LIBERALS - I don't understand why they think STEALING is okay?

electrictroy

electrictroy

Banned
[EDIT - This topic is not about welfare. Feeding starving people so they don't die is a legitimate need.]

[This topic is about people who demand Their neighbors (via gov't removing $$$ from paychecks) provide free subway tickets or free baseball stadiums or free cellphones. That's THEFT in my view & a violation of basic Human rights.]




I understand what it's like to have little money. Been there. Done that. Almost went bankrupt.

What I don't understand the mentality of people who think it's okay to STEAL from their neighbors. When I was at the end of my rope, I didn't demand money from my neighbors. I got off my ass, got a job a minimum wage job, and paid my own bills.


Everytime you take money in the form of a gov't handout, you are stealing money from your neighbors' wallets/paychecks. In what morality is this acceptable?
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I understand what it's like to have little money. Been there. Done that. Almost went bankrupt.

What I don't understand the mentality of people who think it's okay to STEAL from their neighbors. When I was at the end of my rope, I didn't demand money from my neighbors. I got off my ass, got a job a minimum wage job, and paid my own bills.


Everytime you take money in the form of a gov't handout, you are stealing money from your neighbors' wallets/paychecks. In what morality is this acceptable?[/QUOTE]

Sounds like we have a budding libertarian :lol:
 
So, when you pay rent and your landlord uses that rent to spruce up the apartment, do you think that your landlord is stealing from you? I mean, the money is coming straight from you, but benefitting everyone of the specific complex.
 
Rent is voluntary (you can move out & go someplace cheaper - which I did).

Taxes to support gov't handouts are not. Gov't handouts are holding a gun to your neighbors' head & stealing their wallets/paychecks. Why do you think you're entitled to OTHER people's money? By what morality do you think that's acceptable???



Sounds like we have a budding libertarian
Click to expand...
Republican. Difference? I support Feeding the hungry, so they don't die. I also support putting them to work, so they can feed themselves, instead of being Wards of the State.
 
Does corporate welfare bother you or is it just the people on unemployment? Are you more upset at Ted Stevens and his multi-million dollar bridge for 50 people, or some guy who gets food stamps? Do you believe there is any one should get welfare, disability or Social Security or are you completely for social Darwinism?

And since you brought morality into it - Is it more moral to set up a system of welfare knowing that some undeserving people will benefit, or to completely eliminate it knowing that the truly needy will suffer?
 
I'd go Darwinian. Feed the homeless to the poor. Two birds- one stone.

[quote name='electrictroy']Rent is voluntary (you can move out & go someplace cheaper - which I did).

Taxes to support gov't handouts are not. Gov't handouts are holding a gun to your neighbors' head & stealing their wallets/paychecks. Why do you think you're entitled to OTHER people's money? By what morality do you think that's acceptable???



Republican. Difference? I support Feeding the hungry, so they don't die. I also support putting them to work, so they can feed themselves, instead of being Wards of the State.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']Does corporate welfare bother you?[/quote] Yep. Wrong, wrong, wrong. Corporations are rich. Let them pay their own f****ing bills.
Are you more upset at Ted Stevens and his multi-million dollar bridge for 50 people, or some guy who gets food stamps? Do you believe there is any one should get welfare, disability or Social Security or are you completely for social Darwinism?
Click to expand...
Who's Ted Stevens?

And if you bothered to read post #3, you'd see I support Food for the Hungry. Also a Safety net for the disabled/infirmed.

My main beef is people who steal money from paychecks so they fund trivial nonsense like planting flowers along highways, or giving Bush a birthday bash, or handing out free Silicon Breasts or Liposuction (refering to Europe's free services). Stupid, stupid, stupid. And immoral. It's theft, pure & simple.

If you want these *luxuries* than you should pay for them yourself, out of your own pocket, NOT steal them from your neighbors.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Rent is voluntary (you can move out & go someplace cheaper - which I did).[/QUOTE]
Citizenship is voluntary. You can move out and go someplace cheaper.

[quote name='electrictroy']Republican[/QUOTE]
You do realize that republican is a party, not an ideology (some may argue), while libertarianism is an actual ideology.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']Citizenship is voluntary. You can move out and go someplace cheaper.[/QUOTE] Bzzzz. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

It says nothing about moving. The founding document of this union of States, says the *government* needs to be changed in order to match the will of the People.

BACK NO TOPIC - I'm still waiting for liberals to explain why they think STEALING other people's money is acceptable or moral. If you can not explain/defend it, then maybe you should reconsider your chosen views.
 
So, are you proposing electrictroy for prez 2008? :hot:

[quote name='electrictroy']Bzzzz. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

It says nothing about moving. The founding document of this union of States, says the *government* needs to be changed in order to match the will of the People.

BACK NO TOPIC - I'm still waiting for liberals to explain why they think STEALING other people's money is acceptable or moral. If you can not explain/defend it, then maybe you should reconsider your chosen views.[/QUOTE]
 
[quote name='electrictroy']BACK NO TOPIC - I'm still waiting for liberals to explain why they think STEALING other people's money is acceptable or moral. If you can not explain/defend it, then maybe you should reconsider your chosen views.[/QUOTE]
While you're waiting, you should really look into pork barrel projects and you would see they are across the entire political spectrum and not just a liberal phenomenon.
 
[quote name='MrBadExample']While you're waiting, you should really look into pork barrel projects and you would see they are across the entire political spectrum and not just a liberal phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

Sadly true.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']BACK NO TOPIC[/QUOTE]
Couldn't have said it better myself.

You're loading your language by calling it "theft." What definable line can you draw between necessary expenses to run a government efficiently and superfluous expenses that you categorize as theft?

Is it feeding the poor? You claim to support it, but several posts show evidence that it's the first thing you want to bring up when discussing unncessary government spending.

Is it corporate welfare? Is it the burden on the medicaire system placed by low-paying jobs (such as Wal-Mart) such that the state of Maryland has implemented a plan to force Wal-Mart to pay for health care so the citizens of the state don't have to? (Hell, just to show how loaded your language is, it could be argued that legally forcing WM to pay for health care is taking away from their profit margin, which is, essentially, theft).

Is it a company who wants to publicize its costs of running while privatizing the profits? How about Paul Brown stadium? Who paid for that? A sales tax increase voted on by the public did. Brown didn't dump a dime into that place, and as a matter of fact, their contract had the city of Cincinnati pay for every unsold seat in PBS for the first four years of the stadium's use (which, if you follow the Bengals, you understand meant a LOT of unsold seats)?

Is it the factory that wants to move into your town and provide manufacturing jobs, but only if the city/state subsidizes some of the costs of building? That's theft by your definition, but it also provides a socioeconomic benefit that you can't argue (though arguing over its morality is another issue).

How about companies that turn a profit from the government? We expect companies to make money (or else they're in the wrong business), right? So, is it "immoral" (in your verbage) for a company to want to make a profit off of the government? Ask Halliburton, suppliers and vested interest in this and any future war. Ask Kellogg, Brown, and Root, who provide our inmates and our soldiers with daily meals, but only for a profit. Ask the private prison industry; they don't have a private police force to round up bad guys for them, they have the states to thank for supplying them with "customers." To what extent is taking our tax dollars as profit theft, and what extent of it is understandable profit? I'll tell you the answer: Ask ten different people, and you'll get ten different answers. Such is the bland ambiguity of your claim.

I also take your use of "moral" and "immoral" to task. I think people that drive SUVs are immoral assholes with no regard to the future of this planet or generations beyond their own children (if that), which, as we believe unless we're creationists or evangelicals, is a mere blink of an eye in the overall existence of this planet. I don't expect you to think they're assholes. I don't think homosexuality is immoral, others do. Morality is not a constant, troy. I don't think the price you charge for shipping on the shit you sell on eBay is moral; you clearly disagree.

So, as far as theft is concerned, I'll leave you with this: bring something substantive to the table. If you want to argue, be prepared. I, for one, will not tolerate for unprovable blanket statements that amount to little more than echoing Ronald Reagan's "welfare queen" mythology. Bring some data, bring a newspaper article, bring something substantial to debate. Also, recognize the ambiguity of your claim, at the same time that it is immensely limited in scope (your inability to clarify what "stealing" is and is not in government spending shows that much).

Back to the drawing board with you. In the meantime, I'll ponder if a person who does not own a car or have children should be outraged that tax money pays for paved roads and public schools. I recommend you do the same.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']You're loading your language by calling it "theft." [/quote]So? No different than the "reproductive rights" (read abortion) or "right-wing radical" used by the liberals. If they can do it, why can't I?

Perhaps you're right. I shouldn't use such strong words. But sometimes, it seems the only way to make people HEAR you is to hit them over the head. I get frustrated. Don't you?

Is it corporate welfare? .....(it could be argued that legally forcing WM to pay for health care is taking away from their profit margin, which is, essentially, theft).
Click to expand...
I don't consider Wal-Mart a "neighbor". I consider Wal-mart a soulless entity & don't care if they are forced to pay healthcare. Better to have their multi-billion pocket fund Health, than to use Taxes to suck it out of the wallets of $10-15/hour laborers.

Is it a company who wants to publicize its costs of running while privatizing the profits? How about Paul Brown stadium? Who paid for that? A sales tax increase voted on by the public did.

Is it the factory that wants to move into your town and provide manufacturing jobs, but only if the city/state subsidizes some of the costs of building?
Click to expand...
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Entertainment should be funded by the billionaire-owners, not $10-15/hour laborers who can barely pay their own bills.

Likewise, the factory owners should not be receiving largess from the (relatively-speaking) poor taxpayers. The factory owners, likely a GE or Toyota or other rich corporation, has millions of dollars at their disposal. Let them fund their own buildings.

How about companies that turn a profit from the government? We expect companies to make money (or else they're in the wrong business), right? So, is it "immoral" (in your verbage) for a company to want to make a profit off of the government?
Click to expand...
Government/military contracts, like all business, is competitive. I know. I + 70 other people were laid-off when Lockheed lost a contract to Northrop (~1999).

And no, it's not immoral to provide a service & then collect money from it. WE do that everytime we sell something on Ebay.

I'll ponder if a person who does not own a car or have children should be outraged that tax money pays for paved roads and public schools. I recommend you do the same.
Click to expand...
People who don't drive don't pay Gas Taxes (which fund roads).

And I agree. People who don't have children shouldn't have to pay School Tax. You should only pay for the Services you use.

I also take your use of "moral" and "immoral" to task.
Click to expand...
I simply asked you to defend taking money from people's paychecks & giving it to yourself. I don't see how you can:

(1) A man works. He exchanges that labor for money.
(2) That money is the product of his labor & by right he owns it.
(3) By what Right does someone else have to take it away from him & use it for themselves?

That's my morality. It's simple, easy-to-understand, and direct. What's your morality?
 
[quote name='evanft']I think putting electrictroy on my ignore list was a great idea. :)[/QUOTE]

[quote name='Msut77']I second that.[/QUOTE]
Electrictroy, the two posts above aren't ones that need reporting. Don't abuse the report post function again.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']I simply asked you to defend taking money from people's paychecks & giving it to yourself. I don't see how you can:

(1) A man works. He exchanges that labor for money.
(2) That money is the product of his labor & by right he owns it.
(3) By what Right does someone else have to take it away from him & use it for themselves?

That's my morality. It's simple, easy-to-understand, and direct. What's your morality?[/QUOTE]
For future reference, I'm literate. No need to bold.

My morality is that people in this country ought to have equal opportunities to succeed; this includes a consistency in public education that is sorely lacking, means of preventing race and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal wages for equal work (something else that differs remarkably by race and gender).

My morality is also that anyone who works 40 hours a week in this country should not live in poverty, and thus the minimum wage either needs to be increased without a marked increase in the cost of goods, corporate executives need to redistribute some of their wealth amongst workers (which a recent study just showed that from 1993 to today the top five executives at the top 1,500 publicly traded firms have increased their overall take of the net income from %5 to 9.8%; 10 cents out of every dollar of profit is distributed amongst 5 people, and *everybody else* in the company shares in the remainder, at least the remainder allocated to payroll), and that when financial crises are looming, those who have the most to give up (i.e., not laborers, but the capitalist-owners themselves) should give it up, instead of massive layoffs that coincide with more bonuses for the executives.

There's more to my morality, but I've got things to do. My morality isn't concerned about 0.5% of the government's annual budget (welfare).

The qualification you made for businesses that exist off of the government is appalling. Wal-Mart is a soulless entity, yet companies that negotiate over taking government money - the "money from your wallet," in your overly simplified direct relationship speak - and distributing it amongst themselves, creating vested interests for more expenditures in the process. You worked for Lockheed, however, so your inconsistency is understandable (though not unrecognized).

Lastly, yes, Wal-Mart is soulless. Only living entities have souls, and even that is a matter of debate. Wal-Mart is not a living entity.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Sadly true.[/QUOTE]

electrictoy, I'd like to thank you for being thoughtful in your responses and engaging the issue you've raised. It's a breath of fresh air in this forum.

I think your initial topic title reflects a pre-loaded bias that Americans are being fed by the media and those in power, that the ills of government are all part of "Liberalism". But once you actually start thinking about it, you realize a lot of these ills are shared by the government in general, not by liberals in specific.

Once you realize that, you can start demanding change based on whatever political philosophy you like. In your case, I think you lean very hard libertarian, but you are consistent in your views (or at least you have been during this thread) and I appreciate that much more than others who will twist their political philosophy in whatever waay necessary to support the actions of their party.

Myself, I would probably go after corporate welfare before shutting down Social Security or other entitlement programs. Sure, there are some cheats, but I'm certain if you add up what all those cheats cost the American public they don't come close to the multi-million dollar salaries of CEOs whose companies are getting fat off the backs of taxpayers. I think corporate welfare can be a good thing, in generating jobs, but so long as the issue of inflated CEO pay is out there I can't justify handing over taxpayer dollars to companies.

Anyway, once again, thank you for your thoughtful contributions.
 
Oooooooo hes in twubble!!!!! :lol:

[quote name='shrike4242']Electrictroy, the two posts above aren't ones that need reporting. Don't abuse the report post function again.[/QUOTE]


I'm not going to read all of the gibberish, but I'm pretty sure ET's point is that he doesn't like welfare moms and companies that set up base out of the US for avoiding taxes.

More or less hes saying he doesn't like people that use immoral tactics to take advantage of government services. He's just an idiot so hes saying it in a fashion that pisses everyone off.

Kinda like him meaning returning a $5 game to Walmart for $50 is wrong, but him actually saying that people that shop at Walmart are fat, ugly, incestual trash. Quite an honest mistake on his part. :lol:
 
[quote name='Kayden']welfare moms and companies that set up base out of the US for avoiding taxes.[/QUOTE]
This phrase, if read incorrectly, produces some stunningly funny visualizations.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My morality is that people in this country ought to have equal opportunities to succeed; this includes a consistency in public education that is sorely lacking, means of preventing race and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal wages for equal work (something else that differs remarkably by race and gender).

My morality is also that anyone who works 40 hours a week in this country should not live in poverty, and thus the minimum wage needs to be increased ........[/QUOTE]

Okay.

I agree 100%.

Now that we found common ground, do you think we can take off the boxing gloves, and act as *partners* trying to find solutions?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The qualification you made for businesses that exist off of the government is appalling. Wal-Mart is a soulless entity, yet companies that negotiate over taking government money ......... You worked for Lockheed, however, so your inconsistency is understandable (though not unrecognized).[/QUOTE] QUESTION: If Lockheed or Boeing or Northrop did not design & build products for the government. Or "Ask Kellogg, Brown, and Root, who provide our inmates and our soldiers with daily meals" did not do it, who would?

I guess I just don't understand why you find it so objectionable that the government sub-contracts services to private corporations? Can you explain?

Yes I'm genuinely curious.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The qualification you made for businesses that exist off of the government is appalling. Wal-Mart is a soulless entity, yet companies that negotiate over taking government money ......... You worked for Lockheed, however, so your inconsistency is understandable (though not unrecognized).[/QUOTE] QUESTION: If Lockheed or Boeing or Northrop did not design & build products for the government. Or "Ask Kellogg, Brown, and Root, who provide our inmates and our soldiers with daily meals" did not do it, who would?

I guess I just don't understand why you find it so objectionable that the government sub-contracts services to private corporations? Can you explain?

Yes I'm genuinely curious.
 
Any reason why you posted the same post 28 minutes apart? Seems like you should be reporting your own posts instead of other people's.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Bzzzz. "We hold these truths to be self-evident..... Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it...."

It says nothing about moving. The founding document of this union of States, says the *government* needs to be changed in order to match the will of the People.[/QUOTE]
I'm aware of what the constitution says, meanwhile, it also says we the people. Not we the electrictroy. It appears that the people have sided against your point of view. Deal with it, move out, or start making a better point than just accusing people of stealing.
 
I think welfare originally was suposed to be just a temporary thing that you'd use for a little while just to get back on your feet. But now you have tons of people that are on it for life and alot dont even need it. Where i used to live everyone had like nice cars and dozens of snowmobiles and fourwheelers yet they were all on welfare. I dont have a problem with it if someone who needs it uses it but the government need to look into people who dont need it and stop fucking giving them money.
 
Social programs were a result of the Great Depression. To keep Americans fed and sheltered and avoid another catastrophy like that during the depression, the president enacted social programs as a "safety net" for people to get through tough times so as not to repeat the mistakes of the past.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']
My morality is that people in this country ought to have equal opportunities to succeed; this includes a consistency in public education that is sorely lacking, means of preventing race and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal wages for equal work (something else that differs remarkably by race and gender).[/QUOTE]


I know what you're trying to say, but giving people good schools don't make them smart. You actually have to study to learn. Kids think its not cool to study. They'd rather look cool than have a future. Then the parents and politicians bitch about the system failing the children. Schools have limited means to force kids to do anything. So if a kid really doesn't want to do something, the worst that a school can do is suspend/expel them.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']For future reference, I'm literate. No need to bold.

My morality is that people in this country ought to have equal opportunities to succeed; this includes a consistency in public education that is sorely lacking, means of preventing race and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal wages for equal work (something else that differs remarkably by race and gender).

My morality is also that anyone who works 40 hours a week in this country should not live in poverty, and thus the minimum wage either needs to be increased without a marked increase in the cost of goods, corporate executives need to redistribute some of their wealth amongst workers (which a recent study just showed that from 1993 to today the top five executives at the top 1,500 publicly traded firms have increased their overall take of the net income from %5 to 9.8%; 10 cents out of every dollar of profit is distributed amongst 5 people, and *everybody else* in the company shares in the remainder, at least the remainder allocated to payroll), and that when financial crises are looming, those who have the most to give up (i.e., not laborers, but the capitalist-owners themselves) should give it up, instead of massive layoffs that coincide with more bonuses for the executives.

There's more to my morality, but I've got things to do. My morality isn't concerned about 0.5% of the government's annual budget (welfare).

The qualification you made for businesses that exist off of the government is appalling. Wal-Mart is a soulless entity, yet companies that negotiate over taking government money - the "money from your wallet," in your overly simplified direct relationship speak - and distributing it amongst themselves, creating vested interests for more expenditures in the process. You worked for Lockheed, however, so your inconsistency is understandable (though not unrecognized).

Lastly, yes, Wal-Mart is soulless. Only living entities have souls, and even that is a matter of debate. Wal-Mart is not a living entity.[/QUOTE]

Woot, woot! My dog! highfives Myke.

I would also like to add the clause in that 40 hour workweek bit of not having to suffer the living standard of the Chinese, in other words every American having a reasonably comfortable standard of living, see at most one roommate in an average apartment for one bit and not having to save up a month or more of money from a paycheck to buy a TV or stereo.
 
My two cents since this topic is fresh on my mind.

I'm pretty liberal. I'm not totally out there but I'm all for helping people.

However, the other day at Safeway I was standing in line for an eternity.. waiting, waiting, waiting.. so I did what most people do. Start looking at the person who's holding it up and trying to figure out why. It's a welfare mom.. sure enough. She's got two kids running around her, paying with food stamps (er, food cheques).

Here's what sucks #1 - she's buying super expensive fresh squeezed juice, gallo salami, bacon, ben and jerrys. Now, I think that's a little insulting. Those $ should be spent on basic purchases NOT items that I CAN BARELY AFFORD! I rarely buy those things. I am frugal (CAG baby) and this just made me so pissed. I actually said "bull$***" under my breath so loudly that my friend got embarrased.

THEN - and I am not making this up - there is some more discussion and the cashier hands her a few lottery tickets which she pays for in CASH. And then she starts scratching them in front of everyone while they are loading up her cart.

WHAT THE F**K?? That is totally out of control. What a cliche of a person. People like that make me want to break out the b-slap. There needs to be some regulation on this. Or (ha ha, wishful thinking) maybe people could NOT abuse systems like this.

Ye, I'm holding my breath.
 
Yes, there are those that abuse the system and deserved to be cut off. But there's also those that depend on the system to honestly get by.
 
[quote name='coltyhuxx']
Here's what sucks #1 - she's buying super expensive fresh squeezed juice, gallo salami, bacon, ben and jerrys. Now, I think that's a little insulting. Those $ should be spent on basic purchases NOT items that I CAN BARELY AFFORD! I rarely buy those things. I am frugal (CAG baby) and this just made me so pissed. I actually said "bull$***" under my breath so loudly that my friend got embarrased.

THEN - and I am not making this up - there is some more discussion and the cashier hands her a few lottery tickets which she pays for in CASH. And then she starts scratching them in front of everyone while they are loading up her cart.

WHAT THE F**K?? That is totally out of control. What a cliche of a person. People like that make me want to break out the b-slap. There needs to be some regulation on this. Or (ha ha, wishful thinking) maybe people could NOT abuse systems like this.

Ye, I'm holding my breath.[/QUOTE]

Having lived in Yakima for 6 months I no longer believe in food stamps.

I've seen people with quality cell phones using them, if you can affor $150 for a phone and a minimum $50 a month payment you do not deserve government handouts.
 
[quote name='zionoverfire']Having lived in Yakima for 6 months I no longer believe in food stamps.

I've seen people with quality cell phones using them, if you can affor $150 for a phone and a minimum $50 a month payment you do not deserve government handouts.[/QUOTE]

Last I heard you could get a razor (or whatever that flashy thin one is) for free after rebate. And a cell phone is becoming an essential, and I even know people who have no land line, just a cell phone.

But its funny, the governments job is to fund the military, ensure roads are safe etc. but when it comes to actually helping to make peoples lives better then its called theft.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Last I heard you could get a razor (or whatever that flashy thin one is) for free after rebate. And a cell phone is becoming an essential, and I even know people who have no land line, just a cell phone.

But its funny, the governments job is to fund the military, ensure roads are safe etc. but when it comes to actually helping to make peoples lives better then its called theft.[/QUOTE]

Alonzo is like the parent who could never say "no" to his incredibly spoiled kid. And we all know how that kid turns out...
 
[quote name='camoor']Alonzo is like the parent who could never say "no" to his incredibly spoiled kid. And we all know how that kid turns out...[/QUOTE]

gay?
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Last I heard you could get a razor (or whatever that flashy thin one is) for free after rebate. And a cell phone is becoming an essential, and I even know people who have no land line, just a cell phone.

But its funny, the governments job is to fund the military, ensure roads are safe etc. but when it comes to actually helping to make peoples lives better then its called theft.[/QUOTE]

Actually I think the razor was still $100 after rebate.

I would agree that a phone line is essential but if you've ever checked your phone bill you pay a small fee (in my case $0.14 a month) to help provide phone service to disadvantaged and disabled customers at a reduced rate, I'm sure if cell phones ever become essential such a charge will be added.
 
[quote name='camoor']Alonzo is like the parent who could never say "no" to his incredibly spoiled kid. And we all know how that kid turns out...[/QUOTE]

Well, I'd like to know how american poor are spoiled considering what they get compared to the poor in other comparable countries.

Though camoor, surround me with all far left people and you'd quickly see my arguments become more moderate, sometimes even conservative. I often prefer to argue the side that is being attacked, even if I don't fully (or even partially) agree with it. What I bring up in arguments is often much more far reaching and radical than I would actually implement when it comes down to it (ie. I agree with 10 things individually, but maybe only 3 of them work when combined). Then again, sometimes not. I often go off on tangents just for the sake of seeing where it goes.

gay?
Click to expand...

Eh, too narrow a term. Besides, life isn't as interesting when everyone knows what to expect.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, I'd like to know how american poor are spoiled considering what they get compared to the poor in other comparable countries.

Though camoor, surround me with all far left people and you'd quickly see my arguments become more moderate, sometimes even conservative. I often prefer to argue the side that is being attacked, even if I don't fully (or even partially) agree with it. What I bring up in arguments is often much more far reaching and radical than I would actually implement when it comes down to it (ie. I agree with 10 things individually, but maybe only 3 of them work when combined). Then again, sometimes not. I often go off on tangents just for the sake of seeing where it goes.[/QUOTE]

If by "far left" you mean "dyed-in-the-wool Communist" then I have to agree.

I have yet to see a case where you didn't think a person who was receiving handouts from the state deserved more, even when there was evidence presented that the person was enjoying several luxuries that are priced out of the budget of the middle class.

Although I also find it humorous how thoroughly the government and government-friendly corporations have brainwashed the rest of us into not realizing how little of our money goes into the largely fictional "welfare state". The government now views our tax dollars as a big cake, and gets us to argue about the size of the crumbs that drop down to the poor. Meanwhile huge slices of this cake are being given away in the form of favorable corporate tax legislation, corporate welfare, and pork barrel projects for the localities of powerful politicians.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I'm aware of what the constitution says, meanwhile, it also says we the people. Not we the electrictroy. It appears that the people have sided against your point of view.[/QUOTE]
Bzzz.

The United States is not a Democracy (aka tyranny of the majority to trample on the minority).

The United States is a representative Republic (rule of the law), and those laws protect the Individual's basic rights. One of those rights is to own property & not have other people steal it from you.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']My morality is that people in this country ought to have equal opportunities to succeed; this includes a consistency in public education that is sorely lacking, means of preventing race and gender discrimination in hiring and promotion, and equal wages for equal work (something else that differs remarkably by race and gender).

My morality is also that anyone who works 40 hours a week in this country should not live in poverty, and thus the minimum wage needs to be increased ........[/QUOTE] Okay.

I agree 100%.

Now that we found common ground, do you think we can take off the boxing gloves, and act as *partners* trying to find solutions?






Also: This topic is not about welfare. Feeding starving people so they don't die is a legitimate need. I can see how ye thought it was my intent to malign welfare. But it was not.

----> My intent was to discuss people who demand Their neighbors (via gov't removing $$$ from paychecks) provide free subway tickets or free baseball stadiums or free cellphones. That's THEFT in my view & a violation of basic Human rights.



Oh, and no a cellphone is not a necessity. It's a luxury. I've got a cellphone & I've only used it once in the last year. *1* time. I could very easily live w/o a cellphone & just use the wired phones. ----- So there's absolutely no reason why a Poor person should be owning a cellphone + buying lotto tickets. That's a waste of cash.

(Course, there's also no reason why the average American carries $9000 in credit card debt +plus+ another $100,000 in mortgage debt. I fear for the future of my people. They are spending like mad when they should be saving, to prepare themselves for the next Recession.)
 
[quote name='electrictroy']----> My intent was to discuss people who demand Their neighbors (via gov't removing $$$ from paychecks) provide free subway tickets or free baseball stadiums or free cellphones. That's THEFT in my view & a violation of basic Human rights.[/QUOTE]
When has a baseball stadium ever been FREE? In fact, can you cite examples of any of those things being FREE?
 
Cities routinely build stadiums & give them to Baseball/Football Corportions for FREE.

That's not right. It's corporate welfare & it's stealing from the pockets of those $10-15/hour laborers who can least afford it.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']Cities routinely build stadiums & give them to Baseball/Football Corportions for FREE.

That's not right. It's corporate welfare & it's stealing from the pockets of those $10-15/hour laborers who can least afford it.[/QUOTE]
If I'm not mistaken:
A) People vote on whether or not stadiums should be built
B) Stadiums produce major revenue for the city (you have to spend money to make money)

Also, Would you want the government to run a baseball team?

Citiies do build the stadiums, and let the teams use it (for a fee), but I'm pretty sure the stadiums are still owned by the cities themselves, which is why teams are able to move so easily. When the Browns moved to Baltimore, who do you think was going to buy their stadium?

Owner: Jackson County

As for free subway tickets, the city owns the freakin subways. They can give tickets to their subways to whomever they wish. Now, when does the government give away free cell phones? To people that work and need a cellphone? I know that, as a VP, my mom receives a blackberry so that she's accessible in both states she would be in. Is that what you're refering to? Are you also enraged that the government takes our money and gives its soldiers three squares a day?
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']If I'm not mistaken: (A) People vote on whether or not stadiums should be built[/quote]
A simple majority is not a good enough reason to violate the Minority (or Individual's) Right of Property. Why should NON-sportsfans be forced fund the entertainment of sports fans? *Let stadiums be funded by rich corporations* not poor taxpayers (relatively speaking). To borrow a phrase-"Just say no to corporate welfare"

Same argument applies to Subways. Why should people who have NEVER set foot on a subway, be forced to fund the tickets for those who do? *Let subways be funded by ticket sales* not taxes.

And before you try the "non-cardrivers are forced to fund roads" argument, that does not hold any water with me either. That too is wrong. Any example where a person is forced to fund someone else's entertainment/luxury item, is wrong.



As for increasing revenue, I really don't care. Why should I care about making Ted Turner (or whoever owns sportsteams) richer????? To borrow a phrase-"Just say no to corporate welfare."
 
You also have to weigh in societal benefits with new stadiums, subways, etc. These expenses may be investments for the city & state. Have you ever been to baltimore? The city itself is a shit-hole, but the area around the Orioles' Camden Yards is beautiful. It's one example where a stadium help revitalize an area in the city and brought in new businesses that pay taxes that end up subsidizing the common man's taxes. Subways alleviate congestion on the roads, which in turn improves efficiency and encourages businesses to set up shop inside cities. Not only are more taxes collected for the local & state governments, but the quality of life improves for everyone.
 
[quote name='electrictroy']A simple majority is not a good enough reason to violate the Minority (or Individual's) Right of Property. Why should NON-sportsfans be forced fund the entertainment of sports fans? *Let stadiums be funded by rich corporations* not poor taxpayers (relatively speaking). To borrow a phrase-"Just say no to corporate welfare"[/QUOTE]
Because, the city is building the stadium so that it can reap the benefits later on. There's all sorts of benefits that come form having a stadium in town. Taxes, money from utilities, fees associated with renting from the stadium from the government, (as E-Z-B pointed out) revitalization of areas of the town and increase tourism. Building a stadium isn't just for "leisure" or just for the sports fans. It's also a place where people can open up shops of all sorts, especially restaurants. Economies around stadiums will tend to shoot up immediately, and become increasingly wealthy. In the end, new stadiums actually help out economies and cities make more money, generate more tourism, etc. This is necessary stuff for a city.

[quote name='electrictroy']Same argument applies to Subways. Why should people who have NEVER set foot on a subway, be forced to fund the tickets for those who do? *Let subways be funded by ticket sales* not taxes.

And before you try the "non-cardrivers are forced to fund roads" argument, that does not hold any water with me either. That too is wrong. Any example where a person is forced to fund someone else's entertainment/luxury item, is wrong. [/QUOTE]
Then, what do you propose? You sure are bitching about a lot of stuff, but do you even have an alternative?

[quote name='electrictroy'] As for increasing revenue, I really don't care. Why should I care about making Ted Turner (or whoever owns sportsteams) richer????? To borrow a phrase-"Just say no to corporate welfare."[/QUOTE]Well, if you want your city to sink into a shithole, that's all fine and good for you, however, I'd rather have a city increase it's revenue. That can only mean better or more services that are necessary for smooth and efficient operation, as well as looking nicer, etc. It certainly stands that team owners make money, but the more money a team makes, the more money a city makes, and cities do, in fact, need money to run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top