Debate: Do the poor fare better with or without Govt intervention?
Presenters:
Anthony Gregory: Author, Independent Institute research analyst.
www.anthonygregory.com.
Dr. Marty Nemko: Career coach, author, NPR and KGO-AM talk shows host.
www.martynemko.com.
When: Wed. 26 Jan. at 6 PM.
Where: Opera Plaza, 601 Van Ness Ave. (Turk & Golden Gate). Community Room,
Mezzanine. Take the elevator to the first floor, then security will key you
down to the Community Room.
Program: Vegan catered dinner followed by the debate.
Admission: $15.
RSVP: David Koot, 707-774-1904 or info@....
Questions For Anthony:
1) If the govt provided no safety net for the poor, what do you predict
would happen to the 100+ million Americans with an IQ under 90 (the group
most predisposed to crime), to the millions of Americans who can't work
because of cancer, heart disease, etc. even the millions of people with
graduate degrees who can't find a job, and to America as a country?
2) If this room were filled with chronically unemployed people: people with
IQs under 90, those who are old and/or with severe heart disease or cancer.
How would you explain to them that you oppose a govt safety net: no
unemployment, no subsidized housing, health care, no even public
transportation, let alone subsidized public transportation?
3) In the pre-industrial age, it was possible for most willing workers to
find sustainable employment. But in the information age, being willing isn't
enough. In the modern era, can you point to one of the world's 200 nations
that have no government-mandated safety net and yet doesn't have huge
numbers of people living painfully destitute lives while others live in
grandeur?
4) Eliminating a safety net for the poor is an experiment unproven in modern
society. The government-mandated safety net is certainly not a model of
cost-efficiency but are you willing to take the risk that if we eliminate
it, we won't end up with a society in which our children will see people on
the streets dying of starvation or with cancer writhing in agony?
Questions for Marty:
1) Do you think the US government currently benefits the poor more than the
rich? If not, what makes you think this government or any government can be
reformed to reliably help those who historically, if not categorically, have
least access to the levers of state power?
2) Is there a right to a social safety net provided by those who can afford
to maintain it through taxation, and if so, is this right universal among
all people of the world?
3) How can we dependably keep a state powerful enough to help the poor
consistently from oppressing the people or waging wars of aggression?
4) Is it merely a coincidence that the more governments tend toward a robust
safety net, the more they tend toward police statism and militarism -- or do
you dispute this premise?