"I'm not concerned about the poor" THANK YOU MITT

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
"I'm not concerned about the poor" THANK YOU MITT

OUT OF CONTEXT,

Bull fucking shit. THAT IS THE TRUTH about the republican party. It is a class war they have started. Marie Antoinette were alive today Ann Cunthead and  and Rush Limpdork would be demanding she run.

It is class genocide through the act of economic starvation. Now, the reality is that even among the republican poor and middle class voters, want the same thing as any human would want. They want a means of survival, but they vote against their own self interest because of these opportunistic leach pundits on the right.

THE BOTTOM LINE OF their argument is simple when taken to it's absurd conclusion, "You deserve death if you cant make ends meet".

Now, the jackasses who sell this, know damned well if they truly believed this, then instead of sticking Jews in ovens, instead of just starving the middle class and poor to death, build ovens for anyone who is in dept or anyone making below a certain amount. After all, we are worthless pieces of shit, even though the middle class and working poor did not drive the economy into the ditch.

He isn't worried about the poor or middle class, Mitt is merely worried about winning an election.

Please I DARE ANYONE on the right to try to defend what Mitt said and then back peddled on.

THANK YOU MITT I think you just handed the election to that Muslim commie.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
The sad thing is the Muslim

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Tapey wrote:The sad thing is

Tapey wrote:

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

The only thing that is terrible about Obama is that he is stuck with a bunch of obstructionist pricks. I hope the entire congress flips so we can get some shit done. That wont happen with the jackasses who wont even go with Obama's ideas when they themselves came up with it first.

Obama hasn't been strong enough, but I am not going to side with the Antoinette party.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Tapey

Brian37 wrote:

Tapey wrote:

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

The only thing that is terrible about Obama is that he is stuck with a bunch of obstructionist pricks. I hope the entire congress flips so we can get some shit done. That wont happen with the jackasses who wont even go with Obama's ideas when they themselves came up with it first.

Obama hasn't been strong enough, but I am not going to side with the Antoinette party.

He is stuck with "obstructionist pricks" because he is not a good enough politician, it is his job to be able to get people to support his policy choices. It is not enough to want to do the right thing/ support the poor/ not be a jackass or whatever. If you cannot get people who are being paid large amounts of money to get in your way out of your way you cannot cut it.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Of course the answer to

Of course the answer to poverty is creating incentives to be poor and stay poor. Such a wonderful long term solution.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
"Rush Limpdork"  That

"Rush Limpdork"

 

That almost sounds like a fastfood delicacy... probably is, too

 

Blueblood'ed Mitt Romney is BLUEBLOOD'ED! He almost earns a vote just for that. If I thought he weren't 'selling out' himself, I would vote for him in the primaries.

Lotsa bluebloods in the world. Some of them are neither compassionate, forgiving, or 'philanthropic'. Many of them, however, are secular atheists.

[imalion=Kapkao]"RAWG"[/imalion]

 

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3267
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:Brian37

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Tapey wrote:

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

The only thing that is terrible about Obama is that he is stuck with a bunch of obstructionist pricks. I hope the entire congress flips so we can get some shit done. That wont happen with the jackasses who wont even go with Obama's ideas when they themselves came up with it first.

Obama hasn't been strong enough, but I am not going to side with the Antoinette party.

He is stuck with "obstructionist pricks" because he is not a good enough politician, it is his job to be able to get people to support his policy choices. It is not enough to want to do the right thing/ support the poor/ not be a jackass or whatever. If you cannot get people who are being paid large amounts of money to get in your way out of your way you cannot cut it.

the "large amounts of money" are a big part of the problem.  a senator or congressman should make a typical civil servant's salary and that's it--and i think typical civil servant's salaries are way too high to begin with.  the idea that a congressman--who needn't have any kind of advanced education--can make as much as or more than an MD is ludicrous.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


Tapey
atheist
Tapey's picture
Posts: 1474
Joined: 2009-01-23
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Tapey

iwbiek wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Tapey wrote:

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

The only thing that is terrible about Obama is that he is stuck with a bunch of obstructionist pricks. I hope the entire congress flips so we can get some shit done. That wont happen with the jackasses who wont even go with Obama's ideas when they themselves came up with it first.

Obama hasn't been strong enough, but I am not going to side with the Antoinette party.

He is stuck with "obstructionist pricks" because he is not a good enough politician, it is his job to be able to get people to support his policy choices. It is not enough to want to do the right thing/ support the poor/ not be a jackass or whatever. If you cannot get people who are being paid large amounts of money to get in your way out of your way you cannot cut it.

the "large amounts of money" are a big part of the problem.  a senator or congressman should make a typical civil servant's salary and that's it--and i think typical civil servant's salaries are way too high to begin with.  the idea that a congressman--who needn't have any kind of advanced education--can make as much as or more than an MD is ludicrous.

Oh I agree with you completely but the system is what it is. And in this system Obama just is not quite good enough. Don't get me wrong he has done some good things and out of all the American presidents that I have been alive for he ranks quite well, But he needs to be better at gaining support for policy. rhetoric works on the public and he is great at rhetoric, but a totally different skill set (backroom dealing) is needed once pushing policy.

Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Tapey wrote:iwbiek

Tapey wrote:

iwbiek wrote:

Tapey wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Tapey wrote:

The sad thing is the Muslim commie is to weak to get anything done. He really needs to take lessons from someone like Margret Thatcher. 

 

Although lets face it poitics is just a choice between terrible choices.

The only thing that is terrible about Obama is that he is stuck with a bunch of obstructionist pricks. I hope the entire congress flips so we can get some shit done. That wont happen with the jackasses who wont even go with Obama's ideas when they themselves came up with it first.

Obama hasn't been strong enough, but I am not going to side with the Antoinette party.

He is stuck with "obstructionist pricks" because he is not a good enough politician, it is his job to be able to get people to support his policy choices. It is not enough to want to do the right thing/ support the poor/ not be a jackass or whatever. If you cannot get people who are being paid large amounts of money to get in your way out of your way you cannot cut it.

the "large amounts of money" are a big part of the problem.  a senator or congressman should make a typical civil servant's salary and that's it--and i think typical civil servant's salaries are way too high to begin with.  the idea that a congressman--who needn't have any kind of advanced education--can make as much as or more than an MD is ludicrous.

Oh I agree with you completely but the system is what it is. And in this system Obama just is not quite good enough. Don't get me wrong he has done some good things and out of all the American presidents that I have been alive for he ranks quite well, But he needs to be better at gaining support for policy. rhetoric works on the public and he is great at rhetoric, but a totally different skill set (backroom dealing) is needed once pushing policy.

 

In a rational world... both of you would have valid ideas-a-plenty.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Of course the

EXC wrote:

Of course the answer to poverty is creating incentives to be poor and stay poor. Such a wonderful long term solution.

 

Get your head out of your ass. I am so fucking sick of this attitude. Your assumption is that life is a script and that anyone who doesn't follow your script is worthless. The problem with that script is that there are far more workers than there are rich and ALWAYS will be.

Stability in pay gap is the key, not all rich or all poor. Right now the pay gap is creating more poverty and only benefiting the top.

I am a perfect example. Before my boss decided to cut back my hours I was doing well. It was not my idea to go up to him and say "Hey you know what would be great, how about you fuck me over and starve me".

Get your head out of your ass, this is NOT a one class system. Nor are any of us clones of each other.

I am sick of people like you blaming the poor. Most people I know IN THE MIDDLE AND POOR CLASSES WANT TO WORK.

OUR current system favors an extraction market by creating bubbles that the top pop and skim and dump the losses on the rest of us.

ADDRESS THE PAY GAP

INVEST IN DECENT PAYING JOBS

ADDRESS HEALTH CARE COSTS

INVEST IN EDUCATON

Our current climate is run by money, not by consensus. Break the monopolies and then maybe the above can be done.

I have seen your stupid mantra for 30 fucking years. Trickle down DOES NOT WORK!

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote: Of course the

Double post.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I am sick of

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of people like you blaming the poor. Most people I know IN THE MIDDLE AND POOR CLASSES WANT TO WORK.

OUR current system favors an extraction market by creating bubbles that the top pop and skim and dump the losses on the rest of us.

ADDRESS THE PAY GAP

Get a job in a field or area that is producing a product in high demand. Say for example in North Dakota http://www.ndoiljobs.com/ where the average oil job is paying 6 figures and jobs are available even without a degree or experience. There are jobs offering good money, you might have to switch fields, move, get trained or make other sacrifices, but they exist for those willing. If your wages are low chances are it is because there isn't a lot of demand for your job.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

INVEST IN DECENT PAYING JOBS

Work in a decent paying job. (whatever your definition of decent is)

 

Brian37 wrote:

ADDRESS HEALTH CARE COSTS

Repeal Bamacare and eliminate the ban on buying health insurance across state lines. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

INVEST IN EDUCATON

How much money are we spending on education? I think even a half assed look at the evidence shows that lack of funding is not the problem in our education system. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Get your head

Brian37 wrote:

Get your head out of your ass. I am so fucking sick of this attitude. Your assumption is that life is a script and that anyone who doesn't follow your script is worthless. The problem with that script is that there are far more workers than there are rich and ALWAYS will be.

Do you ever get tired of making a strawman out of me. Debate the facts. We've had a war on poverty for almost 50 years. Same poverty rate, just massive debt and dependency. A continuation of the behaviors that cause poverty passed from one generation to the next.

Yes there is always the poor. It's how we do population size control. So your answer is get out the credit card and charge more until the whole country is bankrupt. Sorry if I don't want to follow that script.

I tired of your phony compassion attitude. One of Ghandi's seven deadly sins is Religion without Sacrifice. You have infinite compassion for the poor as long it's not your sacrifice. If you care so much, do it yourself.

Brian37 wrote:

I am a perfect example. Before my boss decided to cut back my hours I was doing well. It was not my idea to go up to him and say "Hey you know what would be great, how about you fuck me over and starve me".

So this means that someone else is willing to do your job for less money. So what do you want, you get paid more while the other guy goes without? What makes you better than the guy willing to take your job?

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of people like you blaming the poor. Most people I know IN THE MIDDLE AND POOR CLASSES WANT TO WORK.

 

When have I ever "blamed" the poor? I blame people with your irrational political ideas like rewarding failure and punishing success.

Brian37 wrote:

ADDRESS THE PAY GAP

Supply and demand problem. Too many unskilled workers.

1. Only pay schools for producing students with job skills. Force students to study science/technical/medical and not whatever they feel like.

2. No permanent welfare. Force them into job training.

3. Stop job killing taxes like this 'Medical Device Tax' shit.

4. Mandatory birth control for those that can not support any more children.

 


Brian37 wrote:

Our current climate is run by money, not by consensus. Break the monopolies and then maybe the above can be done.

No. It's run by entitlement:

1. Students are entitled to study whatever they feel like and then blame society when their unemployed.

2. Teachers are entitled to not produce skilled workers and then keep their unions jobs and pensions.

3. Poor people are entitled to live in homes they can not afford.

4. Politicians are entitled to keep taxing me without any benefit to myself.

5. People are entitled to have as many kids at they please and pass the cost onto others.

6. Employers are entitled to hire illegal aliens without punishment.

7. Leftist are entitled to believe they are compassionate just because they want to tax the rich more.

 

Government has become a tool for armed robbery by other means on a massive scale.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of people like you blaming the poor. Most people I know IN THE MIDDLE AND POOR CLASSES WANT TO WORK.

OUR current system favors an extraction market by creating bubbles that the top pop and skim and dump the losses on the rest of us.

ADDRESS THE PAY GAP

Get a job in a field or area that is producing a product in high demand. Say for example in North Dakota http://www.ndoiljobs.com/ where the average oil job is paying 6 figures and jobs are available even without a degree or experience. There are jobs offering good money, you might have to switch fields, move, get trained or make other sacrifices, but they exist for those willing. If your wages are low chances are it is because there isn't a lot of demand for your job.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

INVEST IN DECENT PAYING JOBS

Work in a decent paying job. (whatever your definition of decent is)

 

Brian37 wrote:

ADDRESS HEALTH CARE COSTS

Repeal Bamacare and eliminate the ban on buying health insurance across state lines. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

INVEST IN EDUCATON

How much money are we spending on education? I think even a half assed look at the evidence shows that lack of funding is not the problem in our education system. 

I had a decent paying job. KNOCK IT OFF, I am sick of your crap. Poor people and the middle class are the ones getting screwed. Your mindset are the ones perpetuating this climate that has caused this mess. When you get your ass handed to you at the voting booth don't come bitching to me. You'll only get away with it for so long.

Suze Orman and Warren Buffet see the inequity, so you have no fucking excuse yourself other than the fear you fucking swallow.

Your mindset had it's way for 30 years. And the pay gap has exploded and the cost of living has exploded and bubble after bubble gets dumped on us.

If you had been a law maker after WW2 there would have been no highway system built, there would have been no Hoover Dam and their would have been no GI bill and there would have been no middle class built.

Get your head out of your ass, Your ilk at the top of the pay chain thrives of making indentured slaves and is only interested in padding profits. You are being lead by the nose by the most selfish of society who dont give a fuck whom they screw over to make a buck.

You had your chance, your friends wrecked the car, now someone else wants a shot at driving. Boo and fucking whoo, cry me a river. Get your corporate buddies to stop fucking the rest of us over and get them to care, then we can talk. But until and unless that happens, I will not back off. Money has no rights over the rest of us as an absolute power. It is WE THE PEOPLE, not WE THE RICH because we are the most important.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Brian37 wrote:Get

EXC wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Get your head out of your ass. I am so fucking sick of this attitude. Your assumption is that life is a script and that anyone who doesn't follow your script is worthless. The problem with that script is that there are far more workers than there are rich and ALWAYS will be.

Do you ever get tired of making a strawman out of me. Debate the facts. We've had a war on poverty for almost 50 years. Same poverty rate, just massive debt and dependency. A continuation of the behaviors that cause poverty passed from one generation to the next.

Yes there is always the poor. It's how we do population size control. So your answer is get out the credit card and charge more until the whole country is bankrupt. Sorry if I don't want to follow that script.

I tired of your phony compassion attitude. One of Ghandi's seven deadly sins is Religion without Sacrifice. You have infinite compassion for the poor as long it's not your sacrifice. If you care so much, do it yourself.

Brian37 wrote:

I am a perfect example. Before my boss decided to cut back my hours I was doing well. It was not my idea to go up to him and say "Hey you know what would be great, how about you fuck me over and starve me".

So this means that someone else is willing to do your job for less money. So what do you want, you get paid more while the other guy goes without? What makes you better than the guy willing to take your job?

Brian37 wrote:

I am sick of people like you blaming the poor. Most people I know IN THE MIDDLE AND POOR CLASSES WANT TO WORK.

 

When have I ever "blamed" the poor? I blame people with your irrational political ideas like rewarding failure and punishing success.

Brian37 wrote:

ADDRESS THE PAY GAP

Supply and demand problem. Too many unskilled workers.

1. Only pay schools for producing students with job skills. Force students to study science/technical/medical and not whatever they feel like.

2. No permanent welfare. Force them into job training.

3. Stop job killing taxes like this 'Medical Device Tax' shit.

4. Mandatory birth control for those that can not support any more children.

 

 

Brian37 wrote:

Our current climate is run by money, not by consensus. Break the monopolies and then maybe the above can be done.

No. It's run by entitlement:

1. Students are entitled to study whatever they feel like and then blame society when their unemployed.

2. Teachers are entitled to not produce skilled workers and then keep their unions jobs and pensions.

3. Poor people are entitled to live in homes they can not afford.

4. Politicians are entitled to keep taxing me without any benefit to myself.

5. People are entitled to have as many kids at they please and pass the cost onto others.

6. Employers are entitled to hire illegal aliens without punishment.

7. Leftist are entitled to believe they are compassionate just because they want to tax the rich more.

 

Government has become a tool for armed robbery by other means on a massive scale.

 

To sum up your argument.

Money equals power and fuck you and everyone else who doesn't have it. Every man for themselves. Do you masturbate over Ayn Rand's picture?

Damned fucking right we should tax the rich more. I feel so sorry for GE and Mitt Romney, they are eating cat food, I forgot.

Lets take up a collection for the rich, I'm passing the plate around right now.

You can deal with us "lefties" now, or later, but what wont happen is more of the same. We've had enough of your bullshit and poor me Richy Rich victim crap.

Warren Buffet AND Suze Orman are hardly poor and if they can see the abuse at the top, YOU need to get your fucking head out of your ass.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:I had a decent

Brian37 wrote:

I had a decent paying job. KNOCK IT OFF, I am sick of your crap. Poor people and the middle class are the ones getting screwed. 

If you're getting screwed and you don't like it, get out of the brothel. The only person who can change your financial situation is you. Whine all you want about the pay gap- the only way to fix it is for you to make more money. If you really want to I can offer dozens of ideas on how you might attempt to do just that. Personally, I don't care about the pay gap one way or the other. My only concern is whether you COULD make more money if you wanted to, so far your only response has been that you don't want to do what is necessary to make more. I'm still trying to figure out how that is my fault.  

 

Brian37 wrote:

Suze Orman and Warren Buffet see the inequity, so you have no fucking excuse yourself other than the fear you fucking swallow.

Then why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his poor secretary more? That greedy SOB. 

 

Brian37 wrote:
 

Your mindset had it's way for 30 years. 

Really? Name one libertarian that has had any significant influence over public policy for the last 30 years. Exactly which law/policy was implemented that is libertarian? 

 

Brian37 wrote:

If you had been a law maker after WW2 there would have been no highway system built, there would have been no Hoover Dam and their would have been no GI bill and there would have been no middle class built.

Really? The highway system and the Hoover Dam are the last time the government did something useful? Were you aware that over 100 people died while building the Hoover Dam? The conditions were terrible and the pay was shit, when the workers went on strike they were all fired. I daresay that if a private company decided to build something similar to the Hoover Dam today you would be the first one screaming. First about the environmental impact and then about the terrible work conditions. You would be ready to tar and feather the evil executives of the company. But wait, government paid for it, so the Hoover Dam is great...

 

And roads, when did I ever argue against roads? It is one of the duties specifically delegated to Congress in article 1 section 8 of the Constitution

The Constitution wrote:
To establish Post Offices and Post Roads

I have never argued against the government building infrastructure that is needed and the gas tax is a tax I support. I am inclined to leave most infrastructure construction up to the state and local level unless the project is large enough to require federal coordination. Has anyone suggested any kind of large public works project like that? You realize the highway system was about half the price of the "stimulus" even after you adjust for inflation. The bottom line is that infrastructure projects are a very small portion of the federal budget (slightly over $100 billion in a $3.8 trillion budget, less than 3%) and even that portion of the budget is now filled with payoffs and pork that doesn't really help anyone. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: To sum up

Brian37 wrote:

 

To sum up your argument.

Money equals power and fuck you and everyone else who doesn't have it. Every man for themselves.

 

Actually the complete opposite. I have whole list of things unrelated to money that the government should force people do besides just pay taxes.

Whereas you on the other hand are totally obsessed with getting you hands on the others people's money. If money is so damned evil, why are you totally obsessed with getting as much as you can? You tell us money taken by force from anyone that has any, is the solution to all of society's problems. And then tell us how greedy the rich are??? WTF.

You accuse the rich of stealing all the time, so your answer is to do the same. You are so obsessed with money you have basically become an armed robber, except you have the IRS do you dirty work for you.

Face it, you are exactly what you hate. Obsessed with money, believing money is the answer to everything and willing to do anything to get it.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Then why

Beyond Saving wrote:

Then why doesn't Warren Buffet pay his poor secretary more? That greedy SOB.

I mean, he almost certainly should pay his secretary more...

 

Also, Brian, this is getting tiresome: you keep saying Beyond Saving and EXC don't care about the poor even when they explicitly say they do. Why do you not believe them? What is it about their ideas that makes you think they don't care?

 


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Also,

blacklight915 wrote:

Also, Brian, this is getting tiresome: you keep saying Beyond Saving and EXC don't care about the poor even when they explicitly say they do. Why do you not believe them? What is it about their ideas that makes you think they don't care?

Well, people can say anything even explicitly. In fairness to Brian37 I don't think you were here for some of the more colorful commentary from these two. It ranges from praise of Ayn Rand and unregulated free markets to characterizing altruism as an evil or even non-existent, to forcing people who receive government assistance to raise and slaughter pigs in their tenement house studio apartments.

It's possible they care about the poor in some way. They say when a dog is drowning everyone offers him water. People often appear pitiless to others who meet with misfortune.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:Well, people

Gauche wrote:

Well, people can say anything even explicitly. In fairness to Brian37 I don't think you were here for some of the more colorful commentary from these two. It ranges from praise of Ayn Rand and unregulated free markets to characterizing altruism as an evil or even non-existent, to forcing people who receive government assistance to raise and slaughter pigs in their tenement house studio apartments.

It's possible they care about the poor in some way. They say when a dog is drowning everyone offers him water. People often appear pitiless to others who meet with misfortune.

Yeah, I only joined recently, so I probably missed all that...

Huh, I am somewhat familiar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism. At least, I know it is very popular amongst the people in the libertarian group I belong to.

While I think I understand the point being made when people argue that altruism is evil, I do not think the statement itself is valid.

I believe the basic thrust of the argument is that selflessness and self-sacrifice do not automatically make one more virtuous and, furthermore, that selflessness and self-sacrifice are not required to be virtuous. While I definitely agree with the first of these two statements, and I possibly agree with the second, I still think that selflessness and self-sacrifice can make one more virtuous and can be good things to do.


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:blacklight915

Gauche wrote:

blacklight915 wrote:

Also, Brian, this is getting tiresome: you keep saying Beyond Saving and EXC don't care about the poor even when they explicitly say they do. Why do you not believe them? What is it about their ideas that makes you think they don't care?

Well, people can say anything even explicitly. In fairness to Brian37 I don't think you were here for some of the more colorful commentary from these two. It ranges from praise of Ayn Rand and unregulated free markets to characterizing altruism as an evil or even non-existent, to forcing people who receive government assistance to raise and slaughter pigs in their tenement house studio apartments.

It's possible they care about the poor in some way. They say when a dog is drowning everyone offers him water. People often appear pitiless to others who meet with misfortune.

The Frenchman makes a salient point... mostly because I agree with it.

  >  <                                        △                                                               \_/                                           

*oink, oink*

[/mrpotatoheadsmiley]

 

edit; I really suck at html

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
In any case, one could argue

In any case, one could argue that poverty is largely a question of "declar(ing) a war" on the poverty gene.

Quite empircally, in fact.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
blacklight915 wrote:Also,

blacklight915 wrote:

Also, Brian, this is getting tiresome: you keep saying Beyond Saving and EXC don't care about the poor even when they explicitly say they do. Why do you not believe them? What is it about their ideas that makes you think they don't care?

 

Actually, I wouldn't say that I "care" about the poor. I believe that altruism and "caring" as it is commonly understood is not possible for anyone. It's an illusion just like free will is an illusion. I don't believe anyone is capable of a truly unselfish act. If you read the post on oxytocin and other evidence for what motivates behaviors, I don't think a rational person can come to any other conclustion except that we always act in our own interests of feeling good. Compassion is way to gain social currency.

I don't enjoy seeing people suffer, it makes me feel uncomfortable. So any motivation I would have to help the less fortunate is simple motivated by what feels good to me or some other selfish interest. I can't really feel anyone else's pain, so why pretend like all the phony compassion folks that I can. But I don't believe being self interested rules out the possibility of cooperation.

If people that claim they care for the poor actually wanted to end poverty, they would be in favor of other methods of eliminating the problem. Obviously welfare and charity don't work or it would have been eliminated the problem by now. They would be in favor of mandatory birth control and forcing schools to teach job skills not just forced charity by the government.

The real motivation behind their 'caring' is that it 'feels' good. There is nothing harmful with that per se. This feeling of compassion enables cooperation. It should motivate them to sacrifice to help people. But their compassion is only for other people to sacrifice. So they can 'feel' they are compassionate without spending their own money. It's like getting a free drug. But don't expect me to think they are using rationality or science to solve any problems. They're junkies looking for a free high.

Despite the strawman characture that Gauche and Brian37 would like to make of me, I think for myself. I don't model myself after anyone.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
EXC wrote:Of course the

EXC wrote:

Of course the answer to poverty is creating incentives to be poor and stay poor. Such a wonderful long term solution.

 

Such self centered black and white thinking.

When you think of "poor" you falsely think of third world countries. If you truly don't want that, and I don't think you do, then you need to STOP treating people like lepers and criminals. PAY GAP, and cost of living are creating more poor. There is always going to be a low end in an open market. No one is suggesting the poor be lazy or uneducated, what we are saying is to stop making things worse.

Your ilk mindset HAS created this gap over the past 30 years. I am sick of your mindset blaming everything on the middle class and working poor.

Our government protects the rich. In turn they drive down wages and raise prices. That puts more people on the government dime you say they shouldn't be on. THE FUCKING SOLUTION is to foster a more reasonable range between the top and bottom. If those at the top don't want to be self regulating and only care about profits, then they have no right to bitch about others using the same government they use to set up the crap that wrecked the car.

You want government off your back, FINE, then STOP making it harder for more people to make ends meet, which is what your mindset does. Your Fuxs News financial view of economics is exactly what has fucked things up.

 

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I don't enjoy seeing

Quote:
I don't enjoy seeing people suffer, it makes me feel uncomfortable.

You say that, but then you side with Marie Antoinette. I don't think even my most ardent detractors on this issue truly want to see the end result of that mentality, but that is where we are headed. I simply think people like you and Beyond have swallowed the economic party line because you have swallowed the mantra of robbery and laziness falsely sold to you by your side.

1. A THREE CLASS SYSTEM is needed. EVERY ONE IS NEEDED, to have a healthy market.

2. No one in an open market should begrudge someone for "making it".

3. PAY GAP! COST OF LIVING. Nothing more. Address that, and do so through self introspection and self investment. But "every man for themselves" under our rigged market, will not work.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13490
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote:I don't enjoy seeing

double post


 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: When you

Brian37 wrote:

 

When you think of "poor" you falsely think of third world countries. If you truly don't want that, and I don't think you do, then you need to STOP treating people like lepers and criminals.

When have I ever advocated this? You're have to make shit up about you opponent to try an make any points. Yes, many of the poor are lazy. But that is because the welfare state has incentivized this behavior. So I blame people like you with your irration approach to poverty.

 

Brian37 wrote:

PAY GAP, and cost of living are creating more poor. There is always going to be a low end in an open market. No one is suggesting the poor be lazy or uneducated, what we are saying is to stop making things worse.

OK the pay gap is due to supply and demand. An oversupply of unskilled labor. So mandatory birth control, only paying for schools that produce people with job skills, eliminate illegal immigration. That would "stop making things worse". What you suggest more welfare and higher minimum wage is not a sollution that address the oversupply problem with the pay gap.

Brian37 wrote:

Your ilk mindset HAS created this gap over the past 30 years. I am sick of your mindset blaming everything on the middle class and working poor.

I don't blame it on them. I blame it people like you with your irration approach to poverty and for voting for politicians that pander to it. It's obvious it's diven by anger and jealousy.

Brian37 wrote:
Our government protects the rich.

Of course, they pay the taxes. You expect government to kil their goose that lays golden eggs?

 

Brian37 wrote:

In turn they drive down wages and raise prices.

 And market forces have nothing to do with that? Inflation is caused by the Fed 'printing money.'

 

Brian37 wrote:

You want government off your back, FINE, then STOP making it harder for more people to make ends meet, which is what your mindset does. Your Fuxs News financial view of economics is exactly what has fucked things up.

 

I hardly agree with Fuxs News, they would probably call me a communist.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:1. A THREE

Brian37 wrote:

1. A THREE CLASS SYSTEM is needed. EVERY ONE IS NEEDED, to have a healthy market.

Why? I don't see any reason that we have to keep people poor. 

 

Brian37 wrote:

2. No one in an open market should begrudge someone for "making it".

Then why do you begrudge and demonize people who make it?

 

Brian37 wrote:

3. PAY GAP! COST OF LIVING. Nothing more. Address that, and do so through self introspection and self investment. But "every man for themselves" under our rigged market, will not work.

Do you believe you could you make more if that was your main or sole priority?

 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


blacklight915
blacklight915's picture
Posts: 544
Joined: 2011-12-23
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:If you read the

EXC wrote:

If you read the post on oxytocin and other evidence for what motivates behaviors, I don't think a rational person can come to any other conclustion except that we always act in our own interests of feeling good.

Huh, that sounds pretty interesting, I'll have to check it out.

 

EXC wrote:

I can't really feel anyone else's pain, so why pretend like all the phony compassion folks that I can.

However, you can feel your mind's approximation of what their pain is like.

 


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
 Why does it seem that

 Why does it seem that "libertarians" want economic liberty for themselves alone?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote: Why does it

jcgadfly wrote:

 Why does it seem that "libertarians" want economic liberty for themselves alone?

 

For example?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

 Why does it seem that "libertarians" want economic liberty for themselves alone?

 

For example?

It seems that the only solutions brought up are punitive (i.e. eliminating the social safety net and cutting education funding) instead of incentivizing economic improvements ((job creation, infrastructure, etc).

"Entitlements" need to go (except for Rand Paul's Medicare payments)?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:It seems that

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems that the only solutions brought up are punitive (i.e. eliminating the social safety net and cutting education funding) instead of incentivizing economic improvements ((job creation, infrastructure, etc).

So not giving somebody something is punitive? You didn't buy me a Christmas present this year. Why are you punishing me? Why aren't you my personal slave? All this punishment for poor me.

 

I have offered a number of solutions I don't consider punitive. When Brian bitched about the pay gap, I suggested he look into getting a job in North Dakota near the oil fields where pay is high. When Vastet bitched about not having enough money to invest in a business I made a recommendation of where to go, when and how to try to raise funds.

 

I routinely offer suggestions of what one might do to improve their personal economic situations. If they decide not to heed my advice I am fine with that. I support them having the liberty to do nothing and remain in their current situation even if I believe they would be better off doing something else. Liberty means having the freedom to govern your own affairs, it does no come with a guarantee you will govern them well. How is that punitive?

 

You want to create incentive to create jobs? Then let me keep my money and stay out of the way. The incentive is already there, it is called profit and even though profit is unfashionable right now, people still seek it. Greedy assholes like me already want to create jobs. Hiring other people is what allows me to sit here lazily drinking my coffee and posting on forums. What could the government do that would give you incentive to create a job?

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

It seems that the only solutions brought up are punitive (i.e. eliminating the social safety net and cutting education funding) instead of incentivizing economic improvements ((job creation, infrastructure, etc).

So not giving somebody something is punitive? You didn't buy me a Christmas present this year. Why are you punishing me? Why aren't you my personal slave? All this punishment for poor me.

 

I have offered a number of solutions I don't consider punitive. When Brian bitched about the pay gap, I suggested he look into getting a job in North Dakota near the oil fields where pay is high. When Vastet bitched about not having enough money to invest in a business I made a recommendation of where to go, when and how to try to raise funds.

 

I routinely offer suggestions of what one might do to improve their personal economic situations. If they decide not to heed my advice I am fine with that. I support them having the liberty to do nothing and remain in their current situation even if I believe they would be better off doing something else. Liberty means having the freedom to govern your own affairs, it does no come with a guarantee you will govern them well. How is that punitive?

 

You want to create incentive to create jobs? Then let me keep my money and stay out of the way. The incentive is already there, it is called profit and even though profit is unfashionable right now, people still seek it. Greedy assholes like me already want to create jobs. Hiring other people is what allows me to sit here lazily drinking my coffee and posting on forums. What could the government do that would give you incentive to create a job?

 

No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

Making them work for the welfare check instead of paying them a wage is punitive. Making them take a piss test before they can get a check is punitive.

I imagine these are programs you support. I'm glad you post the ideas you post though I suspect most of them work much better if you have a rich relative helping you start.

If profit were an incentive jobs would be created by the tens of millions. That's not happening, is it? Profit is an incentive for hoarding.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, not

jcgadfly wrote:

No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

I have no problem helping people out in hard times. I just don't believe that using government to force it is desirable. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Making them work for the welfare check instead of paying them a wage is punitive. Making them take a piss test before they can get a check is punitive.

Well in my ideal world there wouldn't be any welfare checks. If you are having money handed to you I don't think you are in a position to complain about any requirements the giver decides to puts on the money. If I personally am giving someone money as charity I don't care if they use drugs, but it isn't my role to tell anyone they can't request such requirements before they give it out. So in the case of welfare, I think I as a tax payer should have control of my money. If I decide to give $100 to some homeless drunk and I don't care if he/she buys more booze fine. If some church decides they will only give away the money if the person enters rehab, fine. My money, their money. That's what economic liberty is, you spend your money however you want, and I'll spend mine however I want. When you take liberty away from the individual and put the government in charge of that money you can't be surprised when they tie a series of strings on that money. The government is far more likely to try to control people than I am. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

If profit were an incentive jobs would be created by the tens of millions. That's not happening, is it? Profit is an incentive for hoarding.

You don't profit from hoarding any more than a UFC fighter wins by covering up. Right now investors are covering up and trying to protect themselves. Get the government out of the way. You can ask any person who is in a position to invest why they are not investing right now, the answer you will get will be an uncertainty of profitability due to the massive government regulations. Which government regulation will depend on the particular industry.

 

I suspect that by far the largest reason investors are hoarding is Bamacare. Any business with over 50 employees is going to have large costs and the exact costs can't be calculated until all the rule making is done. For example, every company with over 50 employees has to build a lactation room- even if you don't have any female employees. Rooms don't build themselves and they aren't free so every company with over 50 employees has to set aside $X to build a lactation room, that is money that can't be used to hire a new employee. Most companies are probably waiting to see if Bamacare is going to be struck down by SCOTUS before committing to the expense because most employers probably don't believe they need a lactation room. If Bamacare is upheld, going into the lactation room building business would probably be profitable as many employers will be scrambling to get them built on time.

 

When those costs are known or investors believe they have enough to cover whatever that cost may be they will start investing again. Until then, practicality dictates that you save your money. My top priority is to protect the business I already have and I'm not going to branch out if I think doing so will jeopardize my current business, doing so would not only be risky for myself but would be irresponsible towards my current business partners and employees. Right now, I believe it would and many other investors have apparently come to the same conclusion I have. 

 

So I repeat, what could the government do that would cause YOU to create a job? Why is it someone else's responsibility to do it for you?

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

I have no problem helping people out in hard times. I just don't believe that using government to force it is desirable. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Making them work for the welfare check instead of paying them a wage is punitive. Making them take a piss test before they can get a check is punitive.

Well in my ideal world there wouldn't be any welfare checks. If you are having money handed to you I don't think you are in a position to complain about any requirements the giver decides to puts on the money. If I personally am giving someone money as charity I don't care if they use drugs, but it isn't my role to tell anyone they can't request such requirements before they give it out. So in the case of welfare, I think I as a tax payer should have control of my money. If I decide to give $100 to some homeless drunk and I don't care if he/she buys more booze fine. If some church decides they will only give away the money if the person enters rehab, fine. My money, their money. That's what economic liberty is, you spend your money however you want, and I'll spend mine however I want. When you take liberty away from the individual and put the government in charge of that money you can't be surprised when they tie a series of strings on that money. The government is far more likely to try to control people than I am. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

If profit were an incentive jobs would be created by the tens of millions. That's not happening, is it? Profit is an incentive for hoarding.

You don't profit from hoarding any more than a UFC fighter wins by covering up. Right now investors are covering up and trying to protect themselves. Get the government out of the way. You can ask any person who is in a position to invest why they are not investing right now, the answer you will get will be an uncertainty of profitability due to the massive government regulations. Which government regulation will depend on the particular industry.

 

I suspect that by far the largest reason investors are hoarding is Bamacare. Any business with over 50 employees is going to have large costs and the exact costs can't be calculated until all the rule making is done. For example, every company with over 50 employees has to build a lactation room- even if you don't have any female employees. Rooms don't build themselves and they aren't free so every company with over 50 employees has to set aside $X to build a lactation room, that is money that can't be used to hire a new employee. Most companies are probably waiting to see if Bamacare is going to be struck down by SCOTUS before committing to the expense because most employers probably don't believe they need a lactation room. If Bamacare is upheld, going into the lactation room building business would probably be profitable as many employers will be scrambling to get them built on time.

 

When those costs are known or investors believe they have enough to cover whatever that cost may be they will start investing again. Until then, practicality dictates that you save your money. My top priority is to protect the business I already have and I'm not going to branch out if I think doing so will jeopardize my current business, doing so would not only be risky for myself but would be irresponsible towards my current business partners and employees. Right now, I believe it would and many other investors have apparently come to the same conclusion I have. 

 

So I repeat, what could the government do that would cause YOU to create a job? Why is it someone else's responsibility to do it for you?

What are they protecting themselves from? a poor economy that they can stimulate? Taxes that are lower than they've been in history?

Why are you asking people without means to create the jobs that those who have means don't want to? Profits are at record highs - your logic says that there should be more jobs than people. Since that isn't happening - profit is not an incentive to job creation.

As for myself, I do create jobs within the parameters I am allowed to operate in (usually 2-3 every semester).

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:What are they

jcgadfly wrote:

What are they protecting themselves from? a poor economy that they can stimulate? Taxes that are lower than they've been in history?

The loss of money. Investors invest when they believe there will be profit. Right now there are a variety of reasons why a rational person would conclude that starting a new venture would be less than profitable. I listed a specific example in my post and have listed many examples in a variety of posts in this forum explaining why I personally am not expanding and why other business owners I know are not expanding. Get government influence out of the way and investors will find places they believe will be profitable and invest. When you make running a company more expensive you can expect less companies to be started, it is a very simple concept, and virtually every law passed the last several years by GW and Bama have made it more expensive to operate a company unless you have political connections that most of us don't have. Bamacare alone dramatically increases the costs of payroll, which for most companies is by far the largest expenditure. The bailouts, corporate welfare, social welfare, quantitative easing and monetizing the debt costs businesses money both through direct means such as taxes and fees, but just as importantly through indirect means such as inflation and falling consumer demand (or worse by creating false demand).

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Why are you asking people without means to create the jobs that those who have means don't want to?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than leave me alone to run my business. You're the one complaining about there not being enough jobs. If you want more jobs, you make them. I'll make jobs as I need them. It makes no difference to me if you become a tycoon and employ thousands or if you spend your life smoking crack in an alley. As far as I'm concerned you are free to contribute a lot to society or contribute nothing. For the most part, those who produce a lot of what is in demand will make a lot of money, those who contribute nothing won't.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Profits are at record highs - your logic says that there should be more jobs than people. Since that isn't happening - profit is not an incentive to job creation.

Government intervention is at record highs. Why do I hire people? Because I believe that hiring a person will make me more money than I was making before hiring the person. If I don't believe it will make me more money, I won't hire them. 

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for myself, I do create jobs within the parameters I am allowed to operate in (usually 2-3 every semester).

So is the government forcing you to purchase more expensive health insurance going to make you more or less likely to hire more people?

 

Is the government charging you more for unemployment insurance for each person you hire going to make you more or less likely to hire more people?

 

If the government gives one of your competitors massive grants is that going to make you more or less likely to expand?

 

When you see inflation happening on your core expenditures, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When you see companies like Boeing get crucified for attempting to build a factory in a right to work state, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When the government is writing regulations left and right that costs billions for businesses to be in compliance with, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When there is a decent sized political movement that basically demands to seize the money of the top 1%, and they find friendly support from political leaders, does that make you more or less likely to expand?

 

When the US government seems to be headed for default, which will trash the value of the dollar, are you more or less likely to expand in the US if you have the ability to expand overseas?

 

These are all factors that investors consider. Which play larger roles in influencing the decision depends on the individual investor and their particular industry. I am sure there are dozens of other reasons, but they all boil down to a growing federal government that makes starting/operating a business more expensive and more risky. The higher the perceived risk and the lower the perceived reward, the fewer people will be willing to take it. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:jcgadfly

Beyond Saving wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

What are they protecting themselves from? a poor economy that they can stimulate? Taxes that are lower than they've been in history?

The loss of money. Investors invest when they believe there will be profit. Right now there are a variety of reasons why a rational person would conclude that starting a new venture would be less than profitable. I listed a specific example in my post and have listed many examples in a variety of posts in this forum explaining why I personally am not expanding and why other business owners I know are not expanding. Get government influence out of the way and investors will find places they believe will be profitable and invest. When you make running a company more expensive you can expect less companies to be started, it is a very simple concept, and virtually every law passed the last several years by GW and Bama have made it more expensive to operate a company unless you have political connections that most of us don't have. Bamacare alone dramatically increases the costs of payroll, which for most companies is by far the largest expenditure. The bailouts, corporate welfare, social welfare, quantitative easing and monetizing the debt costs businesses money both through direct means such as taxes and fees, but just as importantly through indirect means such as inflation and falling consumer demand (or worse by creating false demand).

Again, record profits show that they're not losing money.  You can quit bringing up what isn't happening.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Why are you asking people without means to create the jobs that those who have means don't want to?

I'm not asking anyone to do anything other than leave me alone to run my business. You're the one complaining about there not being enough jobs. If you want more jobs, you make them. I'll make jobs as I need them. It makes no difference to me if you become a tycoon and employ thousands or if you spend your life smoking crack in an alley. As far as I'm concerned you are free to contribute a lot to society or contribute nothing. For the most part, those who produce a lot of what is in demand will make a lot of money, those who contribute nothing won't.

What I'm "complaining about is the lie that lowering taxes on guys like Romney and Gingrich will magically make jobs poof out of the ether. Other than that, I agree with you. so we're back to "The alleged job creators aren't losing money. Why aren't they creating jobs?"

 

jcgadfly wrote:

Profits are at record highs - your logic says that there should be more jobs than people. Since that isn't happening - profit is not an incentive to job creation.

Government intervention is at record highs. Why do I hire people? Because I believe that hiring a person will make me more money than I was making before hiring the person. If I don't believe it will make me more money, I won't hire them.

But, again, it doesn't seem to be affecting the profits of the "job creators" (record highs, remember?)  so government intervention isn't an excuse.   

 

jcgadfly wrote:

As for myself, I do create jobs within the parameters I am allowed to operate in (usually 2-3 every semester).

So is the government forcing you to purchase more expensive health insurance going to make you more or less likely to hire more people?

 

Is the government charging you more for unemployment insurance for each person you hire going to make you more or less likely to hire more people?

 

If the government gives one of your competitors massive grants is that going to make you more or less likely to expand?

 

When you see inflation happening on your core expenditures, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When you see companies like Boeing get crucified for attempting to build a factory in a right to work state, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When the government is writing regulations left and right that costs billions for businesses to be in compliance with, does that make your more or less likely to expand?

 

When there is a decent sized political movement that basically demands to seize the money of the top 1%, and they find friendly support from political leaders, does that make you more or less likely to expand?

 

When the US government seems to be headed for default, which will trash the value of the dollar, are you more or less likely to expand in the US if you have the ability to expand overseas?

 

These are all factors that investors consider. Which play larger roles in influencing the decision depends on the individual investor and their particular industry. I am sure there are dozens of other reasons, but they all boil down to a growing federal government that makes starting/operating a business more expensive and more risky. The higher the perceived risk and the lower the perceived reward, the fewer people will be willing to take it. 

Damn that evil government for wanting to provide for its citizens and wanting to stimulate the economy!If the government was really forcing business to do anything there wouldn't be a corporation paying a zero (or less) income tax.

The government is heading for default because the people that can stimulate the economy choose not to. Why do you think they want the country to go under? Or is this what is driving your profits?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:No, not

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).


This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Damn that

jcgadfly wrote:

Damn that evil government for wanting to provide for its citizens and wanting to stimulate the economy!If the government was really forcing business to do anything there wouldn't be a corporation paying a zero (or less) income tax.

Are they providing for its citizens? Maybe the ones with political connections and a series of promises that any idiot who glances at the budget can tell the money won't be there for. It certainly isn't stimulating the economy and I argue is doing the exact opposite for the reasons listed above.

 

jcgadfly wrote:

The government is heading for default because the people that can stimulate the economy choose not to. Why do you think they want the country to go under? Or is this what is driving your profits?

The government is risking default simply because it is spending too much money without getting enough tax revenue. There is no realistic way that even amazing economic growth is going to solve that problem. It can only be solved by the government, but no one in DC seems the slightest bit serious about dealing with it. If a default occurs, it will not be good for anyone living here. Even if our government gains their sanity and radically cuts spending we will have undesirable side effects. I'm all for eliminating entitlements, but cutting them off cold turkey will be like quitting heroin cold turkey. A lot of people who have become dependent on the government are going to have huge problems when their checks stop coming. I find that sad and would love to see it prevented by dealing with the problems now where the side effects might hurt, but won't be a disaster.

 

But people like you ignore reality and have some illusion that somehow you're going to take all of this money for the "rich". Sorry, the numbers don't work. The rich simply don't have enough money to pay for our government at the rate it is growing and maintain the promises of social security and medicare, even if you somehow managed to have a 100% tax and maintained a constant 4-5% growth rate that the CBO so optimistically predicts for the future. GDP growth was at 1.7% last year, down from 3% in 2010 and below inflation. http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/gdpnewsrelease.htm 

 

Even the "experts" are predicting growth below 3% for the next several years and they are usually optimistic. http://www.phil.frb.org/research-and-data/real-time-center/survey-of-professional-forecasters/2012/survq112.cfm

 

At our current spending levels the money simply doesn't exist and it is never going to exist. Ironic that you somehow blame those of us warning of this problem and trying to offer solutions for causing it. 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - not all people are corporations)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Kapkao

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - not all people are corporations)

 

Off the top of my head the number of long term (5 year plus) recipients of welfare benefits is around 20%ish, the average length of time on welfare is 2 years or so and most people who receive benefits are off them within a year. So what? I never claimed that most people are on welfare for life. It would be nice to reduce welfare, but welfare isn't what is going to bankrupt our country, the big entitlements will. 

 

Excluding Medicaid social welfare benefits account for around $500 billion, a lot of money, but theoretically affordable. What is killing us is Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid which currently costs over $1.5 trillion and is quickly rising. That is before we even start paying for Bamacare which is expected to dramatically increase the number of people on medicaid. Something has to be done and the sooner the better. But I have a hard time imagining our current crop of thugs doing anything serious about it.

 

Really, if you have time before retirement and you aren't planning for it I will have a hard time being sympathetic for you when your ss check bounces and the doctor won't treat you because medicare isn't paying. Create a plan and save your money, you will probably need at least $1 million or you will be at the mercy of a broke government.  

http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/rising-welfare-costs/

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Really,

Beyond Saving wrote:

Really, if you have time before retirement and you aren't planning for it I will have a hard time being sympathetic for you when your ss check bounces and the doctor won't treat you because medicare isn't paying. Create a plan and save your money, you will probably need at least $1 million or you will be at the mercy of a broke government.   

True, but then aren't you telling people just to be a slave to the medical industry? Because people are willing to pay any price for any medical treatment that could possible extend their live? So basically you're a slave to your job, you don't enjoy life at all when you're young because you're saving every penny. So then you can afford expensive medical care when you're old. The medical industry is highly incentivized to create expensive treatments for any possible ailment you might get.

Because lefties are running around tell us all medical treatments are a human right, then the government is obliged to  pay for all these expensive treatments. Until it goes broke. When does the madness end? I think I'm better off taking my chances rather than live like a slave to the medical industry. But sounds like with Bama care I don't have a choice.

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Kapkao

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

That would include 'kids' that bum off the system by proxy via drunken or geeking-high parents. Unfortunately... we are a nation of stubborn social engineering.

Corporation would be target prime for cutting their tax breaks. Unfortunately, I am "lazy" because I don't care to give a shit about politics... the same reasons Beyond is lazy.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4392
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
EXC wrote:True, but then

EXC wrote:

True, but then aren't you telling people just to be a slave to the medical industry? Because people are willing to pay any price for any medical treatment that could possible extend their live? So basically you're a slave to your job, you don't enjoy life at all when you're young because you're saving every penny. So then you can afford expensive medical care when you're old. The medical industry is highly incentivized to create expensive treatments for any possible ailment you might get.

Because lefties are running around tell us all medical treatments are a human right, then the government is obliged to  pay for all these expensive treatments. Until it goes broke. When does the madness end? I think I'm better off taking my chances rather than live like a slave to the medical industry. But sounds like with Bama care I don't have a choice.

 

That depends on what method you use to save and invest money. If you are trying to do it in a 401k and simply buy stocks you will have to put a significant amount of money in. I prefer the capitalist method. Save enough to buy a means of production and keep it profitable. When you reach retirement age you can either sell it or my preference set it up so that your personal effort is not required at any significant level.

 

But yeah, I get your point, I sacrificed a lot when I was in my early to mid 20's and all my friends were out partying, drinking and getting laid. I can understand why people might choose not to do that, but don't have much patience when they later run into the predictable consequences and demand that I pay their expenses.

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

That would include 'kids' that bum off the system by proxy via drunken or geeking-high parents. Unfortunately... we are a nation of stubborn social engineering.

Corporation would be target prime for cutting their tax breaks. Unfortunately, I am "lazy" because I don't care to give a shit about politics... the same reasons Beyond is lazy.

Wouldn't it also include the people who get taken off of welfare due to expiry of benefits (similar to the people who are taken off the unemployment rolls after their benefits go away)? People get taken off welfare all the time. Can I safely assume that you are for the punitive measure of piss testing people before they can get benefits?

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:Kapkao

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

That would include 'kids' that bum off the system by proxy via drunken or geeking-high parents. Unfortunately... we are a nation of stubborn social engineering.

Corporation would be target prime for cutting their tax breaks. Unfortunately, I am "lazy" because I don't care to give a shit about politics... the same reasons Beyond is lazy.

Wouldn't it also include the people who get taken off of welfare due to expiry of benefits (similar to the people who are taken off the unemployment rolls after their benefits go away)? People get taken off welfare all the time. Can I safely assume that you are for the punitive measure of piss testing people before they can get benefits?

Anyone who adds to what is known as "red ink" but isn't employed by Fed gov't would count. I would count (not entirely by choice, for TL:DR reasons), Brian37 would count, Ken G. would count, Michelle Bachmann & household would count, etc.

 edit; Folks, am I imagining things...

Quote:
I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

or was another jcgadfly strawman set up under my nose?

 

I'm aiming for the latter. Jc... what's the point in these? I'm not getting it. I don't believe anyone is guilt-free when it comes to fallacious reasoning, but this is a problem from you not unique to one particular thread. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)


EXC
atheist
EXC's picture
Posts: 3135
Joined: 2008-01-17
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: But

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

But yeah, I get your point, I sacrificed a lot when I was in my early to mid 20's and all my friends were out partying, drinking and getting laid. I can understand why people might choose not to do that, but don't have much patience when they later run into the predictable consequences and demand that I pay their expenses. 

We got the social saftey net to reward irresponsible behavior. Obama now wants to tax dividends at 40% to give to the partiers and the lazy.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/usa-budget-dividend-idUSL2E8DD8R920120213

So why work and invest when Uncle Sam is our enabler?

I'm going to try and work it out that if I get sick, I can bypass all the USA B.S. and get treated overseas.

 

“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful.” Seneca


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
Kapkao wrote:jcgadfly

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

Kapkao wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:
No, not helping them out so they can get off the program is punitive. Most people don't stay on welfare (contrary to your belief system).

 

This, my friends, is a "(cite) up or shut up moment".

I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

That would include 'kids' that bum off the system by proxy via drunken or geeking-high parents. Unfortunately... we are a nation of stubborn social engineering.

Corporation would be target prime for cutting their tax breaks. Unfortunately, I am "lazy" because I don't care to give a shit about politics... the same reasons Beyond is lazy.

Wouldn't it also include the people who get taken off of welfare due to expiry of benefits (similar to the people who are taken off the unemployment rolls after their benefits go away)? People get taken off welfare all the time. Can I safely assume that you are for the punitive measure of piss testing people before they can get benefits?

Anyone who adds to what is known as "red ink" but isn't employed by Fed gov't would count. I would count (not entirely by choice, for TL:DR reasons), Brian37 would count, Ken G. would count, Michelle Bachmann & household would count, etc.

 edit; Folks, am I imagining things...

Quote:
I'll work on that. Though I am at a loss as to why you believe everyone on welfare NEVER gets off of it - (not all people are corporations)

or was another jcgadfly strawman set up under my nose?

 

I'm aiming for the latter. Jc... what's the point in these? I'm not getting it. I don't believe anyone is guilt-free when it comes to fallacious reasoning, but this is a problem from you not unique to one particular thread. Why do you keep putting words in my mouth?

Don't blame me if I took your conclusion as you said it. You implied that welfare bad because no one gets off of it. I showed you where people get off welfare all the time (whether by improving their situations or by the government dropping them from the rolls).

If your claim doesn't sound right when it's sent back to you - change your damn claim. 

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Kapkao
atheistSuperfanBronze Member
Kapkao's picture
Posts: 4121
Joined: 2010-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Another Beyond Saving quote worth stealing...

Beyond Saving wrote:

How much money are we spending on education? I think even a half assed look at the evidence shows that lack of funding is not the problem in our education system.

Thanks... so many people mention education and words to the effect "OMFG MOAR MONEY!" in the same sentence, you almost can't help but assume they follow the "throw money at the problem" school of politics and budgeting.

“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)