Politicization Of Poverty [Pic+]

Submitted by: Cajun247 3 years ago in

No spin, no bias account of Linda Tirado stint in poverty. Exposes how both the left and right have spun the story.
There are 38 comments:
Male 10,855
[quote]I`ll just go right out and defraud people out of $100,000 this week. According to YOU I can pay back a `portion` of it and face no jail time[/quote]

I wasn`t suggesting we be that generous, on one hand if it were possible then it indeed should be required the culprit pay more to recoup money spent on lawyer fees and court costs. On the other hand there are sunk costs that victims are faced with.

Furthermore, suppose you did defraud people of $100,000, do you seriously believe anyone is going to be as apt to give you money again? I doubt it very much.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

So, in yet another way, here are the two situations:

1. We legislate that a criminal must repay the victim some amount more than what they damaged or stole (kx or x+k). Conceivably, k could become unreasonable. X can never be unreasonable (because it`s the amount they stole in the first place). Therefore, we should seek to eliminate k.

2. We legislate that a criminal must make restitution.

I hope this helps to clarify the confusion.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]As `resaonable man` is purely subjective, that`s exactly what you`re suggesting.[/quote]
I`m not sure how it happened, but I don`t think we are on the same page here.

Let me re-clarify my statement about the "reasonable man" since it has apparently caused some confusion.

Here goes:

We should seek out legislative processes that do not offer the opportunity to become unreasonable through political manipulation. If a process allows for a situation in which a "reasonable man" would be appalled, then that process should be avoided.

So, I`m not trying to say that we should use a "reasonable man" standard. I`m saying that we should avoid a system that requires such a standard. To do so, we must remove arbitrarily set variables that can be manipulated.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
Cajun247-"Yet mandating unprescribed amounts of time for each case of fraud is no less subjective."

There is not cookie-cutter way of sentancing, as each situaion is different. A habitual wreckless driver getting caught speeding should face a stiffer penalty than someone who gets their first ticket.

We are a nation of laws. Our judges and juries are supposed to be objective, and weigh each case on its situation and merits.

Cajun247-"we can discover how much money was taken and require a portion of it be paid back."

Hey, great deal. I`ll just go right out and defraud people out of $100,000 this week. According to YOU I can pay back a `portion` of it and face no jail time. So I`ll pay back $50,000.

$50,000 profit and no jail time? Where do I sign up?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]As `resaonable man` is purely subjective, that`s exactly what you`re suggesting. [/quote]

Yet mandating unprescribed amounts of time for each case of fraud is no less subjective. On the other hand we can discover how much money was taken and require a portion of it be paid back.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
HumanAction-"Adding complexity and/or subjectivity into a system"

As `resaonable man` is purely subjective, that`s exactly what you`re suggesting.

HumanAction-"If it weren`t so complex (say, a flat tax or flat-rate tax), there would be far fewer opportunities for political manipulation"

See, now THAT I agree with. A flat tax; no deductions, no loopholes, no rebates, no `Earned Income Tax Credit`, no tax code that runs into 60,000 pages.

Simple put: You earned `X`. Multiply that by Y% and that`s how much you owe. No reason a tax form couldn`t fit on a post-card. (and imagine the bureaucracy we could get rid of).
0
Reply
Male 10,855
HumanAction: You`re welcome
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]There is law. And if the law needs changing, there is a process for that.[/quote]
Yes, and history demonstrates that the current process you`re referencing is a terrible one. Adding complexity and/or subjectivity into a system opens opportunities for politicians to behave poorly.

For example, see the tax code. If it weren`t so complex (say, a flat tax or flat-rate tax), there would be far fewer opportunities for political manipulation (aka corruption). I doubt you`d disagree. Why then do you suppose the legal system should operate in the opposite manner?
0
Reply
Male 7,762
HumanAction-"they do not pass the reasonable man standard"

Sorry, there IS no `reasonable man standard`.

A `reasonable` man would find this `poor little lady` an idiot, and treat her appropriately. (and liberals are far from `reasonable`.)

There is law. And if the law needs changing, there is a process for that.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]What`s reasonable to one man is not to another.[/quote]
Exactly - which is why we shouldn`t have laws that allow for arbitrary points along a line. Let me clarify: we should not have laws that define arbitrary points because the arbitrary points could perceivably be moved in a less reasonable direction at any point in time. Rather, laws should be designed that do not rely on arbitrary points decided by politicians. Since such points could become unreasonable (See: Drug War), they do not pass the reasonable man standard.

[quote]`Reasonable` and `non-arbitrary` are not even close to being synonymous.[/quote]
Which is why I separated them. If they were synonymous, I would not have written them; that would be redundant.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
HumanAction-"It`s the reasonable man standard."

`Reasonable` is subjective. What`s reasonable to one man is not to another.

That`s why we have `law`.

Would hanging a person for stealing a candy bar be reasonable? No.

Have men been put in prison for life for stealing a candy bar? Yes. If they have a history of crime and are facing their last strike.

HumanAction-"Therefore, the only reasonable (and non-arbitrary) response is an equal one."

`Reasonable` and `non-arbitrary` are not even close to being synonymous.

Some would find it reasonable for her to have to pay back the $92,000.

Others would find it reasonble for her to have to pay back the $92,000 AND pay an additinoal $92,000 (after all, that`s what she attempted to defraud).

Still others would find imprisonment reasonable.

In each case, the law supercedes.
0
Reply
Female 7,867
I read the original piece and felt it was well written, but oddly did not quite ring true. it is a hard call for me though as I am not American- but for a brilliant description of how the poor have limited choices read Caitlin Moran..
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

It`s the reasonable man standard. You can`t justify a proportionally greater response because the percent response is an arbitrary value.

We wouldn`t justify hanging someone for stealing a candy bar. Therefore, the only reasonable (and non-arbitrary) response is an equal one.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@Cajun

That`s a very interesting read; I quite liked his ideas. Thanks for the link.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
Cajun247-"the response to an aggressor must NOT be greater in proportion to the damage"

Where did you get such an asanine idea as that?
0
Reply
Male 7,762
lauriloo-"Liberals want cheaters caught just as much as you do."

Bullsh|t.

Two Words: "Voter ID". Liberals are against it so that they can ADVOCATE cheating.

Liberals manage to rationalize that, as long as it`s for a `good` cause (read `liberal` cause), cheating is perfectly okay. In fact, it`s pretty much institutionalized within the liberal mindset.

Just a few cheaters that liberals didn`t want caught:
Bill Clinton (purgery)
Philadelphia Black Panthers (voter intimidation)
Timothy Geithner (six-time tax cheat)
William J. Jefferson (guilty of bribary, but re-elected anyway)
Ted Kennedy (murderer, drunkard)
0
Reply
Male 10,855
In short 5Cats, the response to an aggressor must NOT be greater in proportion to the damage. Jail time does not satisfy this criterion, as it simply means further expense for the victim through taxes.

Fraud, Restitution, and Retaliation: The Libertarian Approach
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]So was everyone![/quote]

Errmm... I`m not.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
5Cats: Then all that is necessary is to make her pay back the money she took and be done with it.

[quote]Now those people who donated to "her cause" will be unable to donate to WORTHWHILE causes![/quote]

I doubt very seriously anyone donated their life savings to her cause. In any case I suspect they`re going to be far more cautious over who they donate to. Better after the fact than never wouldn`t you agree?
0
Reply
Male 37,888
@cajun247: So she should be ALLOWED to cheat and defraud people because it costs so much to put her in jail?
WTF>DUDE?

"She was poor in her 20`s"
So was everyone! That doesn`t excuse her writing fiction, passing it as fact, and STEALING!
Now those people who donated to "her cause" will be unable to donate to WORTHWHILE causes! What about that?

Jail = Justice. You do the crime? You do the time.

Making excuses for criminal behaviour is pathetic. No one should get a "free pass" because of gender, skin colour OR income level. Period!

@MeGrendel: Your analysis is "spot on perfect"! Don`t let the nay-sayers tell you otherwise.

Liberals: It`s the GUN`S fault!
Conservatives: It`s the HUMAN`S fault!

Case and point.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]that when someone does something bad it might be worthwhile to look at an underlying reason for that behavior and do something to fix it so it doesn`t happen again[/quote]

So if experts were to reach the conclusion that our welfare state fosters more dependence, would you support eliminating it?
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?[/quote]

Then there`s one aspect of the misplaced generosity I`m referring to.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
[quote]Jail time is note designed to `help anyone`, but rather to penalize a criminal.[/quote]

In which case it absolutely hurts everyone because now the same people who`ve been defrauded have to cough up more money to house, feed, and clothe said culprit.

I should rephrase that, it hurts everyone except the culprit (except for their dignity). Then there`s absolutely no guarantee it won`t stop them from defrauding more people.

[quote]Somehow, you feel this lady is a `victim`.[/quote]
Make no mistake, she absolutely deserved the backlash she received over the $92K. If there`s one takeaway from this story is that American society is not a walking cabal of apathetic tin men the left likes to drivel on about. But rather our generosity tends to be misplaced.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"conservatives attacking individuals"

Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?

"Of course, it`s never that black and white, but that`s the gist of it."

Maybe in your twisted mind but it`s all BS. Liberals want cheaters caught just as much as you do. We just recognize that you don`t look at one person`s actions and assume everyone acts the same way AND that when someone does something bad it might be worthwhile to look at an underlying reason for that behavior and do something to fix it so it doesn`t happen again. It`s called "seeing the big picture", "planning ahead" and "empathy", things the GOP seriously lacks unless it means making them money.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"conservatives attacking individuals"

Since when is the GOP always slashing food stamps, medicare and other aid to EVERYONE holding individuals accountable?
0
Reply
Male 7,762
HumanAction-"end with liberals attacking society and conservatives attacking individuals?"

Rhetorical question:

To liberals, it`s always `society`s` fault. No single individual is responsible for his or her criminal activies, economic situation, health, looks, attire, etc. (unless, of course, you`re a heterosexual male christian...at which point out are at fault for EVERYONE else`s problems).

Liberialism is the ultimate `Not my fault`, `No consequences` `someone support me` agenda.

Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in personal responsibility and accountability. That everyone makes their own choices and lives with the consequences.

Of course, it`s never that black and white, but that`s the gist of it.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
Why is it that these stories - whether exaggerated or wholly fake - oftentimes end with liberals attacking society and conservatives attacking individuals?
0
Reply
Male 7,762
Cajun247-"Nonetheless regarding her as a "criminal""

Let`s see, I believe that defrauding people out of $92,000 is, in fact, criminal.

Cajun247-"making her serve jail time wouldn`t help anyone."

Many people get jail time when it doesn`t `help anyone`. Jail time is note designed to `help anyone`, but rather to penalize a criminal.

Somehow, you feel this lady is a `victim`.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
5Cats, you have to realize how liberals think:

`Liberal Spin` to liberals is liberals telling lies about someone/something for an agenda, which is perfectly okay to them.

`Conservative Spin` to liberals is Conservatives telling the truth about someone/something, revealing their agenda, which is the worst thing you can do to a liberal.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
5Cats: She wasn`t born poor, but she did fall into poverty in her 20s. But the right spun their exposees to a wild conclusion that she was never poor at all.

No doubt her justifications for the $92K were utter BS, as well as her explanations as to why poor people make bad decisions. Nonetheless regarding her as a "criminal" and making her serve jail time wouldn`t help anyone.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Whoops! I didn`t see page 2!

I got to this line and was so disgusted I gave up on it:
"Tirado may not be a "scam artist" or a "fraud,""

Um, NO! She is indeed both a scammer and a fraud! A criminal as well, IMHO!

Oh, and HuffPost readers are gullible liberals too...

"Indeed, on some websites, left-wing commenters have openly taken the `fake but accurate` attitude toward Tirado`s veracity."

LOLZ! That`s the same as "the end justifies the means" eh? It`s one of the hallmarks of liberalism! Telling lies to tell the truth (as they see it) for your own good!

No wonder the Dems had a self-confessed perjurer as their leader...
0
Reply
Male 37,888
@cajun247: Yes I read it, but I didn`t follow all the links.
I`d read about her already on another site, so I went there and put up the links they had :-)

The only people spinning the "politics" of this are the Democrats, who DESPERATELY HOPE we don`t notice that she`s a life-long Dem and an Obama supporter...

Anything they can do to distract from that? They`ll do it!
0
Reply
Male 10,855
@5Cats

All you did put up the three articles that were cited in this one.

I ask again, did you read the article?
0
Reply
Male 37,888
Here`s Some Facts On The Case

NRO Says: She`s A Fake!

Houston Press Blog Investigates Finds her real story is nothing like what she claimed.

@Cajun: How has the "right" spun this? Telling the truth is not "spin" eh? Exposing a fraud has no politics involved: she`s a fake and got caught.
0
Reply
Male 37,888
She`s a middle class person with a background FAR from "poverty".
She`s worked extensively in many Democrat political campaigns.
Her husband is fully employed, they have a comfortable home.

She`s just another liar, period. Her politics have little to do with it, except that she fully expects her "left liberalism" to completely shield her from criticism for her vile deeds.

And what she did is VILE! Should be criminal! She "raised $92,000 for dental work" when in fact she doesn`t need that money for that!

She ought to be tossed into jail, to experience REAL poverty. Sickening.

There has been a lot of this sort of thing over the years, most (but not all) have been lefty, Democrat liberals who KNOW how to play that crowd.
0
Reply
Male 7,762
What?

A liberal lied to promote an agenda?

I`m Shocked. Shocked I say.

0
Reply
Male 2,774
Um, yeah, what a load of hooey.
0
Reply
Male 10,855
Link: Politicization Of Poverty [Pic+] [Rate Link] - No spin, no bias account of Linda Tirado stint in poverty. Exposes how both the left and right have spun the story.
0
Reply