|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 The American poor. 
#2226652 - 01/07/04 07:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
First some tidbits....
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Say it isn't so! Why they'd be better off dead!
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Work harder. What a horrible concept actually expecting people to work.!!
But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.
Sounds terrible!
It's an informative read which shows pretty much what the "righties" here have been saying. The myth of rampant poverty is just that, a myth.
I hope many of you "lefties" read it.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
 Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
Sounds like an overbroad definition of "poor".
What about the 27% who have less than one vehicle, less than one place to live, less than one meal a day, less than one times the amount of money needed to go to the doctor to treat their "walking pneumonia".
--------------------
Edited by Baby_Hitler (01/07/04 07:37 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sucks to be them. It's still not the Feds place to be stealing from me to give to them.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
Are you sure you're rich enough to really say that you are being stolen from?
Maybe you're getting more than your fare share too.
--------------------
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/26/01
Posts: 16,169
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 1 month, 24 days
|
|
Hence the division..since many of us DO think that it's the feds job to provide basic living conditions for the poor.
It's when I'm paying taxes for an unjust war that is only serving the purpose to get some rich assholes richer is where I get pissed off.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226675 - 01/07/04 07:40 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
We'll be sending you a bill.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Yes. I'm sure.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226680 - 01/07/04 07:42 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Hence the division..since many of us DO think that it's the feds job to provide basic living conditions for the poor.
amend the constitution then. you can think whatever you want, but right now, the letter of the law says that it is not.
also... "the fed" doesn't provide anything for anyone. they take from some and give to others in a wonderful vote-buying scam called "the democratic party". it is not the federal government, but those who actually work, and who are robbed of their property by the government, who "provide"...
Edited by Anonymous (01/07/04 07:47 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226686 - 01/07/04 07:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
While it may be the Canoodian governments job, it is not the US governments jobs.
We have that pesky 10th amendment. Now, if only our shitty politicians would follow the constitution.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
luvdem: "Sucks to be them. It's still not the Feds place to be stealing from me to give to them."
take away the little that they get and soon enough im sure you'll find someone on your doorstep with a machete'.
Your thinking is so simplistic, that you fail to recognize all the other variables related to social security. A rise in crime is the most basic of these, a violent revolution would occur with time. Maybe you should start thinking about social programs in terms of pacification rather than theft.
whats your source by the by?
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
whats your source by the by?
Thanks.
This was forgotten. My apologies to all.
Hard to read what wasn't linked to. I'm surprised no-one mentioned it earlier.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/07/04 08:51 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
|
Your thinking is so simplistic, that you fail to recognize all the other variables related to social security. A rise in crime is the most basic of these, a violent revolution would occur with time. Maybe you should start thinking about social programs in terms of pacification rather than theft.
you can think that way if you like, but it doesn't make it right. it's still theft whether its "pacification" or not. i'd prefer the term "extortion" myself, but oh well...
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
from the website:
Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
--wow, so...what they are basically saying is : we spew propaganda.
heres some more:
-In 2002, a family of four was deemed poor if its annual income fell below $18,556; a family of three was deemed poor if annual income was below $14,702
-the family's actual living conditions are likely to be far higher than the image most Americans have in mind when they hear the word "poverty."
um....what a pile of bullshit. First off, living off 18.5 grand and having 4 kids would be FUCKING rough. Secondly, how pathetically unproffesional of them to assume they understand how most Americans view poverty.
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
1. What an unsurprising response.
2. Perhaps the family of four should have had the brains to remain a family of 2.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 8 years, 8 months
|
|
"2. Perhaps the family of four should have had the brains to remain a family of 2."
perhaps perhaps perhaps. But if you dont help those kids, one day they are gonna be adults and probably end up costing you alot more money in the long run.
1. What an unsurprising response
-ugh...all you have to offer is quippy comebacks, no real debate. Okay, I've learned my lesson, you have nothing to offer in the way of intellectual sparring.
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
Anonymous
|
|
i'm a student. when i do work, i make a little more than minimum wage busting my ass working for a guy who's richer than i will ever be. paying for my education has so far put me thousands of dollars in debt. i don't even make enough money right now to pay federal income tax.
would it benefit me if the government forced other people to fund my education? of course it would. would i benefit from a boost in the minimum wage? provided i could still find work after such an increase, i'd certainly benefit. does taxing other people to pay for federal welfare programs directly take any money out of my pocket? not a penny.
i suppose you can chalk my beliefs up to typical self-interested capitalist greed. 
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
Haven't you herd of trickle up theory?
Didn't you tell me poor people were bringing you their checks?
Oh, em... 
--------------------
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
Would you give up the second ammendment so that rich people can finally be allowed to take over the world?
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
The actual condition of the poor does not bother Lefties as much
as the disparity between the classes.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
You're very close. I think what actually bothers them is that as much as they'd like to, there's nothing they can do to change it without force.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
|
Quote:
Say it isn't so! Why they'd be better off dead!
So they have all these lovely things. I wonder if they might just be up to their eyeballs in debt as well?
Quote:
Work harder. What a horrible concept actually expecting people to work.!!
So there is definitely enough work out there for everyone then? Dont just say "Yeah of course there is" prove it.
Yeah its an interesting read but thats about it. Whats the source? wheres the proof of the claims? Its obviously got a right wing bias Yawnn. Poverty doesnt exist? Its just the lazy who are poor? Grow a brain Luv.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2227595 - 01/08/04 08:11 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Oh I see you have provided a source and what a surprise its a right wing think tank that agrees with your views! Woahh! Thats amazing!! I can feel my whole belief system changing from the force of your arguement! Thats weak you donut! 
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2227601 - 01/08/04 08:14 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you can think that way if you like, but it doesn't make it right. it's still theft whether its "pacification" or not. i'd prefer the term "extortion" myself, but oh well...
Oh for fucks sake grow up! You are talking absolute bollocks. People shouldnt have to pay taxes? How can you keep repeating this shit when you have already admitted you dont know who should pay for roads etc etc. As if roads are the only thing provided by a central government and enjoyed by all.
OOOHH BUT THINK OF THE INDIVIDUALSSSS
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2227701 - 01/08/04 10:07 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
right wing think tank that agrees with your views!
Yup another peice of shit "thinktank":
A think tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue-propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders.
Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as leftist ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. "Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party.
As economist Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify."
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Think_tanks
|
JameZTheNewbie
The Mahatma OfZalu
Registered: 05/24/02
Posts: 734
Loc: pass the gates of hell 2 ...
Last seen: 3 years, 9 months
|
|
fuck statistics
--------------------
Mice have feelings
|
DeepDish
journeyman
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 55
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Once again this study fails to account for the massive amount of debt that poor people in America possess. A morgage, car loan, plus an average of 10,000 dollars on credit card would easily provide for the luxuries mentioned in the study. First subtract the assets from the debt, and then you will get a more accurate picture of exactly what these people really possess. While it would be easy to simply dissmiss this argument saying that the people shouldn't have overextended themselves in the first place, and the fault is wholely their own, you must realize that his is what makes money lenders rich. By shackling huge amounts of people with massive amounts of debt that they will never be able to pay off, the lenders bottom line is increased and their stock goes up. Each transaction is voluntary, however, the nature of the relationship is inherently exploitative, with the poor people grasping for something they can never have, yet are being subtly promised by the marketing executives.
The second point I would like to address is your firm belief that that the 10th ammendment prohibts any sort of welfare, or federal government taxation. This is simply not true; the constitution like any peice of writing, no matter how concise, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Much as I could interpret a novel one way, a proffessor of literature at Oxford could interpret it another way with each being equally valid interpretations. His interpretation, however, will hold much more weight then mine, and while you may believe that the 10th ammendment nullifies income tax, the supreme court has ruled directly the opposite on a number of occasions, the most famous being the desicion to allow social security. I'm not saying that your point is totally invalid, it is just that everyone believes their interpretation to be correct, yet the only interpretation which truly matters is that of the supreme court, and in this case they are not on your side.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228178 - 01/08/04 02:09 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Oh for fucks sake grow up! You are talking absolute bollocks. People shouldnt have to pay taxes? How can you keep repeating this shit when you have already admitted you dont know who should pay for roads etc etc. As if roads are the only thing provided by a central government and enjoyed by all.
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228224 - 01/08/04 02:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Neither should "big business" but they don't let that stop them.
--------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
yeah at least government steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
big business is the opposite.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228452 - 01/08/04 03:25 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
But you still want to live in what, for all our bitching, are great societies? Do you think we shouldnt have to contribute to that? That sounds more like theft to me.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228453 - 01/08/04 03:25 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
But you still want to live in what, for all our bitching, are great societies? Do you think we shouldnt have to contribute to that? That sounds more like theft to me.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228798 - 01/08/04 05:40 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
huh?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: DeepDish]
#2228874 - 01/08/04 06:13 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The tenth is about as clear as it gets. There is no wiggle room. Or are you suggesting that because the courts OK'd SS that they are infallible?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,646
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 3 days, 4 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228999 - 01/08/04 07:00 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Oh I see you have provided a source and what a surprise its a right wing think tank that agrees with your views!
The Heritage Foundation didn't invent those numbers. They are from the US Census Bureau. All those numbers and more are available to all who ask.
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Phred]
#2229013 - 01/08/04 07:05 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Funny how that works. Can't fault the message so mock the messenger.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
|
That should be a bannable offense. 
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sounds a bit extreme.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
|
To Pinky and Luvvy: I wasnt faulting the numbers I was questioning the interpretation.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
DeepDish
journeyman
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 55
Last seen: 4 years, 2 months
|
|
Perhaps you missed my point, I clearly stated that infallibility is not the issue, rather it is a matter of interpretive power. In fact if you go back and read your post on the issue you will find that you assume an air of infallibilty that is much stronger that that demonstrated by the supreme court. During the presidency of FDR the courts ruled that the "General Welfare Clause" would be interpreted under Madison's vision, rather than Jefferson's. Madison had a much broader view of what he defined as general welfare. While you may prefer Jefferson's view, in order for your arguement against the court ruling and welfare in general to hold ground, you need to develop something better than the line, "The tenth is pefectly clear."
|
ToiletDuk
Give me Librium or give me Meth!
Registered: 05/17/03
Posts: 81,273
Loc: Earthfarm 1
|
|
What about the truly disabled? Would you have them begging on street corners? Would this be considered "employment" by this "Think-Tank"?
Hey, I've got an idea! Since poorer families have more kids, let's repeal all the child labour laws and put kids 7 years and up to work in dangerous factory jobs for 12-14 hours a day, and pay them $5 a day. That'll teach the l'il bastards the value of a dollar! 
--------------------
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ToiletDuk]
#2230797 - 01/09/04 12:41 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think mushmaster explained this in some thread or other. By starving and working the poor and disabled to death then they will die out and the earth will belong to the master race.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2230825 - 01/09/04 12:59 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
who is starving and working them to death?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2230984 - 01/09/04 01:59 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I thought we went through this in the thread about you being happy to pay the starving with a bowl of soup a day. You suggested that if they all died there'd be less welfare.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2231308 - 01/09/04 04:07 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I thought we went through this in the thread about you being happy to pay the starving with a bowl of soup a day.
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount? why should someone be prohibited, by force, from paying them that much? why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup? you cannot make someone's labor worth a certain amount simply by making it illegal to hire them for less than that amount.
You suggested that if they all died there'd be less welfare.
which is true, is it not? what i was was saying was that if people weren't given welfare handouts (more for each kid they have no less) perhaps those who couldn't afford to raise children wouldn't birth them. all we are doing now is paying people who cannot afford to raise children money to have them. we are subsidizing poverty and population growth where there shouldn't be any. what it comes down to is... why should anyone be forced to support anyone else but their own children?
you said:
"By starving and working the poor and disabled to death then they will die out and the earth will belong to the master race."
i am still wondering... who is starving people to death? who is working them to death?
and what's this about a master race? where do you get off implying that i said something like that? for all you know, i'm jewish and i have family who died in the holocaust. think before you make such asinine statements.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2231628 - 01/09/04 06:12 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount?
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
I can GUARANTEE that if you were ever being paid 1 bowl of soup a day knowing full well that your employer could afford to pay you ten you would be mightily pissed off. You might still work for one bowl a day just so you could exist but you would surely be fucking annoyed.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2231701 - 01/09/04 06:35 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
that's a pretty serious assumption to be making, but for the sake of argument, let's say that a business really could pay all of its workers alot more than it did... why is it immoral? what it comes down to at that point is charity. any extra pay above and beyond what needs to be paid is a charitable donation. the work is worth a bowl of soup per day. if the employer pays 10, then they are not only running a business but also a free soup kitchen. those extra 9 bowls are handouts. there is nothing unethical about keeping what is yours. is it unethical to buy a car at the lowest negotiable price, or should you always offer the salesman twice what he's willing to settle for? is it unethical to hire a plumber at his normal hourly rate, or should you offer much extra? scratch that... those are bad questions... should people be forced to pay extra?
I can GUARANTEE that if you were ever being paid 1 bowl of soup a day knowing full well that your employer could afford to pay you ten you would be mightily pissed off. You might still work for one bowl a day just so you could exist but you would surely be fucking annoyed.
in the summers i work at a swim club doing gruntwork for less than $7 an hour. the guy who owns the place lives in a house worth more than a million dollars and sits on the board of directors at a local bank. he shouldn't be forced to pay me a penny more than he does. it doesn't annoy me a bit.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,561
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 2 hours, 53 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2231714 - 01/09/04 06:42 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in the summers i work at a swim club doing gruntwork for less than $7 an hour. the guy who owns the place lives in a house worth more than a million dollars and sits on the board of directors at a local bank. he shouldn't be forced to pay me a penny more than he does. it doesn't annoy me a bit.
You probabaly still live with your parents and dont have any children to support. Of course it doesnt annoy you. duh!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2232042 - 01/09/04 09:14 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Theres a simple solution for how to not become financially challenged because of having numerous children.
Its called DONT FUCK
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232064 - 01/09/04 09:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Theres a simple solution for how to not become financially challenged because of having numerous children.
Its called DONT FUCK
I'd like to see how long that relationship lasts.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
|
Sterilization is k3y
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232330 - 01/09/04 11:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount? why should someone be prohibited, by force, from paying them that much? why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup? you cannot make someone's labor worth a certain amount simply by making it illegal to hire them for less than that amount.
I used to think this way as well, so I won't say that it isn't without it's merits. However, for a more in-depth examination of the lives of the people that would be working for soup, I'd recommend reading "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. It deals with the migration of families from Oklahoma and other areas affected by the "Dust bowl" and their reception in California. The rich land owners in California decided to set the minimum wage at 15 cents per hour and told anyone that dared pay more than that that sanctions and other forms of retribution would be enacted upon them. Thus, they managed to make it so that the people who were starving had to work for money that barely allowed them to eat, let alone settle their families in. Some protection needs to be enacted so that this does not happen. I don't personally believe that the Constitution, nor the founding fathers ideas, would support people on welfare just getting a check in the mail every week, but I do think that the "poor" or lower class does deserve protection by the US government, in ways such as setting a federal miniumum wage, just as much as the middle class or rich deserve protection from crooked investors and other white collar criminals.
Quote:
which is true, is it not? what i was was saying was that if people weren't given welfare handouts (more for each kid they have no less) perhaps those who couldn't afford to raise children wouldn't birth them. all we are doing now is paying people who cannot afford to raise children money to have them. we are subsidizing poverty and population growth where there shouldn't be any. what it comes down to is... why should anyone be forced to support anyone else but their own children?
I agree with alot of these points. It does seem that the people that are on welfare (who are also in the groups of lower literacy and education levels) are also the ones that breed more. I'm not sure what the solution is for it. I realize that alot of people do seem to be bilking the system by equating more kids with more money, and breeding with that goal in mind. However, you have to ask the question, if a social program such as welfare is in action, wouldn't it be necessary to increase the benefits for people that do have children? It is a logical progression, it's just that the main program is, in and of itself, is flawed. The "rich" should have a responsibility to ensure that the lower class isn't being trampled on and kept down by the actions of certain groups, but I don't believe that they should be required (or forced, if you like that word) to pay the lower class if they are not working.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,580
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232379 - 01/10/04 12:15 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
that's a pretty serious assumption to be making, but for the sake of argument, let's say that a business really could pay all of its workers alot more than it did... why is it immoral? what it comes down to at that point is charity. any extra pay above and beyond what needs to be paid is a charitable donation. the work is worth a bowl of soup per day. if the employer pays 10, then they are not only running a business but also a free soup kitchen. those extra 9 bowls are handouts. there is nothing unethical about keeping what is yours. is it unethical to buy a car at the lowest negotiable price, or should you always offer the salesman twice what he's willing to settle for? is it unethical to hire a plumber at his normal hourly rate, or should you offer much extra? scratch that... those are bad questions... should people be forced to pay extra?
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2232392 - 01/10/04 12:22 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Its not the gov'ts job to help these people. The poor will obviously be the majority. If they really wanted to change it they could. People need to get off their asses form organizations not related to the gov't and try to change it for the better.
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,580
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232416 - 01/10/04 12:44 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
yes and no...in a democracy..the govt's job is to implement a system of checks and balances..so as to avoid a situation in which either party is unfairly exploited...if what you are suggesting is revolution (ie. we dont live in a democracy)..then it means that the govt is not doing its job..which in this case is to help these ppl...
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232563 - 01/10/04 02:00 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Its not the gov'ts job to help these people. The poor will obviously be the majority. If they really wanted to change it they could. People need to get off their asses form organizations not related to the gov't and try to change it for the better.
It is the governments job to protect the best interest of all the citizens that make up the government (in theory, everyone). Each group of people (poor, middle class, rich, etc) need to have specific laws designed to protect them. The laws regarding the SEC don't usually apply to the poor people, they are mainly established to protect the rich people. The same should be made for poor people. They deserve to be protected for the simple reason that htey are a part of the country, and "we" protect our own.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232697 - 01/10/04 04:24 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount?
So if someone can find children willing to work as child prostitutes why should they refuse to hire them?
why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup?
Because when employers realise they can exploit the starving, wages for everyone else drop through the floor and we are effectively back in the days of slavery.
which is true, is it not?
Yep, if you've starved to death you can't claim welfare.
i am still wondering... who is starving people to death? who is working them to death?
I think you'll have to read this in relation to toiletduks post to understand.
and what's this about a master race?
Your concept of the poor and disabled working for a bowl of soup a day is awfully similar to the Nazi concept of treatment for the "sub-humans". Can you tell me how it differs?
Himmler said whether 10,000 russian women drop dead digging a trench for us interests me only in so far as the trench is dug. Would you agree with this? If 10,000 people dropped dead because they only had a bowl of soup a day to eat would you think they should be "paid" more? You appear to be saying if you can find starving people desperate enough to work for a bowl of soup a day to keep them alive a few days longer then it is perfectly acceptable to work them to death.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2233072 - 01/10/04 01:07 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
What you're saying is that it would be better for them to just go ahead and drop dead without the soup.
--------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
It is the governments job to protect the best interest of all the citizens that make up the government (in theory, everyone). Each group of people (poor, middle class, rich, etc) need to have specific laws designed to protect them. The laws regarding the SEC don't usually apply to the poor people, they are mainly established to protect the rich people. The same should be made for poor people. They deserve to be protected for the simple reason that htey are a part of the country, and "we" protect our own.
that is an excellent point. many regulatory agencies like the FTC and the SEC protect the rich, but they are paid for by everyone, including the poor.
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2233105 - 01/10/04 01:28 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Regulated taxes and federal social programs are not my idea of protecting the rich. It may have been good in a fairly tale but in the real world taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not protecting everyone's best intrests.
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2233314 - 01/10/04 03:46 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Lets say that I own a warehouse. The majority of my labor is unskilled and highschool or GED education level. If the other warehouses were paying 15$/hour and offering full medical, dental and vision benefits, I'd have to do the same (or better) or I wouldn't be able to attract workers. Now, lets say that I went to the owners of the other warehouses in town. I proposed a plan that would save us a great deal of money. We would all agree to pay our workers no more than 7$/hour and offer no benefits. Since every warehouse would do this, the people would either work for the much lower wage with no benefits, or not have a job any longer. Lets take this a little bit farther and say that the association that I made with other warehouse workers went a bit farther. I'd talk with the farmers who would pay their cheap, uneducated labor much less than they were now. Now, if their wasn't a federally established minimum wage, we could keep on doing this until the only opportunities that unskilled workers had were all paying the same meager salary (or, perhaps, a bowl of soup per day?). This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal. The lower class needs to have governmental protection to ensure that they aren't being oppressed as much as the wealthy do to ensure that their isn't insider trading taking place, casuing their entire portfolio's to shrink exponentially overnight (read: Enron).
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,381
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 4 days, 20 hours
|
|
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
--------------------
I'm a nihilist. Lets be friends.
bang bang
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
What you're saying is that it would be better for them to just go ahead and drop dead without the soup.
Exqueeze me? 
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2234894 - 01/11/04 04:39 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
You probabaly still live with your parents
nope.
and dont have any children to support.
correct. why don't i have any children? because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father. rather simple.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2234922 - 01/11/04 04:49 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234943 - 01/11/04 05:00 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So if someone can find children willing to work as child prostitutes why should they refuse to hire them?
because they are children, and children are an exception. children cannot do a lot of things that adults can. entering into employment contracts is one of them.
Because when employers realise they can exploit the starving, wages for everyone else drop through the floor and we are effectively back in the days of slavery.
i fail to follow... how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
I think you'll have to read this in relation to toiletduks post to understand.
i'll have to do that. doesn't surprise me you haven't any answer to that question.
Your concept of the poor and disabled working for a bowl of soup a day is awfully similar to the Nazi concept of treatment for the "sub-humans". Can you tell me how it differs?
because alex... the nazis did "starve and work people to death". the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
Himmler said whether 10,000 russian women drop dead digging a trench for us interests me only in so far as the trench is dug. Would you agree with this?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234979 - 01/11/04 05:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
as i've said before, i am not opposed to welfare programs and minimum wages out of self-interest. i personally might benefit from an increased minimum wage, and welfare programs take little, if any, money from my pocket. i do not have any special hatred of the poor, nor appreciation for the rich.
i oppose these programs not just because they depend on coercion to support and enforce, but because i have come to believe that these programs are in fact detrimental to those they intend to help.
people argue for a minimum wage. they want to guarantee "the lowest reasonable standard of living" to the unskilled worker... as if by making it illegal to hire a man for less than a certain amount, his labor magically becomes worth at least that amount. therein lies the problem. when a minimum wage is enacted, those workers not worth that wage will not be employed. the minimum wage will create unemployment. people will be put out of work. what's more, producing goods and services becomes more expensive, so the cost to consumers increases. there is more unemployment, less production, and few people actually better off. those put out of work are to be placed on welfare.
welfare ain't so hot either. it seems people forget that for every dollar given to welfare recipients (people who are presumably unemployed and unable to find work), a dollar must be taken from working people. a dollar is taken away from them that they would have otherwise spent. they purchase less than they would have, and so less people are put to work producing goods and services than would otherwise be. thanks to welfare, someone is put out of work... and onto the welfare rolls. welfare creates the very disease which symptoms' it attempts to alleviate. the community as a whole loses employment and production, the unemployed lose the dignity of a paying job, and the employed lose their hard-earned currency. you are taking what would have been someone's paycheck, putting them out of work, and giving it to them as a relief check.
it is my belief that if the government would stop adopting these well-intentioned but shortsighted sorts of policies, everyone, including the wage-earners, would be much better off for it.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235005 - 01/11/04 05:34 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father
*GASP* You don't mean to see you practice personal responsibility?
Outrageous.
OUTRAGEOUS!
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2235054 - 01/11/04 06:14 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
If the majority of the people are "poor", which isn't really true in America, they would be the majority in a democracy and thus, the main group that politicans were pandering to. I don't think that the government should give money out to people that aren't working, but I do think that the government has the responsibility to protect the people of the nation. This goes for groups that serve interests that are usually geared more for the higher class wage earners, such as those from economic groups that are more inclined to invest money, trade stocks, etc. as well as it does the lowest paid worker in the country. We don't want to construct a system where only the rich are thriving by oppressing the uneducated working class, and we don't want a society where the investors (mainly middle/upper class) are being lied to and cheated. Thus, we create laws to protect them.
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on other groups and oppresses them. I don't feel that this means that their shouldn't be, say, millionaire CEO's or that Joe Sixpack would be making 50$/hour working in a warehouse either.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235949 - 01/12/04 02:16 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
because they are children, and children are an exception
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
i'll have to do that
You do that. You might grasp it then.
the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236451 - 01/12/04 05:36 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
Really weak Alpo.
In one case you're shot. In the other if you don't like the terms you can look elsewhere, grow your own food, or start your own business.
It's like night and day oh disingenuous one.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
GuidoBastard
newbie
Registered: 12/24/03
Posts: 33
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
My summer job is at a deli in the dregs of town in a city in upstate NY's idustrially ravaged Adirondack foothills. The, um, clientel of this deli and market are more than bummy.
Nobody works. They jam up the place when the people who DO work wanna run in and get a sandwich real quick for their like, 8 minute lunch break. They have declining benefit cards that they can use to buy food and deduct it as fast as they want. This means LARGE orders by the scumbags. They can't budget, so the ass-end of the month is always less busy. I hate welfare scum.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236689 - 01/12/04 11:07 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
listen, i'm glad that "leftists" helped end child labor practices. so they did something good. does that make them right always? no, it doesn't. the percieved political affiliation of the people who ended child labor has got nothing to do with this discussion.
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
absolutely. if i didn't work, i'd be starving too. virtually everyone would starve if they did not choose to work, but the decision of whether or not to work, how much to work for, and where to work, is still a voluntary decision. no one is forcing anyone.
let's say you're on a desert island, and by mustering up all of your productive potential, you can only manage to feed yourself one bowl of soup per day. who is exploiting you? who is starving you? who is forcing you to work? if you choose not to work, but to starve instead, who has forced that fate upon you?
You do that. You might grasp it then.
ok, i've read it, and nowhere does toiletduk made an argument in support of the assertion that keeping what is yours rather than giving it to someone else is tantamount to taking that same thing from the person you could have given it to.
alex, i have never offered you a meal. does this mean that i am starving you? unfortunately, my neighbor is without an MP3 player. i just so happen to have two of them. by not giving one away to my neighbor, am i depriving him of an MP3 player? if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
depriving someone of something, be it their liberty, property, or life, cannot be done by keeping what is rightfully yours, but only by taking what is theirs. voluntary employment is not the same as slavery, no matter what the wage. i volunteer a great deal of my time to charitable organizations who pay me nothing. am i their slave? are they exploiting me?
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
it's a great choice. if it was not available to them, they would be dead.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,580
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236787 - 01/12/04 12:04 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
Lets say that I own a warehouse. The majority of my labor is unskilled and highschool or GED education level. If the other warehouses were paying 15$/hour and offering full medical, dental and vision benefits, I'd have to do the same (or better) or I wouldn't be able to attract workers. Now, lets say that I went to the owners of the other warehouses in town. I proposed a plan that would save us a great deal of money. We would all agree to pay our workers no more than 7$/hour and offer no benefits. Since every warehouse would do this, the people would either work for the much lower wage with no benefits, or not have a job any longer. Lets take this a little bit farther and say that the association that I made with other warehouse workers went a bit farther. I'd talk with the farmers who would pay their cheap, uneducated labor much less than they were now. Now, if their wasn't a federally established minimum wage, we could keep on doing this until the only opportunities that unskilled workers had were all paying the same meager salary (or, perhaps, a bowl of soup per day?). This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal. The lower class needs to have governmental protection to ensure that they aren't being oppressed as much as the wealthy do to ensure that their isn't insider trading taking place, casuing their entire portfolio's to shrink exponentially overnight (read: Enron).
under these conditions..could you really choose not to "accept" that rate-of-pay??...and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (01/12/04 01:47 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2236805 - 01/12/04 12:15 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
no, its an example of you being ignorant of game theory.
and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
no. usury refers to lending money at interest. more specifically, it was the term used by the catholic church when it condemned the practice (thereby prohibiting investment and holding back european commerce for hundreds of years). in modern times, usury is defined as lending money at an interest rate higher than a legally defined maximum.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236812 - 01/12/04 12:20 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work. They consented to work or they died. Exactly the same choice you are giving to the starving.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236820 - 01/12/04 12:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work.
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head, and refusing to buy them lunch, are two entirely different things.
i am not going to keep repeating myself in different words. if you have an argument against the fundamental principles for which i have been arguing, please present it.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236821 - 01/12/04 12:25 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
I would put a knife to their throat and slit it and let them bleed to death like an animal.
...and I would be right to do so.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
...and I would be right to do so.
Not so. However, your example would work if someone else did the slashing and then you watched them bleed.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236836 - 01/12/04 12:30 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head
Well, you can't live on a bowl of soup a day so you would die of a horrible disease very rapidly anyway. Could you explain what choice the starving person has? He either dies today or dies tomorrow. What "choice" is that?
if you have an argument against the fundamental principles
I really don't how to present an argument to make you understand why starving people to death is wrong. You either understand it or you don't.
|
Anonymous
|
|
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
it would have to depend on how they died, wouldn't it?
what if they were killed in a bank robbery?
should all witnesses of bank robberies jump into the fray and try to disarm and subdue the robber?
what if they were dying of a terrible disease, which could be cured, but not without substantial amounts of expensive therapy?
should a person who saw this and didn't open up their checkbook and sign a fat check have their neck cut by you?
what if they were trapped in a burning building... should the nearest passerby be required to go in and rescue them?
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't? people make choices. if they want to help another person, that's their decision. if they don't, that's their decision too, and they shouldn't be punished for it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236862 - 01/12/04 12:37 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well, you can't live on a bowl of soup a day so you would die of a horrible disease very rapidly anyway. Could you explain what choice the starving person has? He either dies today or dies tomorrow. What "choice" is that?
if you still do not see the difference between a case of holding a man underwater until he drowns, and that of simply refraining from jumping in the water to rescue a drowning man who has fallen in, i don't think i can make it any more clear than i already have.
I really don't how to present an argument to make you understand why starving people to death is wrong. You either understand it or you don't.
and starving people to death is wrong. what you do not understand is that to starve someone, you must take their food from them. not giving someone food isn't the same as taking it from them. prove that it is, and you'll have something to stand on.
|
RandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
|
|
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on
other groups and oppresses them
Exactly. If democracy has proved one thing, it has shown how groups
of people do whatever political thing they can in order to get
whatever they can. This statement goes for massive corporations all
the way to unions who represent poor people.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,580
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237025 - 01/12/04 02:26 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
>> see edit to post...
This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
no, its an example of you being ignorant of game theory.
>> game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following:
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal.
and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
no. usury refers to lending money at interest. more specifically, it was the term used by the catholic church when it condemned the practice (thereby prohibiting investment and holding back european commerce for hundreds of years). in modern times, usury is defined as lending money at an interest rate higher than a legally defined maximum.
>> interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2237099 - 01/12/04 03:07 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
see edit to post...
i've read the whole post. nowhere do you make an adequate case in support of the marxist fantasy that something can be worth more than that with which it can be voluntarily exchanged.
game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following
price fixing is illegal. the government enforces against it. you've merely given an example of a way in which the government interferes in the market. what you have not done is supported the notion that this, or any other interference, is a proper use of government power. the fact is that it is usually not in the self-interest of any given business to cooperate with other businesses in collusive strategies, and so such instances are rare, even in the absence of government enforcement.
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237276 - 01/12/04 04:20 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead. So the REAL deicison would be made in the grocery store when people were given the choice between your chicken and another companies chicken, both being the same quality of chicken, and yours being twice as expensive.
Quote:
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
This wasn't really addressed to me, but I do have a few thoughts on it. The people that are against lending that involves interest say that they do so insupport of the poor people. How would a poor person afford a vehicle (about 9,000$ US minimum for a new car), a house (60,000$US+) or other expensive but necessary things? Would would be the causal factor that would lead "the rich" to put up money to be loaned?
|
Anonymous
|
|
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead.
who's saying i'd have to pay 3 times what everyone else was paying to reap those benefits? all i'd have to do was pay more than the rival chicken farms. i could pay $7 an hour. other firms would of course follow suit, perhaps paying $8 an hour. eventually, we'd all be paying the market wage rate, just like we had been before.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237599 - 01/12/04 08:15 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't?
The guy with the knife.
Who are you to say who "owns" something? A person is ony wealthy if there is a broad consensus that they own the things they claim to own.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Who are you to say who "owns" something?
i own myself. if i don't own myself, that is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my own life than i do.
because i am alive, i exist in time and have the ability to act. i own my time and i own my capacity to act. to say that someone else owns these things means that someone else has a higher claim on my time and capacity to act than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my liberty than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my life than i do.
if i own my time and ability to act, it follows logically that i own those things for which i exchange my time and effort. to say that i do not own the things for which i have exchanged my time and effort for implies that someone else has a higher claim on these things than i do. it is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my property than i do. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my liberty. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my life than i do.
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 08:53 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237649 - 01/12/04 08:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know that the stuff you got isn't stolen? If you accept stolen goods as payment for your time, who is then the real owner, the person who had it stolen from them, or you.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
that would be a good topic for another thread. i think that the person who had their property stolen should have it returned to them, and that the person who did the stealing should have to reimburse the person they exchanged it with. that's not really related to this thread though. private property does exist, and individuals have the same right to their property as they have to their life and liberty.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237732 - 01/12/04 09:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point. Just because you think it's yours doesn't make it so.
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do. If that means they get to live, and you don't get to take a cruise, then too bad. There is no immoral way for that exchange to take place, not by theft, and not by taxes.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point.
i don't think so. the computer i'm using wasn't stolen from anyone, nor were the clothes i'm wearing, the food i ate today, etc.
what has been stolen and from whom?
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do.
why should someone deserve that which i have created any more than i do? why should someone deserve a portion of my life any more than i do? why should any person by forced to support any other person?
here's a question:
you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need?
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 09:41 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237760 - 01/12/04 09:31 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
>>>you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need? <<<
example?
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
hmm... it's sortof a hypothetical. like for instance, there is habitat for humanity and many other volunteer groups like it that help poor folks. would it be ok to force people to do this kind of work?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237806 - 01/12/04 09:52 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's a matter of scale and proportion.
It would not be fair to force someone into real, literal slavery for a year, in order to keep another person alive for a year, but bedridden and in pain.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem in denying someone a summer cruise so that a seven year old boy can be completely cured of his terminal illness and live a full healthy life.
There is a matter of diminishing returns on this issue.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
so... it is ok to take that for which someone has labored, but not their labor itself?
if i am a builder and i charge $500 to install new rooves on houses, why is it not ok to force me to install a new roof on someone's home today, but it is ok to take from me the $500 that i earned installing a roof yesterday?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237872 - 01/12/04 10:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
I would be okay with giving them the option of cash or labor as long as the outcome was the same.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
it's forced labor, and there's not much difference. forced labor is ok?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239000 - 01/13/04 01:17 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Forced labor is okay to a point, but what we're talking about is not forced labor. what we're talking about is taxes (I think). Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
I've never once gotten a letter from the government demanding that I make more money.
--------------------
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
If you have just cashed your check and pocketed all the money and I come up and rob you, isn't the amount of money robbed from you based upon the amount of money you choose to make?
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
Anonymous
|
|
Forced labor is okay to a point, but what we're talking about is not forced labor. what we're talking about is taxes (I think). Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
what we were talking about was taking the product of someone's labor. your property represents a part of your life. it is your past. in the past, you expended productive effort to create the property you now own. you have as much of a right to your past (your property) as you do to your present (your liberty) and to your future (your life). but hey, you support involuntary servitude, so at least you're being consistant.
why should anyone have a higher claim on your own life than you do?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 21,404
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 12 hours, 8 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239187 - 01/13/04 02:37 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, the analogy just doesn't fit.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
it does.
your time and capacity to act are conditions of your life, and as such, you have the highest claim on them. you can do what you want. you can spend your time how you want. to deny this is to say that someone has a higher claim on your life than you do. if you choose to use your time and capacity to act in such a way that you produce something, the thing that you have produced is as much yours as that which you expended to produce it. your property represents a portion of your life. you have given some of your life to produce that property; it is as much your own as your own life.
when you take the roofer's $500, you are taking yesterday. when you force him to build a roof, you are taking today.
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239269 - 01/13/04 03:09 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239334 - 01/13/04 03:29 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
If you have just cashed your check and pocketed all the money and I come up and rob you, isn't the amount of money robbed from you based upon the amount of money you choose to make?
No, it's based on you having a gun and me not wanting to die. A robber's going to take all the money I have whether it's $5 or $5,000.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Have you ever tried to resist armed government agents? Check out the The Whack'em & Stack'em Files to read some stories about how the government treats taxpayers (and everyone else).
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239725 - 01/13/04 06:10 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
With taxes, there is an understanding. You pay taxes in exchange for government services, and they only take a certain percent of your income, and that's before you get it, so in a way, it's not even yours.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
The mob calls the same thing, 'protection money.' There is no difference except in legal terminology (well, the mob does a better job of protecting you).
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239774 - 01/13/04 06:29 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
The mob doesn't care how much money you're making, so this might be a good analogy if there was a flat tax.
Basically, when you get a job, you know very well that what you're going to be making isn't really such-and-such amount of money, but rather such-and-such amount minus taxes, and you agree to work for that amount. Similarly, when you buy something at a store, you factor in sales tax before buying something. It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
Just like a kid who get's his lunch money stolen everyday by bullies? If he didn't voluntarily take money to school, no one would take it from him, therefore it is consensual?
So a woman is threatened with being beaten up or stabbed if she doesn't have sex with someone, if she then agrees to have sex it's consensual?
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
It's a consensual agreement.
Pay or go to jail is a consensual agreement? Something else your learned from a professor?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239959 - 01/13/04 07:46 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
Just like a kid who get's his lunch money stolen everyday by bullies? If he didn't voluntarily take money to school, no one would take it from him, therefore it is consensual?
Apples and oranges. If you take a job, they tell you what you're going to get paid, and you factor taxes into it. Therefore, you agree when taking a job that you are going to work for the amount of money left after taxes.
Quote:
So a woman is threatened with being beaten up or stabbed if she doesn't have sex with someone, if she then agrees to have sex it's consensual?
Another shitty analogy.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
It's a consensual agreement.
Pay or go to jail is a consensual agreement? Something else your learned from a professor?
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours. And no, I didn't learn if from a professor(let it go--seriously). I'm using a thing called logic. You should try it sometime.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Demand a refund.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours.
Wrong. The money must be earned BY YOU before your employer credits it to you. Your employer is then threatened by the government to withhold your earnings from your paycheck.
Quote:
I'm using a thing called logic.
No you aren't, you are using something called rationalization.
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239998 - 01/13/04 08:03 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours.
Wrong. The money must be earned BY YOU before your employer credits it to you. Your employer is then threatened by the government to withhold your earnings from your paycheck.
"Earned" is a loaded term. You "earn" what you agree to earn, and when you agree to it, it comes with an understanding between you, your employer, and the government that a certain percentage of it is not yours, but the government's.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a thing called logic.
No you aren't, you are using something called rationalization.
Call it what you will, but no one coerces you into taking a job(except maybe your parents or landlord).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
Call it what you will, but no one coerces you into taking a job
Self respect. Some of us prefer not to mooch. Hence..... a job.
Seriously, demand a refund.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
"Earned" is a loaded term.
Having trouble with the English language?
Quote:
You "earn" what you agree to earn, and when you agree to it, it comes with an understanding between you, your employer, and the government that a certain percentage of it is not yours, but the government's.
The understanding is that the overwhelming force of the government will be used to keep my full earnings from me. I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
Quote:
Call it what you will, but no one coerces you into taking a job.
No, no one coerces me into taking a job. Do you always use straw men in your arguments? The coercion takes place when I attempt to get renumeration for my efforts expended for the employer. The employer is coerced into withholding part of my earnings as well as paying fees to the government for the act of employing me.
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Who said anything about mooching. You could choose to starve, or to steal, sell drugs, or enter some other illegal business which isn't taxed. You could become a priest or monk and not pay taxes(of course, the collection plate could be considered mooching). There's a whole world of options out there.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2240023 - 01/13/04 08:21 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
"Earned" is a loaded term.
Having trouble with the English language?
No, are you?
Quote:
Quote:
You "earn" what you agree to earn, and when you agree to it, it comes with an understanding between you, your employer, and the government that a certain percentage of it is not yours, but the government's.
The understanding is that the overwhelming force of the government will be used to keep my full earnings from me. I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
No, you agree to it when you sign the paperwork at a job, not when they take money.
Quote:
Quote:
Call it what you will, but no one coerces you into taking a job.
No, no one coerces me into taking a job. Do you always use straw men in your arguments? The coercion takes place when I attempt to get renumeration for my efforts expended for the employer. The employer is coerced into withholding part of my earnings as well as paying fees to the government for the act of employing me.
You earn what you get, not what the government gets.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sorry but he's got you. Give up with dignity still attached.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
If I gave up, there would be no dignity in it.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Anyone who feels that because the tax money is taken out before you get your check, you aren't paying taxes should perhaps re-evaluate the meaning of the word dignity.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
silversoul7 said:
Quote:
No, you agree to it when you sign the paperwork at a job, not when they take money.
Your powers of mind reading are inadequate for the task of determining what I agree to. All I agree to is that it would be unhealthy to resist the overwhelming force of the government as it is used to keep my full earnings from me. I'll repeat, I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
Quote:
You earn what you get, not what the government gets.
Incorrect, I earn all my before tax income. The government takes some and leaves me the rest. If I were not EARNING IT, the government would not be able to get any of it, for there would be no income to extort. It's really quite a simple concept to grasp...
Has your education been through state-run schools? That may explain some things...
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2240286 - 01/13/04 10:23 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
silversoul7 said:
Quote:
No, you agree to it when you sign the paperwork at a job, not when they take money.
Your powers of mind reading are inadequate for the task of determining what I agree to. All I agree to is that it would be unhealthy to resist the overwhelming force of the government as it is used to keep my full earnings from me. I'll repeat, I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
No, you agree to it in the sense that it is a condition of your employment. You may not like it, but by signing the papers, you're agreeing to it.
Quote:
Quote:
You earn what you get, not what the government gets.
Incorrect, I earn all my before tax income. The government takes some and leaves me the rest. If I were not EARNING IT, the government would not be able to get any of it, for there would be no income to extort. It's really quite a simple concept to grasp...
Has your education been through state-run schools? That may explain some things...
Actually, I go to a private liberal arts school. And no, your income before taxes is not what you earn, but rather what your employer is spending on you. So your employer gives a certain percent to the government and the rest to you.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
No, you agree to it in the sense that it is a condition of your employment. You may not like it, but by signing the papers, you're agreeing to it.
Try to read S-L-O-W-L-Y, I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted. It is the same thing as if a person calling himself MR. IRS were to accost you on the street and demand money or threaten to handcuff you to an immovable object. If you offer enough resistance, he will shoot you. A condition of your remaining physically free and injury free requires that you give him your money. I will not ask you if you understand, because it is apparent that you do not. The preceding illustration is for the benefit of those who can think outside your box.
Quote:
Actually, I go to a private liberal arts school.
How about before that?
Quote:
And no, your income before taxes is not what you earn, but rather what your employer is spending on you.
As an employer, I can tell you that you are woefully ignorant. What an employer spends on you is quite a bit more than your income before taxes. When I hire someone, I do not calculate what his or her tax bracket will be, nor do I care how many exemptions he will use in tax filing, that is something he must work out with the government. From an employer's perspective, you must be able to earn all the expenses required to keep you on the payroll, otherwise there is no point in hiring you. This includes the employer's portion of Social Security taxes, mandatory insurances as well as health insurance, vacation and sick pay and any materials, office space and training needed for you to do your job. The cost of ALL OF THESE must be earned by an employee or the employee is not worth keeping from a business perspective.
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2240854 - 01/14/04 05:35 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Don't worry. Enough of us have the ability to follow along.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
|
You pay taxes in exchange for government services
in some cases that is correct, but the exchange is not voluntary. I have no right to start a watch company and force people to buy my watches.
and they only take a certain percent of your income
yes, but it is still some of your property, and it is still more of your property than you have consented to give them.
that's before you get it, so in a way, it's not even yours.
what matters is that property is seized during a transaction. if it's not yours yet, it's still the property of the other party, and it's being seized from them. the fact remains that someone's property is still being taken without permission.
|
Anonymous
|
|
The mob doesn't care how much money you're making, so this might be a good analogy if there was a flat tax.
extortion rackets often times are based on percentages, so it's actually a fine analogy, and the actual means of determining the different rates of taxation is irrelevant to the discussion of whether or not taxes are voluntary. the principle is the same. lets say you own and operate a bar, and some racketeers come along and tell you that you gotta give 'em $500 a week for "protection". of course, you only have to pay them if you want to run your bar. voluntary and consensual?
Basically, when you get a job, you know very well that what you're going to be making isn't really such-and-such amount of money, but rather such-and-such amount minus taxes, and you agree to work for that amount. Similarly, when you buy something at a store, you factor in sales tax before buying something. It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
it's not consensual at all. saying "you only have to pay income tax if you want to engage in transactions. it's a consensual agreement" is like saying, "if an armed mugger robs you at gunpoint, you only have to give him your wallet if you want to live. it's a consensual agreement". you have the same right to your liberty as you do to your life, and liberty includes the freedom to make voluntary transactions with other people. like your life, it is not a privilige granted to you by the powers that be in return for your obedience and timely payments; it is a right.
you have a right to work, and your employer has a right to pay you. there is no reason why either of you should have to pay someone for permission to make this transaction.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2241404 - 01/14/04 01:11 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
equating taxation to a mugging? yeah that's logical..
what services did the thug provide for you? is he demanding payment for something (police services perhaps )?
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241422 - 01/14/04 01:15 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
in some cases that is correct, but the exchange is not voluntary.
But you admit to driving on roads and I presume you'd expect the police or fire service to provide a service to you?
All these come out of tax dollars. You say it's not "voluntary" and yet you still expect to use services paid for by tax.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
With taxes, there is an understanding. You pay taxes in exchange for government services, and they only take a certain percent of your income, and that's before you get it, so in a way, it's not even yours.
I pay taxes for the government services, I was the victim of 3 burglaries and the shooting of some livestock within a 6 week period, those services consisted of pissing around before they came to my house 2 hours later, filling out a police report and driving away, they inquired about nothing. Do you have any enemies? Who you have someone you suspect may have done it. Where are my services if these questions arent asked. Should I be paying my taxes if I dont get the services?
Maybe my taxes should be paid directly to the police. There is still no investigation, I still have in my posession evidence that links to the person that committed the crime, license plate, tire tracks, fingerprints, everything that would get a conviction but they are uninterested in making me anything more than a statistic in the unsolved crimes cases. interestingly enough the same PD has a 120% solve rate on homicide?
What has the government done for you, I see nothing on my end. I can educate my children better, make a better living without them and provide my own protection as well as solve my own crimes in a timely fashion, I fee like I'm paying the 'slack mafia' for protection, at least with the italians I wont have to worry about it being 'unsolved'.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241654 - 01/14/04 02:56 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
I only agree to it to the extent that a victim agrees to hand his wallet over to a thug, lest he be physically accosted.
equating taxation to a mugging? yeah that's logical..
what services did the thug provide for you? is he demanding payment for something (police services perhaps )?
the analogy, it actualy does work. what do they really do for you.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2241675 - 01/14/04 03:02 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I'll just say this:
if the government has TRULY done NOTHING for you. you would be justified in refusing to pay taxes.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2241705 - 01/14/04 03:10 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Alex123 said:
in some cases that is correct, but the exchange is not voluntary.
But you admit to driving on roads and I presume you'd expect the police or fire service to provide a service to you?
the states built them and the feds stepped in saying. "we collect all this cash and need to show something for it, so states, we'll give you money to expand and introduce commerce and later we'll cut off the money for expansion and repairs if you dont do as we say."
Quote:
All these come out of tax dollars. You say it's not "voluntary" and yet you still expect to use services paid for by tax.
yes the states are organized in their their interaction we could do without the majority of big government, military and other things play a major factor but the majority of this crap we dont need including cops that dont investigate, politicians that steal, paying NATO or the UN, and enough pet projects to infest a whores pubes.
Private companies can do it through the states and if the job isnt done right or the delay too mush they get replaced and sued by the states. The US Government is supposed to be the meetings for the states for inter cooperation. nothing more.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241755 - 01/14/04 03:28 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
what services did the thug provide for you? is he demanding payment for something (police services perhaps )?
would it matter if he was? you cannot force people to pay for things they don't consent to buy in the first place.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241757 - 01/14/04 03:30 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
I'll just say this:
if the government has TRULY done NOTHING for you. you would be justified in refusing to pay taxes.
Genocidal presidents putting our lives in danger, all but wiping out races of people. taking my money without a full accounting, allowing criminals to roam our government buildings and run our country.
yep, they have done alot for me. harrassed my because of looks, what I drive, what I choose to say or do. what do you think they do for me
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2241769 - 01/14/04 03:36 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
But you admit to driving on roads and I presume you'd expect the police or fire service to provide a service to you?
All these come out of tax dollars. You say it's not "voluntary" and yet you still expect to use services paid for by tax.
1. whether someone uses these services or not, they still have to pay for them. a person's tax burden has got nothing to do with which government services they actually use. it is therefore illogical to base the justness of a person's tax burden on the services they use or do not use; the two are unrelated.
2. the government may provide services for a fee, but you do not get to choose whether or not you get to buy them. if you are forcing someone to pay for a product, it doesn't matter how useful you think the product is, or what a sweet deal the people are getting, or how great the service you are providing is... what matters is that they must consent to purchase it. i cannot force you to buy something. i cannot offer you a watch, and then require you to purchase it under threat of force. forcing someone to pay for something they do not consent to pay for is theft. it matters not if the government provides a service in return for taxes.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241793 - 01/14/04 03:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
if the government has TRULY done NOTHING for you. you would be justified in refusing to pay taxes.
what if you use very few government services... should you then be only subject to a minimal tax? should you only be taxed to pay for government services that you actually volunteer to pay for and use?
i think so. but then that isn't how government works. that's how business works.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
No, you agree to it in the sense that it is a condition of your employment. You may not like it, but by signing the papers, you're agreeing to it.
under duress through coercion. a monk in 16th century russia was forced to confess to a crime. I forget his name but he signed F.C. after his name, it ment made to confess and as my latin sucks I cant tell you the term used, I learned it in law class in 9th grade so I forgot most of the details.
hwen you sign no paperwork and are expected to file a 1099 each year as you are being paid all of your wages and none are deducted by your employer is it fair? others have it deducted and sub-contractors dont, are you still responsible for the tax liability?
Quote:
Incorrect, I earn all my before tax income.
income is earned by companies, wages are earned by people.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241830 - 01/14/04 03:56 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
would it matter if he was? you cannot force people to pay for things they don't consent to buy in the first place.
there is implicit consent on your part when, knowing where the money for roads comes from (taxes), you still voluntarily choose to use them.
I'm not here to argue about how right taxes are. as long as there have been taxes, there have been people bitching about them. this is nothing new.
I'm simply saying that whether or not you explicity consented to it, you DID receive services from the governenment, services which you used VOLUNTARILY, and so it's not THEFT when they come to you for PAYMENT for services rendered. it's just *slightly* different from a mugging...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241876 - 01/14/04 04:11 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
socialist, commies, and assorted other statists... if i may throw you a bone...
nothing you've been putting forth so far holds up to logical scrutiny, and i'll tell you why:
you are trying to justify the taking of someone's property by force. the problem is that until you have an alternative theory of property rights than the one i stated earlier, you cannot justify this. what you need to do is discover a different, but logically defensible theory of property ownership. right now, the ideas i put forth earlier about property rights haven't been succesfully contested. right now, the idea that an individual has as much a right to his justly acquired property as he does to his life is still standing, and until it isn't, you simply cannot justify theft.
an essential foundation of the role of the state which you all profess is that individuals do not have a right to their property. until you can actually prove that, the foundation is incomplete. the only way you can show that the taking of a man's property is not wrong is to show that he never had a right to it in the first place. until you can do that, you may dress up your arguments however you like, but they will not hold up. property rights are the key issue here.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241889 - 01/14/04 04:15 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
there is implicit consent on your part when, knowing where the money for roads comes from (taxes), you still voluntarily choose to use them.
there are many that choose not to use them and are still paying, like education, got kids in school, if not then why are you paying taxes for schools?
I'm simply saying that whether or not you explicity consented to it, you DID receive services from the governenment, services which you used VOLUNTARILY, and so it's not THEFT when they come to you for PAYMENT for services rendered. it's just *slightly* different from a mugging...
I've been denied services from the government when my taxes have paid for them, I never recieved unemployment, welfare or any other govt aid when I wasnt working nor have a seen anything reasonable about police services, but I still pay for them.
Edited by Granola (01/14/04 04:16 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241897 - 01/14/04 04:21 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
there is implicit consent on your part when, knowing where the money for roads comes from (taxes), you still voluntarily choose to use them.
if i didn't own a car, i'd still be paying for the roads. taxation to pay for roads is not presupposed by any "implicit consent".
I'm simply saying that whether or not you explicity consented to it, you DID receive services from the governenment, services which you used VOLUNTARILY, and so it's not THEFT when they come to you for PAYMENT for services rendered.
and the thing that you aren't grasping is that it doesn't matter if i choose to use them. what matters is that i have no choice in whether i wish to pay for them or not.
i say, "hey infidelGOD, i've got a nice set of steak knives i'd like you to buy... $500"
you say, "holy shit mushmaster, i knew you were a filthy capitalist pig, but damn, $500 for a set of steak knives? no fucking way"
i say, "too bad. you don't have a choice in the matter. you're buying these whether you want them or not, understand?"
so you agree to buy them and shell out the $500. you actually end up keeping the steak knives and occasionally even use them. does that make our "transaction" from before ethically sound?
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2241899 - 01/14/04 04:22 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Genocidal presidents putting our lives in danger, all but wiping out races of people. taking my money without a full accounting, allowing criminals to roam our government buildings and run our country.
yes, all of those things are terrible, and I'm glad you brought up our genocidal president  . should I not have to pay for the war in Iraq because I didn't "consent" to it? you know, the war was paid with TAXPAYER MONEY (some $200billion), whether they consented to it or not, and it was based on some bullshit "evidence". maybe there should be a taxpayer revolt?
alright here's the thing, the government doesn't break down taxes into individual services. (it would take a HUGE beurocracy to do this, and the IRS is big enough as it is!)
you don't get to decide what you'll pay for like:
"I was on the road 14.6 hours this month, so I'll pay this much..."
"I didn't dial 911 or make use of police services this month, so I won't pay this..."
"I didn't consent to giving my money to poor people, so fuck this..."
"I supported the war, so I'll pay this much..."
"I was on the internet 20 hours, so I'll pay this much..."
etc.
some people pay more than their fair share, and some get away with paying less. it depends entirely on your income and consumption, which to some degree, depends on the services you received from the government.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241902 - 01/14/04 04:24 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
so you agree to buy them and shell out the $500. you actually end up keeping the steak knives and occasionally even use them. does that make our "transaction" from before ethically sound?
no. but it doesn't make it theft either. it's not the equivalent of a mugging as someone suggested. that's all I'm saying.
this whole tax=theft rhetoric is getting reeeaaaal old.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241907 - 01/14/04 04:27 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
no. but it doesn't make it theft either.
yes it does. you are taking someone's property without their consent. how is that not theft?
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241912 - 01/14/04 04:27 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
and btw, you DO have a choice not a pay taxes: just live off the land!
I've known people who did this - they didn't pay income tax!
you know, you could actually BE a rugged individualist instead of just talking about it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2241928 - 01/14/04 04:35 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
and btw, you DO have a choice not a pay taxes: just live off the land!
i have a right to work if i want to. another person has a right to pay me to work for them. if we agree to make an exchange of wages or labor, that is nobody's business but ours. we don't need permission from some governing authority. we have a right to engage in voluntary transactions if we so choose. liberty does not just become null and void as soon as there's more than one person involved.
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2241997 - 01/14/04 05:03 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
hey if you're living off the land with other people and you want to exchange your tomato for another person's cucumber, no one is going to come and stop you! really. there are communes all over the place around here, and the government don't fuck with them, unless they break the law.
i have a right to work if i want to
you sure do. and if you walked to work everyday, never used the phones, or electrical power, or the internet, or communication sattelites, the sewege system, etc etc, then you would be justified in refusing to pay income taxes, in principle (much like the people in the communes).
however, the reality of the industrialized world is that when you work, you will make use of these services, voluntarily. even if you do not directly use these services, you benefit from them. your job might not even exist if it were not for these services. you might not realize it, or acknowledge it, but you DO take from the system. you have taken from the system all your life, and at any moment, you are free to disengage from the system and cease paying taxes. the CHOICE is yours. but you can't have it both ways - you can't remain in the system and enjoy all the benefits of it, while refusing to pay for it. are you the guy who is always conspicuous by his absence when they bring the check to the table?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242053 - 01/14/04 05:22 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
this whole tax=theft rhetoric is getting reeeaaaal old.
It's not taxes in general I see as theft. It's tax money that is used for unconstitutional purposes I consider to be stolen from me.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
It's tax money that is used for unconstitutional purposes I consider to be stolen from me.
I couldn't agree with you more. the $200 billion in taxpayer money used to fund an unconstitutional war based on false evidence can certainly be considered theft.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242091 - 01/14/04 05:32 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
alright here's the thing, the government doesn't break down taxes into individual services. (it would take a HUGE beurocracy to do this, and the IRS is big enough as it is!)
largest workforce in america, we already have that HUGE beurocracy and maybe it should be put to use.
Quote:
you don't get to decide what you'll pay for like:
thats right because we have government to take it from us.
Quote:
it depends entirely on your income and consumption, which to some degree, depends on the services you received from the government.
your not even close, I recieve no services from the US government so I should be exempt
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242100 - 01/14/04 05:34 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
It's tax money that is used for unconstitutional purposes I consider to be stolen from me.
I couldn't agree with you more. the $200 billion in taxpayer money used to fund an unconstitutional war based on false evidence can certainly be considered theft.
Well, you may feel that way but the military IS a constitutional use of tax money.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242113 - 01/14/04 05:38 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
and btw, you DO have a choice not a pay taxes: just live off the land!
I've known people who did this - they didn't pay income tax!
did they squat that land because if they owned it they are paying the property tax, if they sell anything produced their are subject to income tax. they are also still required to file even if they made nothing.
pay 30k for a car including tax tag and title. title is paid for onece, tag is anual, sales tax is one pay but then they get you with 'advelorum tax' each year. Tag $20 advelorum $475. so that little tax is based on the value of your car done just like property tax, who sets the value and why if when my car depreciates my adv tax sometims goes up and sometimes stays the same.
Edited by Granola (01/14/04 05:48 PM)
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
for DEFENSE.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242119 - 01/14/04 05:41 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
for DEFENSE.
Good point. Sadly, they failed to define defense.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
I guess if "putting at ease irrational fears about (non-existent) Iraq WMD" is a defensive action, then it was justified. lol.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242150 - 01/14/04 05:50 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
I guess if "putting at ease irrational fears about (non-existent) Iraq WMD" is a defensive action, then it was justified. lol.
If the majority of the nation was for the war, as it was, and our commander in cheif was for the war ,as he was, and the Constitution makes provisions for use of tax-payer money for warfare, which is does, then the war is legal. The Constitution doesn't make definition about what makes a "War" legal, if any legislative body did such a thing, it would be the World Court.
However, taking money to pay for social programs probably isn't wanted by the majority of the nation, the leader of the nation, and no provisions are made for it in the Constitution.
That is the real issue.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242152 - 01/14/04 05:50 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
There are those who would argue just that. And in some cases they could even be correct.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2242158 - 01/14/04 05:54 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
did they squat that land because if they owned it they are paying the property tax, if they sell anything produced their are subject to income tax.
hey you know where property taxes go, right? they go to local governments to provide basic local services like landscaping, sewage, garbage-pickup, etc. still say you don't use any government services (local or federal)?
and as I said, the man living off the land pays no income tax, I didn't say he paid no taxes at all. he still goes down to the store to get things, tools and stuff and he pays sales tax. are you gonna complain about sales tax next?
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
taking money to pay for social programs probably isn't wanted by the majority of the nation
are you sure about that? first you would have to define "social programs". I don't know what this would include.. but I'm only for basic welfare - so we don't have throngs of desperate, hungry people out there. I want the government to provide for the basics, nothing more. I think most Americans would agree with this.
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242207 - 01/14/04 06:17 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
infidelGOD said:
hey you know where property taxes go, right? they go to local governments to provide basic local services like landscaping, sewage, garbage-pickup, etc. still say you don't use any government services (local or federal)?
they arent landscaping my yard or picking up my trash and since I'm on septic it doesnt pay that either. Sewage is actualy billed on your waterbill.
Quote:
and as I said, the man living off the land pays no income tax, I didn't say he paid no taxes at all. he still goes down to the store to get things, tools and stuff and he pays sales tax. are you gonna complain about sales tax next?
I said he was required to file income tax forms, nothing about sales tax except as an example of just where you are taxed and how often, more than half of the average check is paid in taxes.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242225 - 01/14/04 06:22 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
I think most Americans would agree with this.
I'd be surprised if that were true seeing as most Americans IMO only care about themslves and what they can get right now.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
JuanMatus
Stranger
Registered: 01/09/04
Posts: 28
Last seen: 7 years, 6 months
|
|
Here is one American who has rethought the issue. I used to believe that what is mine is mine, but have looked the issue over and now believe differently. First off I was a Manager in a manufacturing facility and my employer (cheap bastard that he was) paid bare minimum wages, knowing that the government would have to subsidize his workers with housing food, healthcare etc. now this allowed him to produce a greater profit for him (he didn't pay me too well either). now my point here is that we do not live in a vacuum, what we do as individuals affects those around us. subsidising education helps the poor child whos parents can't afford an education, but it also increases the likelyhood that he won't become a thug and kill you some night for your wallet. thus decreasing the need for pigs to patrol your streets and abuse you too. his wages when he graduates from school also helps to support the infrastructure that we all depend on. roads sewers water supplies would be rather expensive if we each had to build our own, also not very convenient. my point here is that no man is an island
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
I see it this way: the people might not want massive "social programs" to help the poor, but they are willing to spend to clean up the streets. I'm talking about basic welfare - food and shelter for those in need. this will clean up skid row. if you've ever lived in a big city, you're probably familiar with it. you don't even have to consider it welfare, you could think of it as a street-sweeping fee if it makes you feel better  . you'd pay for clean streets, wouldn't you?
and this isn't about tax=theft, that's an extreme view of it. most people don't consider taxation to be theft, and they're perfectly willing to pay for the basic services and infrastructure that government provides, and that includes your street sweeping fee. and btw, you don't get to choose where your tax dollars go .
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2242409 - 01/14/04 07:45 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Why should the feds pay for clean streets? Seems to me that comes under the heading of state and local taxes and expenditures. Same thing for welfare and other social programs.
As it stands, there is no mention of these things in the BOR or Constitution.
I'm well aware I can't decide where they go. Does that mean I shouldn't bitch about how much and where my tax dollars are spent? Or is bitching about that only OK if you do it?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: JuanMatus]
#2243638 - 01/15/04 11:14 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
JuanMatus said:
now my point here is that we do not live in a vacuum, what we do as individuals affects those around us. subsidising education helps the poor child whos parents can't afford an education, but it also increases the likelyhood that he won't become a thug and kill you some night for your wallet. thus decreasing the need for pigs to patrol your streets and abuse you too.
we have had subsidized education for decades and we are have an ever increasing problem with crime and every other week police are screaming that they need more personel and bigger budgets. most of these peole in the penal system are quite literate and a number even recieve degrees while incarcerated and yet they return to the streets to commit more crimes.
Quote:
his wages when he graduates from school also helps to support the infrastructure that we all depend on. roads sewers water supplies would be rather expensive if we each had to build our own, also not very convenient. my point here is that no man is an island
it cost $3700 to run sewer pipe for a a house to the county sewer system, thats a local figure based on a 100' run. The county pays for the building of sewer system to private contractors with tax money and revenues. These taxes and expenditures are a local level, the federal government handles nothing except for dictation of how thing within the national borders are to opperate yet they collect 800% more from my check than the state does and because I have additional 'unearned income' I pay an additional 29% on that.
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2243989 - 01/15/04 02:13 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
whether someone uses these services or not, they still have to pay for them.
So are you seriously the government asks everyones consent to look after the sewage system? At the moment you are being hypocritical every time you go to the john.
a person's tax burden has got nothing to do with which government services they actually use.
So what method do you suggest to pay for the sewage system? Charge everyone individually for how many visits they make? What if they go to a neighbours toilet?
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2244165 - 01/15/04 03:16 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
At the moment you are being hypocritical every time you go to the john.
there is nothing hypocritical about using services i am forced to pay for. see the steak knives example. would infidelGOD be hypocritcal for using the steak knives? would his use of the steak knives mitigate the crime i commited against him?
So what method do you suggest to pay for the sewage system?
like any other utility.
what's been suggested is that people only pay taxes for the government services they actually use. it's sort of a silly proposition i think, because in that case, they wouldn't be taxes, but voluntary payments for services, and the government would essentially be running a regular business. that how the post office works. it could work for the roads too perhaps, but most government services are either things that all people use and have no choice but to use (police, military, judicial system) or handouts that by their very nature, the user cannot and does not pay for, but are paid for by other people (welfare, medicare, etc.). it would work for very few programs, and even when the government can run a regular, non-coercive enterprise, they typically suck at it. everyone knows that priority mail is not the way to go if you actually want your package to arrive at its destination. in that case, you'd send it via one of the much more reliable private-sector companies like fedex or UPS.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2244253 - 01/15/04 04:27 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
So what method do you suggest to pay for the sewage system? Charge everyone individually for how many visits they make? What if they go to a neighbours toilet?
In most water districts sewer bills are based on how much water you use. So you are being charged by how often you use the toilet, among other things.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2244379 - 01/15/04 05:06 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
alright people. how many arguments have we heard by this point? all of the theories so far have been pretty outlandish i think. we've heard that it's ok to take people's property in order to "pacify" would-be criminals. that it's ok to force enforce laws against certain voluntary transactions because paid, voluntary labor is tantamount to slavery. we've even heard an allusion made to similarities between the institution of free exchange and the concentration camps. we've seen the marxist version of capital theory raise it's ugly head. now some are trying to suggest that because a person actually may use a service that they've been forced to pay for, it makes it ok that they were forced in the first place. i have been thinking... from what foundation can all of this nonsense sprout?... and i think i figured it out.
if it is ok to forcefully take a person's property, one of the following must be true:
1. one person (or group) may have a higher claim on one man's life than he himself does.
(i would say that this can only be true if the man is perhaps a violent criminal.)
2. a person does not have a right to the things they produce as a product of their life; a man's property does not really represent a part of his life.
(i believe this statement to be false.)
if you look at what collectivism boils down to, i think you'll see that collectivists must believe #1 to be true. they must. i'd go so far as to say that this is the defining characteristic of collectivism. from there stems the opposition to individual rights to property, liberty, and even life, if in the percieved interest of the collective group or some subset of it. a man does not have the highest claim to his own life, but rather, other people do. i find that to be absurd.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2244410 - 01/15/04 05:16 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i find that to be absurd
Nice post but with one flaw. The word absurd doesn't fit. Stupid is more like it. Perhaps delusional for the more PC crowd.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 4 years, 6 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2244788 - 01/15/04 07:58 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
I think that the initial point that "luvdemshrooms" was trying to make was that, even tho they are among the "lower class", the majority of "poor people" in America live in conditions that the "lower class" people of the rest of the world would consider to be living like kings. With the assertion of the social-program sponsors being that these people "need" their federally funded programs to survive, "luvdemshrooms" stats certaintly throw a wrench into that line of thought. It seems patently obvious that the majority of people on welfare are not borderline starvation that would necessitate our compassion to feed them, nor are they borderline criminal, which would necessitate our sense of security to want to pay them to avoid stealing from us.
I do think it would be interesting to see how many children from families that are "poor" but have 2 vehicles, a TV/cable, DVD player, PS2, etcetera, are still "Going to bed.." undernourished. If people would spend their wages correctly, intead of on junk food, the minimum wage in America is definatly enough to buy the food and shelter that the welfare advocates say are a "right" of living in America.
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Eloquently put.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
I think that the initial point that "luvdemshrooms" was trying to make was that, even tho they are among the "lower class", the majority of "poor people" in America live in conditions that the "lower class" people of the rest of the world would consider to be living like kings. With the assertion of the social-program sponsors being that these people "need" their federally funded programs to survive, "luvdemshrooms" stats certaintly throw a wrench into that line of thought. It seems patently obvious that the majority of people on welfare are not borderline starvation that would necessitate our compassion to feed them, nor are they borderline criminal, which would necessitate our sense of security to want to pay them to avoid stealing from us.
Maybe, but has it occurred to you that the reason why they aren't on the brink of starvation is BECAUSE they're on welfare? It might be a completely different story if they were all left to fend for themselves.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
And has it occured to you that perhaps many are on welfare because they have these things? ie: they have no self control and rather than saving money or spending it wisely, they buy things they want rather than the things they need?
A good example, I have a tenant in one of my buildings. They can't pay their rent and are being evicted yet somehow they have the money to rent a 50+ inch large screen TV and a surround sound system to go with it.
I have other tenants who never seem to lack money for booze, cigs and cable TV, yet they don't seem to have money for things they need.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Evolving
Resident Cynic
Registered: 10/01/02
Posts: 5,385
Loc: Apt #6, The Village
|
|
Luvdem, perhaps you should take massive amounts of blood thinners... your heart's not bleeding enough.
--------------------
To call humans 'rational beings' does injustice to the term, 'rational.' Humans are capable of rational thought, but it is not their essence. Humans are animals, beasts with complex brains. Humans, more often than not, utilize their cerebrum to rationalize what their primal instincts, their preconceived notions, and their emotional desires have presented as goals - humans are rationalizing beings.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Evolving]
#2248510 - 01/17/04 04:18 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Evolving said:
Luvdem, perhaps you should take massive amounts of blood thinners... your heart's not bleeding enough.
You're right. I have seen the error of my ways. Free large screen TV's, with surround sound for all. And of course, free booze and cigs to enjoy while watching them.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I understand what you are saying, and you're probably right about a lot of them having irresponsible spending habits, and I agree that there is something wrong with rewarding such behavior, but if the alternative is to have people starving, then I'll go with the system we have.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Nah.... let them starve.
However, I doubt many would. Once the gravy train ends most would realize they had to work to eat. Those who didn't.... tough shit. Let them starve.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
It's kind of like an election here. You gotta choose which is the lesser of two evils. To me that would be welfare. To you it's starvation. I guess that's why they call people like me "bleeding heart" liberals.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I disagree. I have no wish to see anyone starve.
I believe that without handouts, faced with starvation, most would work. There would be little if any starvation and charity could handle that quite nicely.
That is not the same as your lesser of two evils statement.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
|
why can one person be forced to support another? by what right?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248629 - 01/17/04 05:13 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
Which is the point many of us make repeatedly... they are almost all wrong.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
Which is the point many of us make repeatedly... they are almost all wrong.
Even if they're used to invade sovereign nations and oust a dictator?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
While I've said often enough (pre-war) that I wish we wouldn't go in, the military is a constitutional use of tax dollars.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
While I've said often enough (pre-war) that I wish we wouldn't go in, the military is a constitutional use of tax dollars.
No, the NATIONAL DEFENSE is a constitutional use of tax dollars. I think it's pretty clear by now that that war was not fought in self-defense.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Many would make the arguement that pre-emptive stikes are a valid form of self defense. As it does not specify in the constitution that we must not strike until after we have been struck, there is a validity to that arguement.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
|
Doesn't seem more wrong than any other use of tax dollars.
probably not, but it's certainly one of the most wasteful and shortsighted. ethics aside, there is no practical reason to take someone's money and give it to another person. people spend their money on things. this employs people. taking their money away to help the unemployed is not good policy.
it's always wrong to take from someone. in a perfect world, everyone would be free from forceful intrusions on their life. the world is not perfect however, and the best we can hope to do is minimize coercion. doing this unfortunately usually requires some initiation of force by government. we need a good government to protect us from a bad one, but even a good government is not perfect, and it will initiate some force simply in order to exist and do its job. it should be as small as possible, and keep it's primary forceful acts to a minimum... it should tax only to pay for cops, courts, and military. it should not enforce an economic order, a social order, or a religious order. the only thing it should do is keep the peace, though it may need to tax in order to do so.
it is wrong to initiate force, and if the practice cannot be eliminated, it should at least be minimized.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
I would point out how the claims that Iraq was a threat were pure bullshit, but I don't wish to derail this thread any further.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
I started the thread. I don't mind. So, the proof that it was bullshit has been found? I must have missed that news story.
Perhaps you could link to it? Or did you mean to say that in your opinion they were bullshit?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
|
Even if they're used to invade sovereign nations and oust a dictator?
saddam hussein was a threat to US national security. here you have a dictator who's government at one time was the biggest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons in the world. he is an enemy of the united states and has sponsored terrorists before. he is also sitting on billions of dollars of oil which provide an enormous source of wealth.
would hussein never again produce and stockpile chemical (or nuclear) weapons? would he never give them to terrorists with intentions of using them to strike america? would he never use his vast oil wealth to sponsor terrorist acts?
he was a despot responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, he was in on-and-off violation of his cease-fire weapons agreements for more than a decade, and he was certainly a threat to US security. i have no qualms about taking him down, and no qualms about using tax dollars to do it.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
The fact that we still haven't found any WMD's should be proof enough that they weren't a threat to us. Even if we did find some eventually, they obviously didn't have enough to constitute a serious threat to us. Maybe they were a threat to Israel, but defense of other nations isn't mentioned in the constitution.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248698 - 01/17/04 05:41 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i have no qualms about taking him down, and no qualms about using tax dollars to do it.
So you would initiate force against me to invade a sovereign nation, which was already crippled by sanctions?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
So you would initiate force against me to invade a sovereign nation, which was already crippled by sanctions?
yes.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248711 - 01/17/04 05:44 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well, then. That certainly makes me feel less guilty about initiating force against you to feed people.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
The fact that we still haven't found any WMD's should be proof enough that they weren't a threat to us.
You seem to be confusing "proof" and "evidence".
Quote:
Even if we did find some eventually, they obviously didn't have enough to constitute a serious threat to us.
That isn't necessarily so. IF they ever find any, a statement like that could only be made after seeing what and how much was found.
Quote:
Maybe they were a threat to Israel, but defense of other nations isn't mentioned in the constitution.
Actually... treaties are mentioned. There is no exemption for defense treaties that I'm aware of.
Being opposed to foreign aid, I'd rather we minded our own business. However, many say that defense treaties are minding our own business in the long term.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Anonymous
|
|
a perfect government would never initiate force.
a good one would do it as little as absolutely necessary.
a bad one would do it more than that.
there's no such thing as a perfect government. if the government does not tax you to provide police services, the fact that you are free from taxation will be of little consolation when your car is stolen. if it does not tax to pay for military, it will not matter much when the nation is taken over by a new power, domestic or foriegn, which does that and a whole lot more. it will be of little consolation when a foreign dictator lets some terrorists borrow some sarin which they let loose on american soil.
the government will initiate force. even a good one will. what limit should there be to this force? i've always said that it should only be to support its efforts to keep the peace. your basic response is: whatever sounds good.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248772 - 01/17/04 06:04 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
a good one would do it as little as absolutely necessary.
The Iraq War was far from necessary.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
The Iraq War was far from necessary.
yes it was. as i see it, we had three options:
1. end weapons inspections, end the sanctions levied in response to noncompliance with those inspections, and allow hussein to produce and stockpile chemical weapons. he could then produce chemical weapons, and maybe get a nuclear program going, without our pesky interference. he could even slip them to willing terrorists if he wanted. his people wouldn't be under sanctions, but they'd still be under hussein.
2. continue to put up with hussein's crap while half-assedly performing inspections when he lets us. he'd get away with whatever he could get away with, and all the while, his people would be starving from sanctions for noncompliance. we'd keep playing hide and seek with him. it'd be a little harder for him to produce and store chemical weapons, but he'd try, and occasionally get away with it. maybe after another decade of sanctions, the death toll caused by them would maybe reach a million. how long would this would go on and to what end i am not sure.
3. take him out. remove him from power. end the crap, free the iraqi people from both hussein and the sanctions, and secure americans from a chemical weapons obsessed government which sponsored terrorism and hated america.
i can't think of any options significantly different from these, and #3 sounds the best to me. how do you think he should have been dealt with?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248884 - 01/17/04 06:41 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
1. end weapons inspections, end the sanctions levied in response to noncompliance with those inspections, and allow hussein to produce and stockpile chemical weapons. he could then produce chemical weapons, and maybe get a nuclear program going, without our pesky interference. he could even slip them to willing terrorists if he wanted. his people wouldn't be under sanctions, but they'd still be under hussein.
Notice all the "could's" and "maybe's" in that statement. This is the problem with the pre-emptive doctrine. We could apply it to ANYONE because it's based quite arbitrarily on what others MIGHT do to us.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world. his military, before the gulf war (the second war he started), was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time), even after a decade-long bloody standoff with iran (the first war he started). he had the will, and the financial ability, to persue a nuclear weapons program. he hated america, and was sponsoring terrorists. i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat". i don't know what it equals to you.
why should we have not attacked the ba'athists? surely you can see that there was a threat there. who did we owe it to not to attack? the ba'athists?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2248978 - 01/17/04 07:10 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world. his military, before the gulf war (the second war he started), was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time), even after a decade-long bloody standoff with iran (the first war he started). he had the will, and the financial ability, to persue a nuclear weapons program. he hated america, and was sponsoring terrorists. i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat". i don't know what it equals to you.
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel. As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position. As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't. As for hating America, who doesn't? And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power? Ya, that's what I thought.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel.
that's pretty weak.
As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position.
it was said that he was at one time. however, precise figures on these things are not exactly public knowledge. who knows. the fact remains that his regime was an extremely prolific producer and stockpiler of chemical weaponry. the point still stands.
As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't.
he did, and it was shut down after the first gulf war. he'd be back at it again ASAP if we weren't monitoring him. at least one scientist has already come forward with components he was ordered to hide by hussein's regime.
And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power?
are you implying that this makes them less of a threat or something? i fail to see the relevance.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249040 - 01/17/04 07:26 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
First of all, the terrorists which Saddam supported, at least the one's we know about, were not attacking us, but rather were attacking Israel.
that's pretty weak.
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
Quote:
As far as being the largest producer and stockpiler of chemical weapons, I'm pretty sure we hold that position.
it was said that he was at one time. however, precise figures on these things are not exactly public knowledge. who knows. the fact remains that his regime was an extremely prolific producer and stockpiler of chemical weaponry. the point still stands.
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
Quote:
As for a nuclear weapons program, if he ever started one, I might think differently about the threat he presented to us. However, he didn't.
he did, and it was shut down after the first gulf war. he'd be back at it again ASAP if we weren't monitoring him. at least one scientist has already come forward with components he was ordered to hide by hussein's regime.
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
Quote:
And regarding the Ba'athists, are you refering to the party which we helped bring into power?
are you implying that this makes them less of a threat or something? i fail to see the relevance.
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
my point is that he has shown that he was willing and able to sponsor terrorists to attack his enemies.
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
what are you suggesting? perhaps he had none in march 2003. it would have been a temporary condition. now it's a permanent one.
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
i'm sorry, i asked you how he should have been dealt with and you then quoted option #1 and appeared to defend that option. do you think he should have been monitored? what should have been done when he did not allow it? should only his nuclear activities have been monitorred, or chemical weapons production as well?
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
probably. his sons were next in line and they were as bad if not worse. what are you suggesting?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249105 - 01/17/04 07:58 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
My point is let Israel deal with it. They have a pretty big military.
my point is that he has shown that he is willing and able to sponsor terrorists to attack his enemies.
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
Quote:
And yet so far, several months after he's been out of power, we still have yet to find ANY chemical weapons. Interesting...
what are you suggesting? perhaps he had none in march 2003. it would have been a temporary condition. now it's a permanent one.
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
Quote:
Did I say anything about not monitoring him? Hell, isn't the NSA pretty much monitoring EVERYONE? If we did find solid evidence that he was developing nuclear weapons, we could easily make a case in front of the UN for multilateral military action against him.
i'm sorry, i asked you how he should have been dealt with and you then quoted option #1 and appeared to defend that option. do you think he should have been monitored? what should have been done when he did not allow it? should only his nuclear activities have been monitorred, or chemical weapons production as well?
Yes, I think he should have been monitored. When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him). Chemical weapons should be monitored within reason, tho I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
Quote:
Are you saying that the Ba'ath party(indepent of Saddam) is a threat?
probably. his sons were next in line and they were as bad if not worse. what are you suggesting?
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anonymous
|
|
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
are you saying that if it is found that hussein supported terrorist organizations that attacked americans, you think that the war would have been justified?
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
no, only ones that mix with terrorists, and especially if they have an affinity for NBC weapons.
When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him).
i doubt it. several member nations on the UN security council, most notably france, were owed large sums of money by hussein's regime and stood to profit from oil development contracts there, all of which they would lose in the invent of an invasion. letting them "decide what to do" wasn't working.
I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
which is where you and i disagree. i believe that he was willing and able to produce chemical weapons and supply them to terrorists who would find their way to america.
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
what is the importance of this?
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249334 - 01/17/04 11:03 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
So if he started sponsoring terrorism against us, then we'd have reason to invade.
are you saying that if it is found that hussein supported terrorist organizations that attacked americans, you think that the war would have been justified?
Well, if by "supported" you mean armed, funded, etc., and by "attacked" you mean "targeted" then yes, I would have supported the war.
Quote:
I have an idea. Let's invade EVERY country that doesn't like us just in case they start developing chemical weapons.
no, only ones that mix with terrorists, and especially if they have an affinity for NBC weapons.
That should keep us busy for the next 20 years or so.
Quote:
When he didn't allow UN weapons inspectors in we should've let the UN decide what to do(there are also other ways of monitoring him).
i doubt it. several member nations on the UN security council, most notably france, were owed large sums of money by hussein's regime and stood to profit from oil development contracts there, all of which they would lose in the invent of an invasion. letting them "decide what to do" wasn't working.
Then so be it. If he had enough weapons to constitute a threat, we would've known about it soon enough.
Quote:
I think it's pretty well established that whatever weapons he had weren't capable of reaching US soil.
which is where you and i disagree. i believe that he was willing and able to produce chemical weapons and supply them to terrorists who would find their way to america.
If he was willing and able, don't you think he would've done it by now?
Quote:
I am suggesting what is already an established fact: that Saddam and his family were neither the first nor only members of the Ba'ath party.
what is the importance of this?
That Saddam does not equal the Ba'ath party, and that you are laying unfair blame on that party. That's like saying the Republican party should be banned because of Richard Nixon's illegal activities.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2249774 - 01/18/04 04:18 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
ok. you've got a guy who at one time was the largest producer and stockpiler or chemical weapons in the world
I find that very hard to believe. Evidence?
was 500,000 men strong (the 5th largest military in the world at the time),
Like Bill Hicks said, "there's a REAL big fucking drop off between the first three largest armies in the world and the fourth. The Hare-krishna's are the fifth largest army in the world..and they've already got our airports.."
he hated america
Think it was a bit more complex than that. During the 80's he was so close to America it was dubbed "the love affair".
and was sponsoring terrorists
You arn't meaning that hoary old bullshit about giving money to Palestinians killed by Israeli's are you? There's precious little evidence apart from what Tariq Aziz said that he ever gave anyone money anyway.
i put all of that together and it to me, it equals "major threat".
So a country effectively in the stone age, with hundreds of thousands of it's people starving, a destroyed infrastructure, penniless and unable to sell the vast bulk of it's oil, 5000 miles away from you, with no airforce and no intercontinental ballistic missiles is a "major threat" to the USA?
Go figure 
How long have you felt Saddam was a "major threat" to you? Was it during the 90's or just since Bush started pushing the shit about WMD?
btw, what's the next "major threat"? The solomon islands?
i don't know what it equals to you.
Fucking hell mush - we must have different ideas about what constitites a "major threat". The german army massing on your border with thousands of men after just invading most of Europe is what I would consider a "major threat".
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Many would make the arguement that pre-emptive stikes are a valid form of self defense. As it does not specify in the constitution that we must not strike until after we have been struck, there is a validity to that arguement.
Ok, so if I kill you because I think you have plans to kill me that would be a preemptive strike. Preemptive is a PC way of saying that we are terrorists.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2250282 - 01/18/04 01:03 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Obviously not every instance could be considered a preemptive strike.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Granola
bag lady
Registered: 05/18/03
Posts: 411
Loc: 50.0N-6.0E
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
|
|
yes, only the ones that government declares as preemptive strikes, it's still nothing more than terrorism, what ever happened to using the cia.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Granola]
#2250444 - 01/18/04 02:25 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
So are you suggesting that one should always wait until after the first blow has been struck?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
there are times when you can use the pre-emptive defense argument, for example when you have DAMN GOOD EVIDENCE that you are about to be attacked.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2250822 - 01/18/04 06:04 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I agree. I realize some think the evidence was insufficient, but as I don't have access to all the info, who can really say?
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 9 years, 2 months
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
Maybe, but has it occurred to you that the reason why they aren't on
the brink of starvation is BECAUSE they're on welfare? It might be a completely different story if they were all left to fend for themselves.
I think that most Americans have no idea what it is like to be on the brink of starvation. If you can afford all of the services and amenities previously mentioned then you can make the conscious decision to NOT purchase those goods or services, so that you can have food for you and your family, or you can decide to keep recieving those particular amenities. If you have cable TV, a television, an air conditioner, and the other non-essential things that "luvdemshrooms" demonstrated that the majority of the "poor" do have, then you aren't on the "brink of starvation".
Visit India to see what poor people live like in that nation. In cities where I lived the poorest people are living in metal boxes that they've made from scrap metal, with 15 family members stuffed inside a hut that can barely fit all of them standing up, families that sent their children out to beg all day for food for the night. THAT is what "brink of starvation" is, not driving your old, used car or truck home to watch the football game on cable TV and having to drink cheap beer because you can't afford the good stuff.
I think that the pro-welfare people's main platform is that in a nation as plentiful as America, noone should have to live in poverty, and I do agree with that to a point. Noone should have to live in the poor conditions that people in, say, India live in. However, the class that does work certaintly shouldn't be compelled by force to ensure that the lower class has amenities that are considered "average" in the American standard of living (such as an air conditioner). If the claim from the pro-welfare people is that the poor shouldn't be starving, I can see where that is coming from. If they believe that the poor should be made as comfortable as possible vis a vis taxation, I would have to say that I disagree
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
I agree. I realize some think the evidence was insufficient
What insufficient evidence are you talking about here? Insufficient evidence of what?
but as I don't have access to all the info, who can really say?
Why not do what you always do - blindly believe what George Bush tells you.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2252035 - 01/19/04 05:15 AM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Well, seeing as you fail to grasp the difference between blindly believing something Bush says and wanting proof of wrongdoing, here's an idea..... why don't you continue being dishonest and obtuse. That way no-one will be surprised by you actually using facts, logic and honesty.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
Xlea321
Stranger
Registered: 02/26/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
Insufficient evidence of what?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 24,846
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2253185 - 01/19/04 05:17 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
Read the thread. Unless you have the comprehension of a pre-schooler, it's quite clear.
In the future, questions as stupid as this one shall go unanswered.
--------------------
“In politics, few talents are as richly rewarded as the ability to convince parasites that they are victims. Welfare states on both sides of the Atlantic have discovered that largesse to losers does not reduce their hostility to society, but only increases it. Far from producing gratitude, generosity is seen as an admission of guilt, and the reparations as inadequate compensation for injustices – leading to worsening behavior by the recipients.
Thomas Sowell
|
fungulus
member
Registered: 08/17/03
Posts: 131
Last seen: 9 years, 3 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2253949 - 01/19/04 09:37 PM (9 years, 4 months ago) |
|
|
I call it the third world in America. People don't want to see. I was tripping with my freind off my first batch of homegrown and as we were coming down we were well coming down the hill and I saw a house that was being built on the top of the hill. It had 5 street lights to illuminate it even though it was really isolated (theft is a big problem at building sites), but at my apartments, my brother had 3 different cars broken into and litterally demolished by punk kids and the cops said they couldn't do anything because there were no street lights and that meant that it would be hard to ID criminals. I know that's bullshit. But think about it. 5 street lights for the rich family. None for an apartment complex of over a hundred apartments. America in action, my freinds!
---------
"It's right outside your door, now testify!" RATM
|
SuperLazy
As lazy as theycome
Registered: 09/17/03
Posts: 509
Last seen: 5 years, 23 days
|
|
2. Perhaps the family of four should have had the brains to remain a family of 2.
I don't agree w/ everything you've said but I can't argue that point. It's unfair to the kids and birth control is cheap. peace
--------------------
" Don't ration your compassion " - unknown
|
|
Images only 
Threaded
Previous
Index
Next
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
Anonymous
