Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Welfare almost never "makes people lazy"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Well, that's helpful.
    If you were asking the question in earnest, you should have dropped the snark.
    I'm not here anymore.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
      well
      i could go for some borscht and boiled cabbage with sour cream

      and songs
      Sour cream (no health certification given) is only available on holidays. So, yes, you MIGHT get a dollop tomorrow if enough dairy sector workers show up.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
        Sour cream (no health certification given) is only available on holidays. So, yes, you MIGHT get a dollop tomorrow if enough dairy sector workers show up.
        I have no trouble getting it year around.

        I'm always still in trouble again

        "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
        "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
        "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

        Comment


        • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
          Sour cream (no health certification given) is only available on holidays. So, yes, you MIGHT get a dollop tomorrow if enough dairy sector workers show up.
          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
          I have no trouble getting it year around.
          Any day of the year, too!
          The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
            Any day of the year, too!
            And evenings too

            I'm always still in trouble again

            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

            Comment


            • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
              And evenings too
              Yeah, even at night!
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                I have no trouble getting it year around.
                Me neither.
                "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  I have no trouble getting it year around.
                  That's 'cuz yer a damn 'Merican porcine capitalist.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                    In other words, you can't refute it and hoping you can distract from it. We American's are some of the most well off people in the world, but we still complain because we are not well off enough. Take a trip to the third world or even down to Mexico sometime JR if you ever want to see what poverty really looks like.
                    know what? when you right you right.

                    I'm gonna apply your points.

                    and just in time for Christmas too!

                    When the wifey starts hinting and leaving Sunday ads from Zales and Kays and Jared, I'm just gonna say (between bites from big turkey leg, chewing with full mouth, and gulps of ginger ale), "you know, honey, that's pretty selfish, people are starving in India and Mexico, and you're thinking of trinkets in times like these?? ...what? ...you never saw 'Blood Diamond' with that kid Leonardo DiCaprio??"

                    and at the office , hang up a poster of the starving Biafra child with the bloated belly and flies on his face for our workers to see, dare they even think they deserve a raise!


                    ....lets see, did I mention you're right, ...why yes, yes I did.
                    To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Joel View Post
                      Your argument here is that Sparko (and all others people, presumably) has the moral imperative to help not just all the people Sparko is capable of helping, but to help everyone in the world who is in need. That seems like a dubious premise. Though it perhaps does shed some light on how some people might be thinking along the lines of: I must help everyone, but I don't have the resources to help everyone, so it must be okay for me to steal resources from others to fulfill my moral duty.
                      If it is a moral imperitive to help those that you see to be suffering, then it is immoral to make excuses for not doing what you are able to in order to help alleviate that suffering. When you pay your taxes for this purpose your resources aren't being stolen any more so than they are being stolen in order to pay for the rebuilding of the countries infrastructure.
                      But then you seem to assume that it is impossible for everyone in need to be helped by citizens acting individually. That seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible that if enough individuals help all the people they reasonably can, that everyone in need gets helped.
                      Anything can be said to be possible, but is it plausible? Of course not. Just look at all the excuses for not helping the unfortunate amongst us being made in this very thread.
                      But assuming for the sake of argument that people must act together in a coordinated way, then you add yet another assumption: that that is impossible apart from government coercion. This assumption too seems obviously false. Surely it is logically possible for people to voluntarily work together in a coordinated way. Efficient large-scale voluntary charities exist. Consider also that even the state consists only of individuals interacting. "The government" is not a magic thing that gives those individuals super powers. If it is possible to "pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all," then it is possible to do so apart from the state.
                      See above. Anything can be said to be possible, but is it plausible? No it isn't.
                      Nor can it even be assumed that doing it through the state is the best or even a good way to do it. I don't think anyone has been able to prove that state welfare always reduces rather than increases the problem of poverty, let alone prove that there does not exist more-effective ways to decrease poverty.
                      We are not talking solely about poverty, people who recieve welfare are still impoverished. Conservatives have been fed this nonsense about welfare recipients living the good life on the public dole. Its nonsense. Their lives still suck, but they're alive, and their kids can eat and go to school. If you have a better, more effective way than government aid for dealing with the problems of the poor, then lets hear it.
                      Another claim you make regards the essence of government: "Thats what government is all about, we pool together our resources...to make better the lives of all." Because that can be done via any number of voluntary organizations, it seems clear that that is not the defining characteristic of government. (And if it really makes better the lives of all involved, then it can be done voluntarily--people would gladly contribute, if for no other reason than to better their own life.) Rather, the distinguishing thing is that the voluntary organization is the voluntary means, while the government is the coercive means. The essence of government involves the use of force. (And historically that generally meant force used against overt encroachment on person or property.)
                      Yes I know, there are many fortunate and selfish people out there who having theirs do not wish to be coerced by the government into paying taxes so that the less fortunate can survive, but you know we are coerced into paying our taxes for many different social purposes, and I just think the actual lives of human beings, the poor, should be the number one priority on that list. And btw, it is not only altruism, if you ignore the suffering of others, it will come back to haunt you. Take a look at the world around you!
                      So that's at least 5 dubious premises in your argument there.
                      Don't think so.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                        know what? when you right you right.

                        I'm gonna apply your points.

                        and just in time for Christmas too!

                        When the wifey starts hinting and leaving Sunday ads from Zales and Kays and Jared, I'm just gonna say (between bites from big turkey leg, chewing with full mouth, and gulps of ginger ale), "you know, honey, that's pretty selfish, people are starving in India and Mexico, and you're thinking of trinkets in times like these?? ...what? ...you never saw 'Blood Diamond' with that kid Leonardo DiCaprio??"

                        and at the office , hang up a poster of the starving Biafra child with the bloated belly and flies on his face for our workers to see, dare they even think they deserve a raise!


                        ....lets see, did I mention you're right, ...why yes, yes I did.
                        What's the problem, don't like it when the logic presented here is turned on it's head and we see what really goes on? The logic you agreed with is that the circumstances of your birth has to do with the success you'll have later in life. Why all of a sudden, are you trying to change the topic from applying this logic to the entire world? Being born in a rich country has given you opportunities that most other people will never have, so who will volunteer to give their wealth to those people or does this logic only apply to people richer than us?
                        "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                        GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                          What's the problem, don't like it when the logic presented here is turned on it's head and we see what really goes on? The logic you agreed with is that the circumstances of your birth has to do with the success you'll have later in life. Why all of a sudden, are you trying to change the topic from applying this logic to the entire world? Being born in a rich country has given you opportunities that most other people will never have,
                          Yes.
                          I am fortunate to be in USA rather than most other countries.

                          But I don't think being born in a "rich country" guarantees everybody opportunities. There are other countries rich in natural resources, but their winners have no restrictions and have managed to horde those resources for themselves while the rest of the population lives in a third world conditions.

                          I guess their unions didn't succeed like Americans did, in forcing the winners to share in the wealth.

                          But now even that is no guarantee for the masses of laborer, since the latest generations of winners have evolved. Their predecessors initially knew to play their laborers against each other competing.
                          But the workers learned to unionize instead of competing against each other (they knew they could not win one-on-one face to face with winners like Carnegie for example)

                          The workers found that they could COLLECTIVELY stand up to the gilded age bosses.

                          So the gilded age bosses had to go outside their labor force and bring in scabs to compete against them.

                          The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources.

                          ..but like I said a few lines above, the more recent generation of winners have evolved and found competition AGAINST their American laborers from outside of this country (I recall Ross Perot warning us about NAFTA -- and a large sucking sound of American jobs leaving the USA)

                          Its becoming easier for the real life 'best monopoly players' to pick up where their gilded age predecessors left off , creating a Dickensian environment before unions spoiled their progress.

                          so who will volunteer to give their wealth to those people or does this logic only apply to people richer than us?
                          I don't know how to answer this. I used to give a lot , but haven't been able to spare much lately. I tried my best to be a winner, but I am afraid I failed.

                          but actually , I wasn't asking anybody to "give" anything.


                          ......if you are one of America's winners, I don't blame you for promoting the status quo. That would be rational self interest.

                          But it would be irrational for people like me to support perpetuating the direction things are going.
                          To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                            Yes.
                            I am fortunate to be in USA rather than most other countries.

                            But I don't think being born in a "rich country" guarantees everybody opportunities. There are other countries rich in natural resources, but their winners have no restrictions and have managed to horde those resources for themselves while the rest of the population lives in a third world conditions.
                            You obviously have never been to a third world country because I have and I sure haven't seen conditions around here like you find in a third world country. How many warlords or mud huts have you come across lately? Anyway, you're second mistake here is assuming that wealth=hording, but do you have any evidence to conclude that wealth=hording? If anything, it takes spending money in order to make money and if you end up hording your money, you're going to end up losing it in the end. Unless of course, you seriously think that having a net worth of a billion dollars means that person has a billion dollars sitting around in a Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere...

                            I guess their unions didn't succeed like Americans did, in forcing the winners to share in the wealth.
                            That has to be one of the dumbest comments I've ever heard... you've obviously have never been or even bothered to learn anything about how things actually are, in the third world.

                            But now even that is no guarantee for the masses of laborer, since the latest generations of winners have evolved. Their predecessors initially knew to play their laborers against each other competing.
                            And more nonsense...

                            But the workers learned to unionize instead of competing against each other (they knew they could not win one-on-one face to face with winners like Carnegie for example)

                            The workers found that they could COLLECTIVELY stand up to the gilded age bosses.

                            So the gilded age bosses had to go outside their labor force and bring in scabs to compete against them.
                            While your understanding of events is quite interesting, you seem to conveniently forget a few things:

                            1. Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege. He was actually rather poor, growing up and even had to go work, as a child, in order to support his family. He made his money by earning it.
                            2. Carnegie is historically known as giving away all of his wealth too. In fact, most major cities, had at least one library built and paid for, by him.

                            Of course, these things need to be left out because the narrative that the rich are evil fat cats has to be maintained at all cost and therefore, these sort of 'facts' have to be ignored.

                            The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources.
                            Yeah because you know, violently revolting against people is going to get your demands made.

                            ..but like I said a few lines above, the more recent generation of winners have evolved and found competition AGAINST their American laborers from outside of this country (I recall Ross Perot warning us about NAFTA -- and a large sucking sound of American jobs leaving the USA)
                            And that doesn't refute a single word I said. I got an idea... perhaps Americans should you know... stop pretending they are 'owed' something by being humans and should realize that nobody owes them anything. Nah, that will never happen because the fantasy that the rich fat cats are evil overlords has to be maintained and evidence be damned if things don't meet what the narrative says.

                            Its becoming easier for the real life 'best monopoly players' to pick up where their gilded age predecessors left off , creating a Dickensian environment before unions spoiled their progress.
                            And just as before, it's just as easy to ignore two sides exist and pretend that one side is pure evil and the other side is pure goodness instead of the reality that both the rich and poor are full of humans, that are a mixture of good and evil. Nah, we can't have that because the narrative needs to be maintained.

                            I don't know how to answer this. I used to give a lot , but haven't been able to spare much lately. I tried my best to be a winner, but I am afraid I failed.

                            but actually , I wasn't asking anybody to "give" anything.
                            Of course not because only those richer than us are evil. Right?

                            ......if you are one of America's winners, I don't blame you for promoting the status quo. That would be rational self interest.

                            But it would be irrational for people like me to support perpetuating the direction things are going.
                            What is 'America's Winners'? Those who are richer than JR and therefore more evil?
                            "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                            GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
                              You obviously have never been to a third world country because I have and I sure haven't seen conditions around here like you find in a third world country. How many warlords or mud huts have you come across lately? Anyway, you're second mistake here is assuming that wealth=hording, but do you have any evidence to conclude that wealth=hording? If anything, it takes spending money in order to make money and if you end up hording your money, you're going to end up losing it in the end. Unless of course, you seriously think that having a net worth of a billion dollars means that person has a billion dollars sitting around in a Scrooge McDuck vault somewhere...
                              who owns the natural resources in third world countries.

                              While your understanding of events is quite interesting, you seem to conveniently forget a few things:

                              1. Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege. He was actually rather poor, growing up and even had to go work, as a child, in order to support his family. He made his money by earning it.
                              2. Carnegie is historically known as giving away all of his wealth too. In fact, most major cities, had at least one library built and paid for, by him.

                              Of course, these things need to be left out because the narrative that the rich are evil fat cats has to be maintained at all cost and therefore, these sort of 'facts' have to be ignored.
                              quit assigning motives to me.
                              Where have I judged anyone as "evil"

                              My position is that all humans are evil (none that doeth good no not one, etc)

                              I am not about blaming rich "evil fat cats", I believe they are just doing what comes naturally to them. The same way lions eat gazelles, one cannot blame a lion for eating.

                              And I know about Carnegie's philanthropy, because I spent a lot of time in the Carnegie Library in a town called Coffeyville Kansas when we moved from Texas in the 1960s.

                              But I disagree with you that Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege.

                              I think you are still using the old aristocracy European model there.

                              I am using the unique AMERICAN model. It has nothing to do with parentage. It has to do with individual abilities.

                              In the old world model, individual abilities didn't have as much to do with your outcome as it does in the set up here in USA, which involves capitalist COMPETITION (i.e., winners and losers)

                              And in USA type competition, even if one is born of parents of wealth, one can lose (squander through negligence or circumstance when someone with more ability comes along) their inheritance.

                              And with ability , here in the competitive climate of USA, a person born with nothing, not even parents, can rise to the top, no restrictions, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ABILITY.


                              I think poverty serves as a catalyst to the few people who are born with administrative abilities.

                              Yeah because you know, violently revolting against people is going to get your demands made.
                              oops my bad. I wasn't clear enough when I said "The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources"

                              In context I included how the bosses brought in scabs to force the workers to accept lower wages. The violence was not "revolting against people" , as in a revolt againt the owners or government, ...in context I was referring to the violence against scabs who were there to take away their jobs. And it did succeed.



                              And that doesn't refute a single word I said. I got an idea... perhaps Americans should you know... stop pretending they are 'owed' something by being humans and should realize that nobody owes them anything. Nah, that will never happen because the fantasy that the rich fat cats are evil overlords has to be maintained and evidence be damned if things don't meet what the narrative says.
                              there you go again, SHEESH, will you stop it... stop assigning to me motives.
                              My official position NOBODY OWES me , (unless I worked for them or did something for them and there as an agreed upon trade)

                              The rich do not owe me.

                              forget that.

                              It is some other situation.

                              The other situation is, humans need resources, for themselves and their families.

                              There are resources in the USA for example , and if you are starving Mexican FOR EXAMPLE , or you are watching your children starve, it does not matter that somebody else "owns" those resources, you got to somehow take them. Or die.

                              I don't know OR CARE if the rich WINNERS owe anybody or exploited anybody.

                              All I am saying is , the losers can either starve, or band together and (by ballot hopefully) take.


                              Did it hinder our founding fathers that King George III "owned" the colonies.

                              Did it hinder European-American pioneers that the land of American already had inhabitants?

                              Now those new winners may have found it necessary to demonize the British and the American indigenous populations to justify taking , but I am trying not to.

                              Maybe thats how its done, maybe it doesn't work unless a challenger (for food/resources) demonizes the ones who control the resources, but I am not.

                              A pragmatic pioneer could have said, look, here's the deal, the locals own the hunting around here, and they are good decent family types feeding their families, but we need deer too or we starve. Its them or us, and I vote for us, sorry.

                              ....so maybe with other people you debate, its about good vs evil. But I am trying not to be concerned with those 'higher' philosophies. When its humans vs humans, according to my faith its evil vs evil, in a evil climate.

                              And if you're a sheep that does not have the abilities of a wolf, then you better try to get some type of cooperation going with the rest of the sheep.



                              What is 'America's Winners'? Those who are richer than JR and therefore more evil?
                              like I said, the person in America who is born "rich" is someone who just happens to be born with the marketable talent , not something inherited. Perhaps God-given. But not more evil. I dont know if I would be any different if I was born with a talent for skills that "pay more money" in America that the skills that i was born with.
                              Last edited by jordanriver; 11-29-2015, 01:51 PM.
                              To say that crony capitalism is not true/free market capitalism, is like saying a grand slam is not true baseball, or like saying scoring a touchdown is not true American football ...Stefan Mykhaylo D

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by jordanriver View Post
                                who owns the natural resources in third world countries.



                                quit assigning motives to me.
                                Where have I judged anyone as "evil"

                                My position is that all humans are evil (none that doeth good no not one, etc)

                                I am not about blaming rich "evil fat cats", I believe they are just doing what comes naturally to them. The same way lions eat gazelles, one cannot blame a lion for eating.

                                And I know about Carnegie's philanthropy, because I spent a lot of time in the Carnegie Library in a town called Coffeyville Kansas when we moved from Texas in the 1960s.

                                But I disagree with you that Carnegie was not born into a life of privilege.

                                I think you are still using the old aristocracy European model there.

                                I am using the unique AMERICAN model. It has nothing to do with parentage. It has to do with individual abilities.

                                In the old world model, individual abilities didn't have as much to do with your outcome as it does in the set up here in USA, which involves capitalist COMPETITION (i.e., winners and losers)

                                And in USA type competition, even if one is born of parents of wealth, one can lose (squander through negligence or circumstance when someone with more ability comes along) their inheritance.

                                And with ability , here in the competitive climate of USA, a person born with nothing, not even parents, can rise to the top, no restrictions, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE ABILITY.


                                I think poverty serves as a catalyst to the few people who are born with administrative abilities.



                                oops my bad. I wasn't clear enough when I said "The new union laborers realized they were going to have to resort to violence if they wanted a share of this country's wealth and resources"

                                In context I included how the bosses brought in scabs to force the workers to accept lower wages. The violence was not "revolting against people" , as in a revolt againt the owners or government, ...in context I was referring to the violence against scabs who were there to take away their jobs. And it did succeed.





                                there you go again, SHEESH, will you stop it... stop assigning to me motives.
                                My official position NOBODY OWES me , (unless I worked for them or did something for them and there as an agreed upon trade)

                                The rich do not owe me.

                                forget that.

                                It is some other situation.

                                The other situation is, humans need resources, for themselves and their families.

                                There are resources in the USA for example , and if you are starving Mexican FOR EXAMPLE , or you are watching your children starve, it does not matter that somebody else "owns" those resources, you got to somehow take them. Or die.

                                I don't know OR CARE if the rich WINNERS owe anybody or exploited anybody.

                                All I am saying is , the losers can either starve, or band together and (by ballot hopefully) take.


                                Did it hinder our founding fathers that King George III "owned" the colonies.

                                Did it hinder European-American pioneers that the land of American already had inhabitants?

                                Now those new winners may have found it necessary to demonize the British and the American indigenous populations to justify taking , but I am trying not to.

                                Maybe thats how its done, maybe it doesn't work unless a challenger (for food/resources) demonizes the ones who control the resources, but I am not.

                                A pragmatic pioneer could have said, look, here's the deal, the locals own the hunting around here, and they are good decent family types feeding their families, but we need deer too or we starve. Its them or us, and I vote for us, sorry.

                                ....so maybe with other people you debate, its about good vs evil. But I am trying not to be concerned with those 'higher' philosophies. When its humans vs humans, according to my faith its evil vs evil, in a evil climate.

                                And if you're a sheep that does not have the abilities of a wolf, then you better try to get some type of cooperation going with the rest of the sheep.
                                So if you want to make the claim that Andrew Carnegie was not born poor but born into wealth, find the history to back it up.
                                A happy family is but an earlier heaven.
                                George Bernard Shaw

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                72 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X