Ryan you need a lifeline, here you go…
[quote]ZEB wrote:It’s either that or you’re yet another messed up college punk who sits there open mouthed while his socialist professor spoon feeds you your latest thoughts for the day.
Yea, I think that’s it.[/quote]
We don’t talk politics much in physics class. Believe it or not, some people come to different conclusions than you do without being fed opinions.
Hey push! Found that quote yet? You know, the one that shows how I “start with the conclusion that all of your money belongs to the government”? Or is this just another claim that you can’t back up? You’d think a guy as smart as you wouldn’t have this much trouble defending his statements against someone like me, who lacks credibility.
But that’s OK! Your quick-witted barbs distract everyone from the fact that you’re just talking out of your ass! You got me push!
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Like I said, I don’t dispute your right to have any opinion you wish on the matter. I don’t necessarily even disagree with you, at least not radically. All I’m saying is that it is not criminal, because it is sanctioned by law. The law may or may not be considered “right,” but it is the law. All I’m saying.[/quote]
Ryan, I’m gonna need you to do me a favor bud; grab hold real tight onto your earlobes, and puuuuulll like a sumbitch. Your head is obviously lodged in your ass…
I already admitted that it is law, and that it’s not criminal. Yes, it is in the trust of the government, and therefore the governments money. but here’s where you’re lost, kid; WE ARE THE GOVERNMENT! THEY ARE SIMPLY OUR REPRESENTATIVES! What I have a problem with is your lack of respect for the people who sent that money to the government. This is where you split hairs to avoid having to come to an uncomfortable conclusion. So yes, it is the governments money. However, being that you and I, and the rest of the peoples of this country, are who the government is, it is therefore still (partially) my money. That is not hair splitting, that is the truth.
So, without resorting to the use of my daughters crayons, I just can’t break it down for you any simpler than that.
That’s a lie
Here’s where you’re showing your ignorance regarding conservatism. Conservatives such as myself would agree with you. Conservatives do not hate government, anarchists do. However we believe in a concept called federalism. Look it up. Conservatives have no issue with the feds building infrastructure, maintaining a national defense, minting a currency (Although Dr. Paul is really got me worried here w/r/t this), etc. We simply believe that government should be kept as local as possible. I work for the government as I’m a full time firefighter. That as you will probably point out, is a socialist endeavor. However, it is funded at a local level, where the citizens level of control is nothing short of awesome; believe me on this one.
That’s because where it works, which is almost everywhere, it is simply awesome. Conservatives believe in applying what works. Take for instance the fire department. At one time, there was fire response that was privately endeavored, I believe it was sold as something like an insurance policy. It didn’t work out for a myriad of reasons. Many moons later, fire service is a publicly funded operation which works quite well (when politicians aren’t fucking it up).
[quote]You are not merely not an expert, you don’t know the first thing about them. Which as I said earlier, is absolutely fine. But when you make statements about the subject that are wrong, I will point them out to you, just as you would inform me of my error were I to say something like “Libertarians want to steal money from the poor to give to the rich.” If I continued to make false claims after I had been corrected, you would be irritated at my dishonesty, and rightly so. But you will always judge me to be arrogant, “drunk on ideology,” etc. as long as I disagree with you, regardless of how little sense the accusations make.
[/quote]
You are arrogant, and certainly drunk on your own ideology. This is apparent to everyone but yourself. You cling childishly to your legal definition of ownership, split hairs, and demand that I separate any morality from the discussion. Sorry, but no.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:It’s either that or you’re yet another messed up college punk who sits there open mouthed while his socialist professor spoon feeds you your latest thoughts for the day.
Yea, I think that’s it.[/quote]
We don’t talk politics much in physics class. Believe it or not, some people come to different conclusions than you do without being fed opinions.
[/quote]
Oh I see you’ve never taken a political science course in college. Then what is it that corroded your thinking? Wayward parent? Big brother? Who influenced such thinking, come on you have to tell us this is too good to keep to yourself. You didn’t wake up one day and say to yourself “the state owns my soul” did you? Come o,n is that what happened?
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Capitalism necessarily leads to oligopoly, impoverishment of the masses, and then crisis, which has been demonstrated over and over again, yet you deny this very obvious fact. Your failing in this area consequently does little to recommend your judgement to me.[/quote]
Where has capitalism lead to impoverishment of the masses? How is this even possible?
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Capitalism necessarily leads to oligopoly, impoverishment of the masses, and then crisis, which has been demonstrated over and over again, yet you deny this very obvious fact. Your failing in this area consequently does little to recommend your judgement to me.[/quote]
Where has capitalism lead to impoverishment of the masses? How is this even possible?[/quote]
Don’t waste you breath, Ryan is completely invested in his utopian vision of socialism. I’ve already provided him with several backed up scenarios in which government interference in the market has been the source of financial misery. That dog just won’t hunt.
[quote]bigflamer wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Capitalism necessarily leads to oligopoly, impoverishment of the masses, and then crisis, which has been demonstrated over and over again, yet you deny this very obvious fact. Your failing in this area consequently does little to recommend your judgement to me.[/quote]
Where has capitalism lead to impoverishment of the masses? How is this even possible?[/quote]
Don’t waste you breath, Ryan is completely invested in his utopian vision of socialism. I’ve already provided him with several backed up scenarios in which government interference in the market has been the source of financial misery. That dog just won’t hunt.
[/quote]
I am quite familiar with Ryan. He was on the ignore list for quite a while. He does seem to be maturing as a socialist. His arguments are much more thought out and he seems to reading quite a bit. This doesn’t make forced socialism any more effective, but it should position him well for a leadership role in the large scale voluntary commune of his dreams.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]thefederalist wrote:
This is why progressive taxes exist. [/quote]
They exist to give money and services to most who are able to work but find that collecting such benefits to be more lucrative than actually working.
Now tell me oh wise left winger how do you encourage those who on the government dole to ever get off when they are being rewarded for doing nothing?
[/quote]
Your post reads like 4chan. [/quote]
I see, you cannot come up with one single reason why I’m incorrect.
Thank you.
[/quote]
Honest question: If welfare or other government assistance programs are so swell, and getting free money is better than working for it, why don’t you do it?
Hint: the answer isn’t that you’re a better person than someone on welfare.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
thefederalist wrote:
ZEB wrote:
thefederalist wrote:
This is why progressive taxes exist.
They exist to give money and services to most who are able to work but find that collecting such benefits to be more lucrative than actually working.
Now tell me oh wise left winger how do you encourage those who on the government dole to ever get off when they are being rewarded for doing nothing?
Your post reads like 4chan.
I see, you cannot come up with one single reason why I’m incorrect.
Thank you.
Honest question: If welfare or other government assistance programs are so swell, and getting free money is better than working for it, why don’t you do it?[/quote]
Honest answer: I make far, far more than the government would pay me. However, many at the lower end of the economic scale consider what the government hands out as good or better than what their limited skills would pay them in the market place. Therefore, they remain bound to the government dole, BY CHOICE!
I may or may not be a better person than some, don’t know, don’t care, that is irrelevant to the argument isn’t it?
The important part is that I am better at the money earning game. That’s why I have succeeded and they have failed. And BECAUSE of the government handing out free money many will continue to take it and NOT work for as long as possible. It’s human nature many will not work until the free money stops coming in. Unfortunately under Obama more and more will take that path and the country will be worse off for it.
Glad you jumped in when the federalist bailed, but maybe he knew something you do not.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
ZEB wrote:
thefederalist wrote:
ZEB wrote:
thefederalist wrote:
This is why progressive taxes exist.
They exist to give money and services to most who are able to work but find that collecting such benefits to be more lucrative than actually working.
Now tell me oh wise left winger how do you encourage those who on the government dole to ever get off when they are being rewarded for doing nothing?
Your post reads like 4chan.
I see, you cannot come up with one single reason why I’m incorrect.
Thank you.
Honest question: If welfare or other government assistance programs are so swell, and getting free money is better than working for it, why don’t you do it?[/quote]
Honest answer: I make far, far more than the government would pay me. However, many at the lower end of the economic scale consider what the government hands out as good or better than what their limited skills would pay them in the market place. Therefore, they remain bound to the government dole, BY CHOICE!
[/quote]
You seem to have ignored my hint. Your logic is that you made a better choice (and/or continue to make a better choice/better choices) than them, making you in that way “better”. Also, that they have “limited skills” and you (presumably) have more or better skills, also makes you “better”.
See, this is more “Why I’m better than people on welfare” logic. You’re better at making money, you succeeded and they failed, they will keep taking free money as long as they can get it.
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of people having to rely on the government for their money. I just have this crazy notion that the vast majority of people would rather work for what they get and aren’t gleeful about getting “Free government monies!!”
So, I think, the question to be asked on that subject is, what reasons would an honest, hard working, reasonably intelligent person have for being on government assistance programs as opposed to having a job? You made a good point that, in many situations, the total benefits they get from those programs is more than they would at an entry level job.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?[/quote]
Maybe that is all there is?
Do you really think that your unverifiable ideas that are value judgements in disguise justify forced redistribution?
Question other peoples basic beliefs is cool and all but what about questioning your own?
Because, after all, Zeb is perfectly content to just leave people be, your ideas on the other hand require men with guns.
Interestingly enough Zeb knows that he has caught the religion and knows that it has its limits whereas you have caught it bad and are not even aware of it.
Which is why he would not tolerate enforced servitude in his name, you on the other hand do.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?[/quote]
Maybe that is all there is?
Do you really think that your unverifiable ideas that are value judgements in disguise justify forced redistribution?
[/quote]
I think my idea that most people would rather work than collect welfare is verified by all the people who work instead of collecting welfare (meanwhile bemoaning that they work and don’t collect welfare when they could easily quit their jobs).
And, no, I’m not trying to justify forced redistribution, at all.
My ideas? Which of “my ideas”, exactly, requires men with guns?
Woah woah. How exactly do I “tolerate enforced servitude”?
Are you reading what I’m writing or just deciding that, since I’m not calling people on welfare lazy leeches, I must support socialism?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?[/quote]
Maybe that is all there is?
Do you really think that your unverifiable ideas that are value judgements in disguise justify forced redistribution?
[/quote]
I think my idea that most people would rather work than collect welfare is verified by all the people who work instead of collecting welfare (meanwhile bemoaning that they work and don’t collect welfare when they could easily quit their jobs).
And, no, I’m not trying to justify forced redistribution, at all.
My ideas? Which of “my ideas”, exactly, requires men with guns?
Woah woah. How exactly do I “tolerate enforced servitude”?
Are you reading what I’m writing or just deciding that, since I’m not calling people on welfare lazy leeches, I must support socialism?
[/quote]
Well, if your point was that some people who collect welfare have had a bad year, decade, life, well yes, sone where slapped around like a 10 dollar whore.
That is not good.
If your point was that they “deserve” welfare and that it should be provided by the state you are endorsing servitude, because someone has to pay for that against his will.
That would be worse.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?[/quote]
Maybe that is all there is?
Do you really think that your unverifiable ideas that are value judgements in disguise justify forced redistribution?
[/quote]
I think my idea that most people would rather work than collect welfare is verified by all the people who work instead of collecting welfare (meanwhile bemoaning that they work and don’t collect welfare when they could easily quit their jobs).
And, no, I’m not trying to justify forced redistribution, at all.
My ideas? Which of “my ideas”, exactly, requires men with guns?
Woah woah. How exactly do I “tolerate enforced servitude”?
Are you reading what I’m writing or just deciding that, since I’m not calling people on welfare lazy leeches, I must support socialism?
[/quote]
Well, if your point was that some people who collect welfare have had a bad year, decade, life, well yes, sone where slapped around like a 10 dollar whore.
That is not good.
If your point was that they “deserve” welfare and that it should be provided by the state you are endorsing servitude, because someone has to pay for that against his will.
That would be worse.
[/quote]
Neither of those is my point. You could have asked before attacking a point I never made, but instead decided on the latter path. As such, I’m not really interested in continuing on with you.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Maybe there are more factors to the situation than “You are smarter/more skilled/harder working and they are lazy/freeloading/codependant”?[/quote]
Maybe that is all there is?
Do you really think that your unverifiable ideas that are value judgements in disguise justify forced redistribution?
[/quote]
I think my idea that most people would rather work than collect welfare is verified by all the people who work instead of collecting welfare (meanwhile bemoaning that they work and don’t collect welfare when they could easily quit their jobs).
And, no, I’m not trying to justify forced redistribution, at all.
My ideas? Which of “my ideas”, exactly, requires men with guns?
Woah woah. How exactly do I “tolerate enforced servitude”?
Are you reading what I’m writing or just deciding that, since I’m not calling people on welfare lazy leeches, I must support socialism?
[/quote]
Well, if your point was that some people who collect welfare have had a bad year, decade, life, well yes, sone where slapped around like a 10 dollar whore.
That is not good.
If your point was that they “deserve” welfare and that it should be provided by the state you are endorsing servitude, because someone has to pay for that against his will.
That would be worse.
[/quote]
Neither of those is my point. You could have asked before attacking a point I never made, but instead decided on the latter path. As such, I’m not really interested in continuing on with you.[/quote]
Ah, so the treatment you reserve for Zeb is not good enough for you?
Fuck you, Im going home!
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
You seem to have ignored my hint. Your logic is that you made a better choice (and/or continue to make a better choice/better choices) than them, making you in that way “better”. Also, that they have “limited skills” and you (presumably) have more or better skills, also makes you “better”.
[/quote]
You’re not following me Cap. You are attributing statements to me that I never said or implied. Perhaps you are doing this because you’ve had these debates before and this is what you’ve heard. Let me spell it out for you a bit differently. If person “A” is making $400 per week doing nothing (see Obama extending unemployment) they are not going to go to work for minimum wage which will pay them less. You follow? No one is going to move against what seems to be in their best interests. If someone makes $100 per week more for doing nothing that’s exactly what they’re going to do. Again, this is human nature isn’t it?
I’m not saying that I am better, or you are better or the guy on unemployment insurance is worse. He is doing what most would do under similar circumstances.
Most will, as I’ve said. Please don’t kid yourself, I have several different business interests and have done many interviews and people have articulated this philosophy to me with there own two lips. I have not disagreed with any them, nor have I looked down upon them for choosing to do what they’ve done. The government is to blame for making these people dependent upon it.
I never stated that they are lazy did I? In fact, I don’t believe that they are lazy. My only point is that if you give someone something for free they will certainly take it, especially if it’s from the big powerful deep pocketed federal government. No one feels badly about taking the governments money right?
Joe Blow is not sitting home thinking about how he is part of the problem. He’s thinking tomorrow my check comes. It’s all about that person feeling like he is operating in his own best interests. In fact, some on unemployment or welfare work “under the table” for various businesses who pay people that way (I find this detestable). So, in reality some are quite ambitious, but still see no need to give up the government check.
One more time, I blame the government far more than anyone who is taking the easy money. Under the right circumstances I might do the exact same thing.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t like the idea of people having to rely on the government for their money. I just have this crazy notion that the vast majority of people would rather work for what they get and aren’t gleeful about getting “Free government monies!!”[/quote]
Gleeful? No. But it’s all about circumstance isn’t it? We all find ourselves in some strange situations in life. Some find themselves collecting money (or other support) from the government. When this happens the incentive it taken away. A fair comparison would be when you’ve just finished a delicious dinner. You are full and very satisfied. There’s no reason to be out looking for more to eat is there?
Those on the government dole find themselves less hungry to look for their own lot in life.
Again, it’s human nature right down to the bone.
Thanks, but I hope you’re not thinking that minimum wage should be raised, because it shouldn’t. What should happen is to limit governments role in keeping the person afloat for more than a certain number of days or weeks.
Fair enough?