Azalin

Mr Franklin had a better way of putting it: I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer. There is no country in the world [but England] where so many provisions are established for them; so many hospitals to receive them when they are sick or lame, founded and maintained by voluntary charities; so many alms-houses for the aged of both sexes, together with a solemn general law made by the rich to subject their estates to a heavy tax for the support of the poor. Under all these obligations, are our poor modest, humble, and thankful; and do they use their best endeavours to maintain themselves, and lighten our shoulders of this burthen? On the contrary, I affirm that there is no country in the world in which the poor are more idle, dissolute, drunken, and insolent. The day you passed that act, you took away from before their eyes the greatest of all inducements to industry, frugality, and sobriety, by giving them a dependence on somewhat else than a careful accumulation during youth and health, for support in age or sickness. In short, you offered a premium for the encouragement of idleness, and you should not now wonder that it has had its effect in the increase of poverty. Repeal that law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday, and St. Tuesday, will cease to be holidays. SIX days shalt thou labour, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them. - Benjamin Franklin, "On the Price of Corn and the Management of the Poor" (1766) http://www.vindicatingthefounders.com/library/management-of-poor.html I think what he said is both reasonable and realistic. it's really just a simple observation on human nature, and I see nothing radical or heartless in it at all.

well, it wasn't intended to be as loaded a question as I see it is in retrospect. I grew up outside of Buffalo, and lived there until I was 24. I remember an awful lot of industry closing when I was a kid.....steel mills, chemical plants, textile factories, etc. it was getting to be pretty damned difficult to get a decent paying job anywhere around there, and having no formal skills at the time, I finally moved to North Carolina in 1982. I remember my parents and grandparents complaining about how incredibly high the property taxes were in the town of Amherst....which seemed to me to be just about as bad as anywhere else in Erie County. one thing that seems apparent to me after having lived in North Carolina for 8 years and now Texas for 24 years is that quality of life completely depends on what kind of opportunities are available where you live, and that the amount of opportunity available directly depends on the climate for business. if regulatory restrictions and taxes are relatively light, it's much easier for businesses to start up and to stay afloat. the more regulation and taxation come into play, the more difficult the business climate becomes, and the less profitable businesses become. I have no formal education in economics or business....this is based wholly on my own personal observations and experience. I think it's sad that WNY, and especially the city of Buffalo have been through so many years of difficulty.....despite the ungodly winters there, I still have many wonderful memories of the place, and I would love to see the city turn around and thrive once again. instead of just dismissing the idea outright, why not compare New York's tax codes and regulations to those of Texas, see what Texas is doing that maybe New York could adopt themselves? there's obviously SOMETHING working for Texas. people study successful businesses in order to develop a winning strategy or model of their own, so why would this be any different?

much has indeed changed.....in '96, Newt was still Speaker and congressional republicans were decidedly more conservative than they are now. and to use your metaphor, there's plenty of room at the table for Powell, but if he doesn't like anything on the menu, why not go somewhere else?

ah.....gotcha. dammit....now I need a beer.....

I've been gone from the area a long time, so this is a sincere question....how many different industries are thriving nowadays in WNY due to support of the state & local governments?

ummm......that's because Liberatarians don't embrace the concept of gun control to begin with.

is the food stamp program somehow tied to the school lunch program in San Diego? I often wonder about arguements such as this, because if the families get food stamps, then why is it that their childrens' only oppotrunity to get a nourishing meal is at the school?

if you consider the culture and climate of the time I was growing up (I am now 55), this article is 100% pure irony. http://english.pravda.ru/opinion/columnists/28-12-2012/123335-americans_guns-0/

comparing human and animal behavior isn't always make for a good arguement - parents attempting to devour their offspring and incestious mating are also perfectly natural and routinely witnessed within many species other than homo sapien. monkeys & dogs eat poop. I wouldn't really have a problem if a son or daughter of mine was gay, but if they did any of the other stuff, I'd personally see that they were locked away for their, and everyone else's safety.

count on it!

oh, I've been around....lurking, as it were. I guess I wasn't content keeping my big mouth shut after all.

you are exactly right about that, but I don't think that anyone who deserves to will actually receive any blame a few years from now. instead, it will be blamed on the republicans for not raising taxes on ALL of those top wage earners (400K & above instead of the original 250K per year)when they had the opportunity to do so, causing a revenue shortfall and driving up the debt. of course that's total BS, but that's what will happen....just wait. if I had been in charge of the house republicans, I would have mounted an aggressive campaign for LOWERING middle-class tax rates, forcing the dems to defend a pro-tax on the middle class stance. it might not have worked, but at least I'd know that I stood for something I believed in as I went down in flames.

it both astounds and depresses me that things could have actually come to the point where debt like this does not seem to concern most americans. seriously...how can this even be a partisan issue anymore? the populace is blinded by simple ignorance, but to those that pay any attention at all, regardless of party affiliation, why is there any debate on this? Alexander Hamilton believed that a national debt was good because it gave the voting populace a vested interest in the affairs of the state, but I'm willing to wager he wasn't thinking in terms of 87 trillion dollars.

whether or not people think certain types of firearms are or are not necessary isn't the point. like it or not, there is a constitutional guarantee of private gun ownership: A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be INFRINGED. note the caps. the word 'infringed' refers to action by the federal government. they can not contstitutionally pass any laws that restricts gun ownership of the general public, especially when our own military has the devastating weaponry that it does. personally, I see no real need for most people to own automatic or semi-automatic weapons, but that is just my own opinion. I have no right to try to superimpose my own beliefs over the rest of society. nobody should want any part of the bill of rights tinkered with for any reason whatsoever.

awesome....there's the 2nd good laugh of the day!

thank you......that was my first really good laugh of the day. I was going to add a sure-fire method of avoiding a cavity search: enthusiastically volunteer for one whenever you get pulled over. it works at the airport, too.

yeah, that kind of thing still happens a lot around here, doesn't it?

then how can you make statements like 'Totally wrong... He wanted to die by his own hand. Why are we failing to miss that point?O bviously, he had a very sick "mission" to carry out first' as if it were fact? I would agree that none of us can truly get into that guy's head and make any kind of sense of what he did, and I would include your statement to be supposition as well. all I meant to say in the first place when I tossed my opinion out there was that I do not believe the big issue in this tragedy is guns, but rather serious mental illness. can we not all agree on that?

it's one thing to hear that 20 children were slain, but it really drives the point home when you see a photograph of each one. putting a name and a face to the victim adds back an essential element of humanity that is too often missed, imo.

you very well may be right. the obvious difficulty in trying to make sense of any of this is in trying to find logic or reason in such a hideously warped mind.

wasn't it reported that he was wearing a vest or some type of body armor? how suicidal is a person that would take steps for self-preservation?

you are incapable of chasing down 20 helpless children cornered in a classroom, or taking out two adult men using a bat? the details in my example may not be perfect, but you have to ignore the point in order to not see it.

as I'm sure you'll continue to hear this same arguement play out over and over as more of these tragedies occur. some people believe that banning or restricting guns will prevent things like this from happening, others believe that if more people carry guns, less of this would happen because someone would be able to shoot the gunman before he could rack up so many kills. I happen to believe the latter, but I have no way to prove it......and neither does anyone else. and for the record, I used 'baseball bat' as an example right off the top of my head. I could have said pipe-bomb, un-lit molotovs, or even knitting needles and made the same point. it's presumptious of you to to say 'But I bet you didn't say "Lanza could have killed those kids with a bat" for a reason'. what if I would have suggested that he could have used a knife to kill so many children?

oh, hell no.....I couldn't possibly disagree with him more. your presumption of sarcasm on my part was 100% accurate. for what it's worth, my take on the subject is that any one of us here could have walked into that school full of little kids with a baseball bat and killed just as many of them as this maniac did. to argue guns as the big issue here is wrong imo.

indeed. only nowadays I tend to read and think a bit more, and shout and argue a bit less.