Re: Why are most poker players liberal?
 

"After seeing the defense of this administration as being conservative which is indefenisble by traditional conservative values (fiscal and monetary discipline, America first and Civil Liberties) I am forced to conclude that people call themselves conservatives because it is now fashionable to do so."

Sorry but who defended the current administration as being truly conservative? Would you care to provide a summary or a couple of examples?

Re: Why are most poker players liberal?
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our constitution is based primarily on the principle of preventing harms and abuses, rather on the idea of mandating "good" actions.

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you support this notion, this approach to government. If so, would you like welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. totally abolished? What about when Florida gets pummelled by a series of hurricanes? "Oh well guys - best of luck with the rebuilding!"

Just curious where your line is drawn.

Re: Why are most poker players liberal?
 

absolutely abollish welfare, unemployment insurance, social security... disaster relief i'm all right with since it's an "act of God" so to speak. Welfare... get a job Mcdonalds pays 8 bucks an hour + benefits to start, oh you'd rather sit on your ass and collect a check? too bad. Social security is a false sense of security for everyone nearing retirement and will be gone for all of us under 30 I imagine. I hate having MY money taken away to pay for things I get no benefit out of.

The Specifics You Requested
 

[ QUOTE ]
Our constitution is based primarily on the principle of preventing harms and abuses, rather on the idea of mandating "good" actions.

[ QUOTE ]
I assume that you support this notion, this approach to government. If so, would you like welfare, unemployment insurance, social security, etc. totally abolished? What about when Florida gets pummelled by a series of hurricanes? "Oh well guys - best of luck with the rebuilding!"

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]


For the most part, I do support this approach to government, and view it as what the founders of our country had in mind.

As for:


1. Welfare: phase it out except for a very minimal short-term safety net. Keep the Federal Food Stamp Program for short-term emergencies. People can get back to relying on family, friends, neighbors, church or civic groups, and on their own efforts and ingenuity to help when times get tough.

I would also support the establishment of regional barracks-type living facilities and up to 60-hour workweeks for all physically capable, willing, and well-behaved brokesters, at which locations they could live and work with free room and board and save a small hourly wage for up to 6 months (more than ample time to get a bankroll back together and get on their feet). Factory or farm-type work: rise at dawn and sleep at dusk; no drugs, alcohol, loud music, fighting, or keeping other people awake at night--or they are out on their butts. These facilities would also double as homeless shelters for those willing to work.

By the way, there have been occasions in my last 16 years of poker when I would have joyously welcomed such an opportunity to rebuild a bankroll in an expense-free environment such as described above, for nothing more than healthy physical labor and clean living. Since these facilities might have the potetial to become very popular, it could be necessary to limit any individual's stay to a total of six months within in any two-year timeframe.


2. Unemployment insurance: allow the individual or businesses to purchase unemployment insurance from private insurers, if desired. Take the federal government out of it completely.


3. Social Security: phase it out. Payroll taxes provide a dismal long-term rate of return for the contributors, and help to keep America's working poor, poor, by swallowing a substantial chunk of their paychecks. Part of the phasing-out process could include paying everyone who has paid into ithe system a final settlement, which would be based upon their contributions and upon the lousy average ROI to this point.


4. Hurricane damage in Florida: this is not an unforeseeable or unlikely event. People living in Florida should purchase private storm insurance for their homes, just like purchasing fire insurance. Forcing citizens in other parts of the country to subsidize regular bail-outs of Floridian private property damaged or destroyed by hurricanes is unfair.

Federal disaster relief for less predictable forms of catastrophe is OK I think.


If the above suggestions were to be implemented, along with certain other tax and budget reforms, it is my opinion that we would soon see a wonderfully revitalized American economy heralding the dawn of a new era of widespread prosperity at higher levels across the entire socio-economic spectrum.

Re: Why are most poker players liberal?
 

Hi Milwaukee -

Bush bashing does not necessarily mean that one is not conservative. Bush has done, proposed, or allowed many things that piss off small-government conservatives. The spending binge, the patriot act, campaign finance reform, the medicare bill, the constitutional amendment barring gays from practicing freedom of contract, etc.

This does not mean that these small-government conservatives think that John Kerry is the answer to their prayers. He's demonstrably worse on many small-government issues than Bush is. But, there is always the chance that the republicans in congress will remember their conservative principles with a democrat in the white house and reverse the spend, spend, police state, spend, spend course of the last four years.

Finally, here is an answer to the question, "why do most poker players seem to be liberal?"

Because you are a conservative.

Good Luck

Cepstrum

Re: Why are most poker players liberal?
 

The problem is not these programs per se but that it is the federal govt that controls the programs. The root cause being the unnecessariy high rate of federal taxation. I would be much happier if NY State was keeping the same tax dollars that the feds collect from us and spending it on NY State (better yet city, but state is better than the feds) social programs as NY state needs them.

If the citizens of NY City want an unemployment insurance scheme tailored to our needs, so be it. If NY State wants no part of that them so be that.

A side effect of keeping local taxes local is the overall tax rates will come down and we will have programs designed to local needs -- and we do away with nonsense like the Dept of H&HS, Education, etc.