As I keep saying: the status quo is not an option. So what are you suggesting? Keep the system at current levels and stand idly by as it goes bankrupt, leaving all sorts of other people without any care at all? Because that's what it sounds like.

No, I'm not inferring that anyone should refuse government help. I am saying no more or less than that I know what it's like to be poor, my family qualified for assistance and could have really used it, but we didn't accept it and eventually improved our lot a bit, and I'm glad we didn't, in retrospect. My story isn't designed to be instructive for others, it's supposed to demonstrate that what I'm arguing does not come from some place of privilege, though even if it did, none of the arguments I'm making would rely on that.

At this point you're basically asking me to audit your mother's life, which is awkward to say the least. It's a no-win scenario. If you want me to poke and prod and ask questions and try to come up with mistakes that could have been avoided, I assume there are some (there are in everyone's life), but that doesn't sound like a very nice way for either of us to discuss the issue. If that's what you want, so be it, but I don't see any way that doesn't become unnecessarily personal and possibly heated.

Oh, and to anyone who wants to compare Obama to FDR, or try to liken current government policies to the New Deal, consider this quote from Roosevelt back in 1932, which I stumbled upon today:

"It is common sense to take a method and try it; if it fails, admit it frankly and try another."

Show of virtual hands: who thinks this describes this administration's attitude towards stimulus thus far? And going forward, do you think Obama's jobs speech is going to take this sort of tone, or do you think it'll make excuses for the failure of the policy, or even call for more? Place your bets, gentlemen.