Obama Care Could Be Deadly
- Thread starter gmsisko1
- Start date
[quote name='UncleBob']DD - do you earn your paycheck, or is it given to you?[/QUOTE]
Moving goalposts now, eh? I guess this was your REAL double down.
How about you address how taxation isn't a redistribution of money first and then I'll go to your point.
[quote name='megma42']"Giving" indicates that the person receiving money did not earn it for a service provided, you "obtuse moron".[/QUOTE]
So your problem is semantics too...how cute. Since you wanna play as well, you can also address the difference between redistribute and take/give.
Moving goalposts now, eh? I guess this was your REAL double down.
How about you address how taxation isn't a redistribution of money first and then I'll go to your point.
[quote name='megma42']"Giving" indicates that the person receiving money did not earn it for a service provided, you "obtuse moron".[/QUOTE]
So your problem is semantics too...how cute. Since you wanna play as well, you can also address the difference between redistribute and take/give.
[quote name='dohdough']So your problem is semantics too...how cute. Since you wanna play as well, you can also address the difference between redistribute and take/give.[/QUOTE]
Good job, talk about "semantics" instead of admitting that you are wrong, or indicating that you did not type what you meant.
Good job, talk about "semantics" instead of admitting that you are wrong, or indicating that you did not type what you meant.
The primary role of government is to provide and maintain basic infrastructure, protect citizens, ect., etc.
Redistribution of wealth via taxation is one method of doing this. It is *not* the primary purpose of government.
Additionally, taxiation for the purpose of paying bills is a different animal than taxiation for the purpose of giving away money (to individuals or to groups operating under a corporate banner).
When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money or purchase goods that you want/need?
Redistribution of wealth via taxation is one method of doing this. It is *not* the primary purpose of government.
Additionally, taxiation for the purpose of paying bills is a different animal than taxiation for the purpose of giving away money (to individuals or to groups operating under a corporate banner).
When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money or purchase goods that you want/need?
[quote name='megma42']Good job, talk about "semantics" instead of admitting that you are wrong, or indicating that you did not type what you meant.[/QUOTE]
Have you been following the conversation? Because it sure as hell doesn't seem like it considering that I wasn't the one that threw those terms out there.
[quote name='UncleBob']Sadly, you fail (I could end the sentence there) to recognize the extremely large difference between people giving their money to other people and the government making laws to take money from one group and give it to another.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']Because taxing people and giving that money to other people is what government does, you obtuse moron.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow.
I suddenly understand you so much better now.
In DD's mind, the role of the government isn't to protect citizens, support basic infrastructure, settle disputes, etc... The role of government is to redistribute money.[/QUOTE]
But please, go on about how I'm the one that's wrong and the one arguing semantics.
ing idiot.
Or maybe you're so smart that you can separate redistribution of money from the ability of the government to function.
Have you been following the conversation? Because it sure as hell doesn't seem like it considering that I wasn't the one that threw those terms out there.
[quote name='UncleBob']Sadly, you fail (I could end the sentence there) to recognize the extremely large difference between people giving their money to other people and the government making laws to take money from one group and give it to another.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='dohdough']Because taxing people and giving that money to other people is what government does, you obtuse moron.[/QUOTE]
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow.
I suddenly understand you so much better now.
In DD's mind, the role of the government isn't to protect citizens, support basic infrastructure, settle disputes, etc... The role of government is to redistribute money.[/QUOTE]
But please, go on about how I'm the one that's wrong and the one arguing semantics.
ing idiot.Or maybe you're so smart that you can separate redistribution of money from the ability of the government to function.
[quote name='dohdough']Have you been following the conversation? Because it sure as hell doesn't seem like it considering that I wasn't the one that threw those terms out there.[/QUOTE]
Did you read UB's post:
If I "give" my money to someone, I don't expect goods or services in return. I don't "give" taxes, I pay them right? I could give money to the IRS, but I choose not to. The government actually does pay people for services or goods that they provide, which UncleBob doesn't appear to have a problem with. Our government also gives money to some people with nothing expected in return. I assume that this is what UncleBob doesn't want to happen as much given his comment.
So, when you say:
Not only do you choose to call him an "obtuse moron" which adds nothing to your point, but you also fail to see his original point which I have outlined for you above. In addition, you say nothing about the fact that the government also pays people for goods and services.
Did you read UB's post:
If I "give" my money to someone, I don't expect goods or services in return. I don't "give" taxes, I pay them right? I could give money to the IRS, but I choose not to. The government actually does pay people for services or goods that they provide, which UncleBob doesn't appear to have a problem with. Our government also gives money to some people with nothing expected in return. I assume that this is what UncleBob doesn't want to happen as much given his comment.
So, when you say:
Not only do you choose to call him an "obtuse moron" which adds nothing to your point, but you also fail to see his original point which I have outlined for you above. In addition, you say nothing about the fact that the government also pays people for goods and services.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Redistribution of wealth[/QUOTE]
Nobody who uses this phrase should be taken seriously.
Nobody who uses this phrase should be taken seriously.
Sorry Msut77,
I will respond to you.
[quote name='Msut77']Non sequitor?[/QUOTE]
No, Federal student loans are discharged at death and the estate is liable for private loans.
What difference does it make what people had "drilled into their heads"? I assume you make this statement to indicate that it is not their fault that they don't think for themselves because they were told it was a good idea by so many people that they should believe it. Please, if this is what you mean, understand that you need to look at things rationally and logically and not believe things just because everyone else believes it.
I agree that the cost of college is crazy, no doubt. However, if the costs of college education are not offset by the rewards you get after it (if you can't make enough to pay off the debt AND have more than you would without a college degree), you should not go to college.
At some point, someone made the point about the people who were in debt when the economy went south and I have to say that I don't think that those people could see it coming, but neither did others who lost their money in the stock market or their entire retirement account to a Ponzi scheme. I'm here to tell you that life is not fair and I don't think it is the government's job to make it fair.
How do I side step arguing the merits of debt relief?
You can't declare bankruptcy and wipe out student loan debt. Good. With a student loan, what can the lender repossess? The loan is given without collateral. I think you can get deferment or forbearance of student loans currently. I am not against these, but they are already in place.
I really don't understand this statement, so I will assume that you want to change the current university system too.
I will respond to you.
[quote name='Msut77']Non sequitor?[/QUOTE]
No, Federal student loans are discharged at death and the estate is liable for private loans.
What difference does it make what people had "drilled into their heads"? I assume you make this statement to indicate that it is not their fault that they don't think for themselves because they were told it was a good idea by so many people that they should believe it. Please, if this is what you mean, understand that you need to look at things rationally and logically and not believe things just because everyone else believes it.
I agree that the cost of college is crazy, no doubt. However, if the costs of college education are not offset by the rewards you get after it (if you can't make enough to pay off the debt AND have more than you would without a college degree), you should not go to college.
At some point, someone made the point about the people who were in debt when the economy went south and I have to say that I don't think that those people could see it coming, but neither did others who lost their money in the stock market or their entire retirement account to a Ponzi scheme. I'm here to tell you that life is not fair and I don't think it is the government's job to make it fair.
How do I side step arguing the merits of debt relief?
You can't declare bankruptcy and wipe out student loan debt. Good. With a student loan, what can the lender repossess? The loan is given without collateral. I think you can get deferment or forbearance of student loans currently. I am not against these, but they are already in place.
I really don't understand this statement, so I will assume that you want to change the current university system too.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']Awesome. The right-wing equivalent of NBC is Stormfront.[/QUOTE]
Wrong thread, but you already knew that. Since you enjoy people reading between the lines, NBC was chastised for editing the audio and rightwing media that spread the wrong picture of Martin, the origin of which is Stormfront, weren't. Are they equivalent? Of course not, but you already knew that too.
As for my point, as if you didn't know it already, is that you love to point at seemingly left-leaning media when they up, but you could hear a pin drop from your silence when it comes to obvious right-wing media outlets doing much worse.
[quote name='megma42']Did you read UB's post:
If I "give" my money to someone, I don't expect goods or services in return. I don't "give" taxes, I pay them right? I could give money to the IRS, but I choose not to. The government actually does pay people for services or goods that they provide, which UncleBob doesn't appear to have a problem with. Our government also gives money to some people with nothing expected in return. I assume that this is what UncleBob doesn't want to happen as much given his comment.[/QUOTE]
How is this not semantics?
First off, reducing this to a simple financial transaction is just dumb, so I don't even know why I'm following your leads on this.
The government doesn't pay the student; they pay the school for services rendered. The only difference between a loan and a grant is that you have to pay back the loan. Now if the government provides loan forgiveness, it's effectively the same thing as a grant. But this argument is really irrelevant to you because it's about ideology. That's why you two yokels are arguing about semantics.
Taxation happens no matter what and it's always going to go to people and things that we don't like, but we don't really have a choice in the matter. That's the price of living in this society. The redistributive aspect of shouldn't need to be explained and you can't strip it of it's definition or purpose because it's inconvenient.
Subsidies and tax credits are so commonplace that people don't even realize when they're using them. If it was really about the government "giving" away money for free, then we should be talking about GE, oil companies, and corporate farms instead of student loans.
If you want to throw your hat in with bobby, fine. He's an ignoramous with no scrupples, so don't act all surprised when he eventually startsing with you too...especially if you intend to be a regular here.
Wrong thread, but you already knew that. Since you enjoy people reading between the lines, NBC was chastised for editing the audio and rightwing media that spread the wrong picture of Martin, the origin of which is Stormfront, weren't. Are they equivalent? Of course not, but you already knew that too.
As for my point, as if you didn't know it already, is that you love to point at seemingly left-leaning media when they
up, but you could hear a pin drop from your silence when it comes to obvious right-wing media outlets doing much worse.[quote name='megma42']Did you read UB's post:
If I "give" my money to someone, I don't expect goods or services in return. I don't "give" taxes, I pay them right? I could give money to the IRS, but I choose not to. The government actually does pay people for services or goods that they provide, which UncleBob doesn't appear to have a problem with. Our government also gives money to some people with nothing expected in return. I assume that this is what UncleBob doesn't want to happen as much given his comment.[/QUOTE]
How is this not semantics?
First off, reducing this to a simple financial transaction is just dumb, so I don't even know why I'm following your leads on this.
The government doesn't pay the student; they pay the school for services rendered. The only difference between a loan and a grant is that you have to pay back the loan. Now if the government provides loan forgiveness, it's effectively the same thing as a grant. But this argument is really irrelevant to you because it's about ideology. That's why you two yokels are arguing about semantics.
Taxation happens no matter what and it's always going to go to people and things that we don't like, but we don't really have a choice in the matter. That's the price of living in this society. The redistributive aspect of shouldn't need to be explained and you can't strip it of it's definition or purpose because it's inconvenient.
Subsidies and tax credits are so commonplace that people don't even realize when they're using them. If it was really about the government "giving" away money for free, then we should be talking about GE, oil companies, and corporate farms instead of student loans.
Why should I have to state something that's understood?
If you want to throw your hat in with bobby, fine. He's an ignoramous with no scrupples, so don't act all surprised when he eventually starts
ing with you too...especially if you intend to be a regular here.[quote name='megma42']No, Federal student loans are discharged at death and the estate is liable for private loans.[/quote]
I am calling it a non sequitor.
When I am pointing out people are stuck with the debt (it CAN be discharged if for example a person is paralyzed, which goes to show how insane the bar is set) responding that the person can get sick and die or commit suicide isn't you know, a point.
Say whatever you wish, but it matters.
There is a system in place, millions of people are getting the shitty end of the stick. Saying people should have been smarter is just another non sequitor.
Again, people were supposed to know their degrees wouldn't pay off (i.e. there was going to be a recession) before they started? Also "think" isn't the word one would use to describe regarding your position on the role of government.
Also, people are having trouble paying their school debt. The government is acting as enforcer, the ones that loaned the money should be forced to take responsibility for the stupid loans they made, just trying to be consistent and all.
You avoid even attempting to make an actual argument.
Yes, I want to change things. I am also willing to acknowledge reality and figure out something that works unlike you.
I am calling it a non sequitor.
When I am pointing out people are stuck with the debt (it CAN be discharged if for example a person is paralyzed, which goes to show how insane the bar is set) responding that the person can get sick and die or commit suicide isn't you know, a point.
Say whatever you wish, but it matters.
There is a system in place, millions of people are getting the shitty end of the stick. Saying people should have been smarter is just another non sequitor.
Again, people were supposed to know their degrees wouldn't pay off (i.e. there was going to be a recession) before they started? Also "think" isn't the word one would use to describe regarding your position on the role of government.
Also, people are having trouble paying their school debt. The government is acting as enforcer, the ones that loaned the money should be forced to take responsibility for the stupid loans they made, just trying to be consistent and all.
You avoid even attempting to make an actual argument.
Yes, I want to change things. I am also willing to acknowledge reality and figure out something that works unlike you.
[quote name='dohdough']Subsidies and tax credits are so commonplace that people don't even realize when they're using them. If it was really about the government "giving" away money for free, then we should be talking about GE, oil companies, and corporate farms instead of student loans.[/QUOTE]
I don't think we would argue if we talked about the government not giving money to companies. I don't think they should have bailed out wall street and I don't like them giving away money to companies in general.
To demonstrate understanding since he doesn't know that you understand it.
I don't think we would argue if we talked about the government not giving money to companies. I don't think they should have bailed out wall street and I don't like them giving away money to companies in general.
To demonstrate understanding since he doesn't know that you understand it.
[quote name='Msut77']Say whatever you wish, but it matters.[/QUOTE]
I am not saying that your statement is inaccurate, but I would like to know if I am correct in my assessment of what you mean.
I don't really care how smart they are so long as the federal government is not paying for their mistake. If someone invests in the stock market and then loses their money do people feel sorry for them - no it was an investment, it may lose value. Where is it written that you will be assured to get a payoff for your investment in college. It is an investment and it may not go as you wanted, just as you may lose money with all kinds of other investments - stocks, gold, real estate, etc. Markets have ups and downs.
For people who received degrees that don't pay off there are deferment and forbearance programs, but the only reason that I seem to keep getting is something along the lines of "because they had bad luck/were given bad advice" and the government is not around to make life fair. Life is by nature unfair. Government can't actually make life fair regardless of what people think.
If by enforcer you mean that the U.S. government is the guarantor of the loan you are correct for federal loans. By your second sentence do you indicate that the government should require more stringent requirements for those that take out the loans? If so, awesome, I totally agree. When the banks making the loans have the U.S. government as the guarantor, they don't have to take responsibility. The government will pay up if the person dies or doesn't pay it. I like your thinking about institutions who made the loans taking responsibility for their actions and agree with you totally. Now if we could agree on the fact that all parties involved - the government, bank, and student should take responsibility for their part of this process, we would see eye to eye.
I also acknowledge reality, but don't agree with you that the government should pay off people's loans just because they are having trouble.
I am not saying that your statement is inaccurate, but I would like to know if I am correct in my assessment of what you mean.
I don't really care how smart they are so long as the federal government is not paying for their mistake. If someone invests in the stock market and then loses their money do people feel sorry for them - no it was an investment, it may lose value. Where is it written that you will be assured to get a payoff for your investment in college. It is an investment and it may not go as you wanted, just as you may lose money with all kinds of other investments - stocks, gold, real estate, etc. Markets have ups and downs.
For people who received degrees that don't pay off there are deferment and forbearance programs, but the only reason that I seem to keep getting is something along the lines of "because they had bad luck/were given bad advice" and the government is not around to make life fair. Life is by nature unfair. Government can't actually make life fair regardless of what people think.
If by enforcer you mean that the U.S. government is the guarantor of the loan you are correct for federal loans. By your second sentence do you indicate that the government should require more stringent requirements for those that take out the loans? If so, awesome, I totally agree. When the banks making the loans have the U.S. government as the guarantor, they don't have to take responsibility. The government will pay up if the person dies or doesn't pay it. I like your thinking about institutions who made the loans taking responsibility for their actions and agree with you totally. Now if we could agree on the fact that all parties involved - the government, bank, and student should take responsibility for their part of this process, we would see eye to eye.
I also acknowledge reality, but don't agree with you that the government should pay off people's loans just because they are having trouble.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mykevermin']Nobody who uses this phrase should be taken seriously.[/QUOTE]
Last time you said something this narrowminded, you quickly backtracked when it was pointed out that several individuals, including IHari, used the "offending" phrase. So, yeah...
[quote name='dohdough']As for my point, as if you didn't know it already, is that you love to point at seemingly left-leaning media when they up, but you could hear a pin drop from your silence when it comes to obvious right-wing media outlets doing much worse.[/quote]
Stormfront is a "right-wing media outlet"? Any retarded group with a blog counts as a "media outlet" now?
What kind of world does one live in where Stormfront, an online hate group/blog/bulletin board is equal to one of the top media outlets?
I mean, really - surely FOX News has done something as obviously and stupidly blatantly misleading as NBC did that we can go back to using them as an example instead of trying to give more notability to the online component of the Klan. I mean, I know it won't be as exciting and as impactful for you, if you don't get to invoke the KKK as the opposite side of the argument, but, really...
You're right, it shouldn't.
I shouldn't have to explain to a grown man the difference between a government collecting taxes to pay an individual or group for services rendered vs. giving out free tax money to someone who wants a free ride (be they an individual who doesn't want to work or a company who wants to abuse the tax code).
...then we should be talking about things I don't like instead of things I like.
Yes, I have no scruples because if you say something I disagree with, I'll point out that I disagree. I have no scruples because, unlike some folks here, I don't pick one, singular, mainstream side and vehemently attack everyone on the other side that refuses to think exactly like my side.
PS: If you're going to call people stupid, you should, at the very least, know how to spell the terms you choose to use in doing so...
Last time you said something this narrowminded, you quickly backtracked when it was pointed out that several individuals, including IHari, used the "offending" phrase. So, yeah...
[quote name='dohdough']As for my point, as if you didn't know it already, is that you love to point at seemingly left-leaning media when they
up, but you could hear a pin drop from your silence when it comes to obvious right-wing media outlets doing much worse.[/quote]Stormfront is a "right-wing media outlet"? Any retarded group with a blog counts as a "media outlet" now?
What kind of world does one live in where Stormfront, an online hate group/blog/bulletin board is equal to one of the top media outlets?
I mean, really - surely FOX News has done something as obviously and stupidly blatantly misleading as NBC did that we can go back to using them as an example instead of trying to give more notability to the online component of the Klan. I mean, I know it won't be as exciting and as impactful for you, if you don't get to invoke the KKK as the opposite side of the argument, but, really...
You're right, it shouldn't.
I shouldn't have to explain to a grown man the difference between a government collecting taxes to pay an individual or group for services rendered vs. giving out free tax money to someone who wants a free ride (be they an individual who doesn't want to work or a company who wants to abuse the tax code).
...then we should be talking about things I don't like instead of things I like.
He's an ignoramous with no scrupples, so don't act all surprised when he eventually starts
Yes, I have no scruples because if you say something I disagree with, I'll point out that I disagree. I have no scruples because, unlike some folks here, I don't pick one, singular, mainstream side and vehemently attack everyone on the other side that refuses to think exactly like my side.
PS: If you're going to call people stupid, you should, at the very least, know how to spell the terms you choose to use in doing so...
[quote name='UncleBob']Stormfront is a "right-wing media outlet"? Any retarded group with a blog counts as a "media outlet" now?
What kind of world does one live in where Stormfront, an online hate group/blog/bulletin board is equal to one of the top media outlets?
I mean, really - surely FOX News has done something as obviously and stupidly blatantly misleading as NBC did that we can go back to using them as an example instead of trying to give more notability to the online component of the Klan. I mean, I know it won't be as exciting and as impactful for you, if you don't get to invoke the KKK as the opposite side of the argument, but, really...[/QUOTE]
OH jeebus...it's almost as if I gave an example of my point and then literally wrote it out right below said example.
arguments, strawman like a motherer, and are an all around shitty poster. You might not be as overty inflammatory as others, but you sure go out of your way to troll the out of this forum. Just like how you "mistakenly" posted that reply on this thread instead of the other one.
The only reason why you don't "pick a side" is because you lean lolbertarian.
What kind of world does one live in where Stormfront, an online hate group/blog/bulletin board is equal to one of the top media outlets?
I mean, really - surely FOX News has done something as obviously and stupidly blatantly misleading as NBC did that we can go back to using them as an example instead of trying to give more notability to the online component of the Klan. I mean, I know it won't be as exciting and as impactful for you, if you don't get to invoke the KKK as the opposite side of the argument, but, really...[/QUOTE]
OH jeebus...it's almost as if I gave an example of my point and then literally wrote it out right below said example.
So somehow going to school is analogous to someone abusing unemployment benefits and tax havens? Why don't you tell us why the hell you went to college only to end up at your current employer? Do you think your situation is even remotely applicable to most of the grads from the last couple to the next few years?
That's another one of my points. You're an ideologue. Your dissonance runs so deep that you're arguing with yourself half the time.
No. You just play dumb, butcher quotes way the hell out of context, lie about it, pretend that subtext doesn't exist when it hurts your argument, lie about that too, cry to mods when you feel persecuted for making dumb
arguments, strawman like a motherer, and are an all around shitty poster. You might not be as overty inflammatory as others, but you sure go out of your way to troll the out of this forum. Just like how you "mistakenly" posted that reply on this thread instead of the other one.The only reason why you don't "pick a side" is because you lean lolbertarian.
A typo? Well guess what...I make plenty of them. Big deal. Not to mention that if I wanted to call you dumb, I would and I do so all the time. But you're not only dumb, but you're a dishonest sack of shit as well. Spell check that.PS: If you're going to call people stupid, you should, at the very least, know how to spell the terms you choose to use in doing so...
[quote name='megma42']I don't think we would argue if we talked about the government not giving money to companies. I don't think they should have bailed out wall street and I don't like them giving away money to companies in general.[/quote]
I'll leave this for another thread, but I'm not that dogmatic.
I'll leave this for another thread, but I'm not that dogmatic.
He knows perfectly well that I do. Playing dumb and "just asking questions" is his m.o.
[quote name='dohdough']OH jeebus...it's almost as if I gave an example of my point and then literally wrote it out right below said example.[/quote]
Like when you originally posted the example of Stormfront to begin with?
"You [...] butcher quotes way the hell out of context"
I tell you what, DD. Pay me a nice sum up front and I'll start writing my autobiography for you. You seem to be oh-so-most interested in my personal life all the time.
lol. You funny.
I'm the one who "butchers quotes" and lies about it? If I had a dollar for everytime one of you on here took my words, twisted them around, then flat out lied about it and refused to provide any evidence for the lies (because, of course, none exists... but you'd never admit that)... Let's just say I'd make the Mega Millions winners from last week jealous.
As for crying to the mods - I report posts to the moderators when they break the forum rules. If you don't like the forum rules, feel free to leave or petition (not necessarily a "sign here" petition, by the way) to have the rules changed. I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings when you have to be reminded to act as an adult and have mature discussion.
The reason I don't pick a side is because I'm not stupid enough to see everything in black-and-white. Like some folks.
I don't care if you call me dumb. I'm just saying you shouldn't misspell the word you choose to use in the process... and don't claim it's a typo when the letters aren't even next to each other or inverted or such.
And yes, we all know you resort to petty name calling quite often on these forums. You don't need to brag about it.
Like when you originally posted the example of Stormfront to begin with?
"You [...] butcher quotes way the hell out of context"
I tell you what, DD. Pay me a nice sum up front and I'll start writing my autobiography for you. You seem to be oh-so-most interested in my personal life all the time.
lol. You funny.
No. You just play dumb, butcher quotes way the hell out of context, lie about it, pretend that subtext doesn't exist when it hurts your argument, lie about that too, cry to mods when you feel persecuted for making dumb
I'm the one who "butchers quotes" and lies about it? If I had a dollar for everytime one of you on here took my words, twisted them around, then flat out lied about it and refused to provide any evidence for the lies (because, of course, none exists... but you'd never admit that)... Let's just say I'd make the Mega Millions winners from last week jealous.
As for crying to the mods - I report posts to the moderators when they break the forum rules. If you don't like the forum rules, feel free to leave or petition (not necessarily a "sign here" petition, by the way) to have the rules changed. I'm sorry that it hurts your feelings when you have to be reminded to act as an adult and have mature discussion.
While you won't believe me and while I honestly don't care if you do, I do have to say that was a mistake - I was posting from my cell, Firefox locked up, so when I force closed it and restarted it, it was back on a "Reply to" page - so I made my reply, only to notice once I got home that I had posted into the wrong thread. Thus, I deleted it and moved it to the right thread before anyone had replied to it. In fact, nearly a full hour before you replied to it. Meaning that you knowingly replied to it in this thread for no reason - to what ends?
The reason I don't pick a side is because I'm not stupid enough to see everything in black-and-white. Like some folks.
I don't care if you call me dumb. I'm just saying you shouldn't misspell the word you choose to use in the process... and don't claim it's a typo when the letters aren't even next to each other or inverted or such.
And yes, we all know you resort to petty name calling quite often on these forums. You don't need to brag about it.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']The primary role of government is to provide and maintain basic infrastructure, protect citizens, ect., etc.
Redistribution of wealth via taxation is one method of doing this. It is *not* the primary purpose of government.
Additionally, taxiation for the purpose of paying bills is a different animal than taxiation for the purpose of giving away money (to individuals or to groups operating under a corporate banner).
When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money or purchase goods that you want/need?[/QUOTE]
FFS government is not a store.
America is not a big Walmart.
A social democracy is not communism.
Redistribution of wealth via taxation is one method of doing this. It is *not* the primary purpose of government.
Additionally, taxiation for the purpose of paying bills is a different animal than taxiation for the purpose of giving away money (to individuals or to groups operating under a corporate banner).
When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money or purchase goods that you want/need?[/QUOTE]
FFS government is not a store.
America is not a big Walmart.
A social democracy is not communism.
[quote name='camoor']FFS government is not a store.
America is not a big Walmart.
A social democracy is not communism.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, I never said a government is a store.
But you know that. Besides, your attempt to deconstruct my analogy is pretty darn poor. We're talking "Government does this". The analogy is "You do this". So, the correct deconstruction would be "FFS, the government is not me."
An individual or organization can have a primary objective.
They can take several actions to reach that primary objective.
This does not make these actions the primary objective. It makes them means to complete an objective.
Simple enough for you?
America is not a big Walmart.
A social democracy is not communism.[/QUOTE]
Oddly enough, I never said a government is a store.
But you know that. Besides, your attempt to deconstruct my analogy is pretty darn poor. We're talking "Government does this". The analogy is "You do this". So, the correct deconstruction would be "FFS, the government is not me."
An individual or organization can have a primary objective.
They can take several actions to reach that primary objective.
This does not make these actions the primary objective. It makes them means to complete an objective.
Simple enough for you?
[quote name='UncleBob']Like when you originally posted the example of Stormfront to begin with?[/quote]
Was this before or after you snarkly made a reference to NBC's Today Show edit that they were chastised for as if you're some kind of fact-checking honesty police?
ed.
I'm still not holding my breath over that apology I never got from you after starting a multi-page shitstorm with me about that post that you clearly didn't read.
Was this before or after you snarkly made a reference to NBC's Today Show edit that they were chastised for as if you're some kind of fact-checking honesty police?
You compared students that want to go to school, need to get loans, and can't pay them back due to the job market with people that don't want to work and tax shelters.
I'm not the one that models reality on my own life and I don't think that if people are too dumb to sign up for loans to go to school, which is a reality in this job market and the foreseeable future, they should just get
ed.I know I'm funny, but you're just pitiful.
There's a reason why no one takes what you say at face value and it's not because people imagine you being a dishonest shitheel. Don't blame me for your usage of loaded language.
HA! The mods ignore this forum for the most part and if you were so concerned about the integrity and maturity of this forum, half my posts would be gone along with the posts of many others that I argue with on the same ideological spectrum as you. But no, you just cherry pick the posts because you think you're making some sort of power play, when most people think it's pathetic.
I compose posts inbetween other things. In this case it was DMC, so I had your post in the text editor for a while and I noticed it after it was deleted. You can believe me or not, but I don't have a credibility problem in this forum. I've copped to making mistakes plenty of times; the same can't be said about you.
I'm still not holding my breath over that apology I never got from you after starting a multi-page shitstorm with me about that post that you clearly didn't read.
Unlike how you consider student loan forgiveness and "freeloaders."
I made 2 typos. IgnoramOus and scrupPle. If the U key isn't close to O on your keyboard, that's on you, not me.
I'm probably the most vitriolic, but at least I'm not a liar.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Oddly enough, I never said a government is a store.
But you know that. Besides, your attempt to deconstruct my analogy is pretty darn poor. We're talking "Government does this". The analogy is "You do this". So, the correct deconstruction would be "FFS, the government is not me."
An individual or organization can have a primary objective.
They can take several actions to reach that primary objective.
This does not make these actions the primary objective. It makes them means to complete an objective.
Simple enough for you?[/QUOTE]
So government is like a store except when it isn't. Except it's not.
Bravo great analogy
But you know that. Besides, your attempt to deconstruct my analogy is pretty darn poor. We're talking "Government does this". The analogy is "You do this". So, the correct deconstruction would be "FFS, the government is not me."
An individual or organization can have a primary objective.
They can take several actions to reach that primary objective.
This does not make these actions the primary objective. It makes them means to complete an objective.
Simple enough for you?[/QUOTE]
So government is like a store except when it isn't. Except it's not.
Bravo great analogy
[quote name='dohdough']Was this before or after you snarkly made a reference to NBC's Today Show edit that they were chastised for as if you're some kind of fact-checking honesty police?[/quote]
After, of course.
And my comment wasn't as much about the Today Show as it was the fact that not a single one of the usual suspects bothered to speak out against it.
Except that I didn't.
heh. Yeah.
Can't say I feel that way or said anything like that either.
No, I cherry pick the worst of the worst posts that cross the line. Even when you post stuff that's not about me or aimed at me. You, and others, have had posts edited/deleted that weren't aimed at me. I'm sorry you're taking this so badly... but I'll continue to do it. The worst types of posts will continue to be reported and the mods can make the final decision if it is worth addressing.
It's funny, you post stuff that you know to be against the rules. A moderator removes it. And I'm the bad guy. This must be that "no snitching" thing.
Not saying I do or don't believe you - because it doesn't really matter. Life goes on - and, as I said, the post was a mistake. But, wait, I don't admit to making mistakes. So, either, I didn't say that or you're wrong. I'll let you decide.
Keep holding your breath. Try not to bump your head when you pass out. Or do.
Quote, please.
But you won't provide one.
Because I've never said such a thing.
But you won't admit it.
You'll accuse me of being dishonest, doublespeak, etc., etc.
All while accusing me of saying things I've never said.
And here's another situation of accusing me of saying something I did not say.
You come up with: "U key isn't close to O" out of "the letters aren't even next to each other". Amazing.
Illinois is close to Tennessee. Illinois isn't next to Tennessee.
In your case, however, if you had typed "ignoramoius", I might be more inclined to believe you. Or, if you have very malformed fingertips that, somehow, can manage to hit two non-adjacent keys at once, without hitting the key in between.
This guy probably had a typo as well.
After, of course.
And my comment wasn't as much about the Today Show as it was the fact that not a single one of the usual suspects bothered to speak out against it.
Except that I didn't.
heh. Yeah.
and I don't think that if people are too dumb to sign up for loans to go to school, which is a reality in this job market and the foreseeable future, they should just get
Can't say I feel that way or said anything like that either.
No, I cherry pick the worst of the worst posts that cross the line. Even when you post stuff that's not about me or aimed at me. You, and others, have had posts edited/deleted that weren't aimed at me. I'm sorry you're taking this so badly... but I'll continue to do it. The worst types of posts will continue to be reported and the mods can make the final decision if it is worth addressing.
It's funny, you post stuff that you know to be against the rules. A moderator removes it. And I'm the bad guy. This must be that "no snitching" thing.
Not saying I do or don't believe you - because it doesn't really matter. Life goes on - and, as I said, the post was a mistake. But, wait, I don't admit to making mistakes. So, either, I didn't say that or you're wrong. I'll let you decide.
Keep holding your breath. Try not to bump your head when you pass out. Or do.
Quote, please.
But you won't provide one.
Because I've never said such a thing.
But you won't admit it.
You'll accuse me of being dishonest, doublespeak, etc., etc.
All while accusing me of saying things I've never said.
See above.
And here's another situation of accusing me of saying something I did not say.
You come up with: "U key isn't close to O" out of "the letters aren't even next to each other". Amazing.
Illinois is close to Tennessee. Illinois isn't next to Tennessee.
In your case, however, if you had typed "ignoramoius", I might be more inclined to believe you. Or, if you have very malformed fingertips that, somehow, can manage to hit two non-adjacent keys at once, without hitting the key in between.
This guy probably had a typo as well.
[quote name='camoor']So government is like a store except when it isn't. Except it's not.
Bravo great analogy[/QUOTE]
You really are this challenged...
You are the one spending money/buying goods at the store.
The government is the one spending money/providing basic services.
You:store :: government:spending
Didn't do very well on that section of the SATs, eh?
Bravo great analogy[/QUOTE]
You really are this challenged...
You are the one spending money/buying goods at the store.
The government is the one spending money/providing basic services.
You:store :: government:spending
Didn't do very well on that section of the SATs, eh?
[quote name='dohdough']
The government doesn't pay the student; they pay the school for services rendered. The only difference between a loan and a grant is that you have to pay back the loan. Now if the government provides loan forgiveness, it's effectively the same thing as a grant. But this argument is really irrelevant to you because it's about ideology. That's why you two yokels are arguing about semantics.
[/QUOTE]
The government most certainly pays the student. When is the last time you took out a student loan? You can take out up to your allocated amount for each semester regardless of how much tuition costs you. You get a nice bonus check in the mail (or for your convenience direct deposited) after the college takes their share. It is up to you to call to tell the loan office you don't need that much, or send it back if you have already received it. How many people do you think do that though? This is coming from a guy with student loan debt by the way. And no I am not stupid for disagreeing that people like me should get free money. Free money is always good but it isn't necessary.
Not to mention the fat incentives for tax purposes you get when going to school. But yeah lets forgive student loans they really really need it.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205674,00.html
Government is already giving out up to a possible $10,000 in tax credits over the term of a 4 year degree. But hey, why don't we forgive the LOANS we promised to pay anyways.
All this plus being able to deduct the interest off your student loans.....
The government doesn't pay the student; they pay the school for services rendered. The only difference between a loan and a grant is that you have to pay back the loan. Now if the government provides loan forgiveness, it's effectively the same thing as a grant. But this argument is really irrelevant to you because it's about ideology. That's why you two yokels are arguing about semantics.
[/QUOTE]
The government most certainly pays the student. When is the last time you took out a student loan? You can take out up to your allocated amount for each semester regardless of how much tuition costs you. You get a nice bonus check in the mail (or for your convenience direct deposited) after the college takes their share. It is up to you to call to tell the loan office you don't need that much, or send it back if you have already received it. How many people do you think do that though? This is coming from a guy with student loan debt by the way. And no I am not stupid for disagreeing that people like me should get free money. Free money is always good but it isn't necessary.
Not to mention the fat incentives for tax purposes you get when going to school. But yeah lets forgive student loans they really really need it.
http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205674,00.html
Government is already giving out up to a possible $10,000 in tax credits over the term of a 4 year degree. But hey, why don't we forgive the LOANS we promised to pay anyways.
All this plus being able to deduct the interest off your student loans.....
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='UncleBob']After, of course.
And my comment wasn't as much about the Today Show as it was the fact that not a single one of the usual suspects bothered to speak out against it.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, you WERE implying something. Yet, you jump on my balls and throw a hissy fit whenever someone calls you out on it. No shit, you say?
If maturity was so important to you, you wouldn't need to play the mimicry game.
ing point about taxation and redistributing wealth as if those things have no relation with student loan forgiveness or PPACA.
This guy probably had a typo as well.
Keep on tilting at windmills. Maybe one day, you'll get one and I'll give you credit for making a point again.
And my comment wasn't as much about the Today Show as it was the fact that not a single one of the usual suspects bothered to speak out against it.[/QUOTE]
So in other words, you WERE implying something. Yet, you jump on my balls and throw a hissy fit whenever someone calls you out on it. No shit, you say?
Yeah, it's not like you decided to jump onto Pliskin's bandwagon of letting students rot. Oh wait, you did.
Of course you didn't say it. You just strongly agreed with the people that did. You agreed so much that you even used the same argument of taking money out of your wallet and giving it to someone else that you deem unworthy.
But the kicker is that you don't even pick the worst of the worst. I couldn't care less if my posts were modded into passivity as long as there's consistency. I can respect a snitch if there were trying to improve the community, but you just do it to score points.
If maturity was so important to you, you wouldn't need to play the mimicry game.
If you want to interpret me saying that you don't cop to as many mistakes as I do into you never admitting mistakes, that's on you too. Your quote below is all the proof I need.
So what was your
ing point about taxation and redistributing wealth as if those things have no relation with student loan forgiveness or PPACA. Uh huh
Sometimes I hit extra letters, or miss letters, or skip a word, or forget to edit something in, and or forget to edit something out. Or sometimes I'm just not focusing. Hell, I've probably made at least 5 mistakes on my last 10 posts alone. Keep analyzing it though.
This guy probably had a typo as well.
[quote name='Knoell']The government most certainly pays the student. When is the last time you took out a student loan? You can take out up to your allocated amount for each semester regardless of how much tuition costs you. You get a nice bonus check in the mail (or for your convenience direct deposited) after the college takes their share. It is up to you to call to tell the loan office you don't need that much, or send it back if you have already received it. How many people do you think do that though? This is coming from a guy with student loan debt by the way. And no I am not stupid for disagreeing that people like me should get free money. Free money is always good but it isn't necessary.[/quote]
If they directly paid the student, then the school wouldn't get dibs or be one of the middlemen. It would be immediately accessible once the funds are disbursed.
As for student loans, I don't feel like doing math on amortization tables, there are too many variables, and I'm just to plain lazy this late into the night.
If they directly paid the student, then the school wouldn't get dibs or be one of the middlemen. It would be immediately accessible once the funds are disbursed.
I'm not that dogmatic. But it's not like I said that we should pump more money into grants, so that loans wouldn't be as burdensome right?
At the top marginal tax rate, a $2500 tax credit would give you an additional federal refund of maybe $900? To get that, you'd have to have an income of over $388k a year when most students will fall between a 10 and 15% marginal rate, which would mean no more than another $400 in their pocket for the year.
As for student loans, I don't feel like doing math on amortization tables, there are too many variables, and I'm just to plain lazy this late into the night.
[quote name='megma42']I am not saying that your statement is inaccurate, but I would like to know if I am correct in my assessment of what you mean.[/quote]
If you are acknowledging that my statement is correct then why bother?
It is not an "investment" exactly, the country actually has an interest in having an educated work force. Again, this is something you choose not to engage. The conundrum with more "stringent" loan process is that you basically say no to anyone without rich parents.
College used to be much cheaper and the available grants were much higher comparatively.
You can keep saying this but I usually choose to walk around steaming piles of turds.
You keep repeating that the government shouldn't do X (basically anything) like a trained bird, I wouldn't call it keeping in touch with reality.
If you are acknowledging that my statement is correct then why bother?
It is not an "investment" exactly, the country actually has an interest in having an educated work force. Again, this is something you choose not to engage. The conundrum with more "stringent" loan process is that you basically say no to anyone without rich parents.
College used to be much cheaper and the available grants were much higher comparatively.
You can keep saying this but I usually choose to walk around steaming piles of turds.
You keep repeating that the government shouldn't do X (basically anything) like a trained bird, I wouldn't call it keeping in touch with reality.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='dohdough']If they directly paid the student, then the school wouldn't get dibs or be one of the middlemen. It would be immediately accessible once the funds are disbursed.
I'm not that dogmatic. But it's not like I said that we should pump more money into grants, so that loans wouldn't be as burdensome right?
At the top marginal tax rate, a $2500 tax credit would give you an additional federal refund of maybe $900? To get that, you'd have to have an income of over $388k a year when most students will fall between a 10 and 15% marginal rate, which would mean no more than another $400 in their pocket for the year.
As for student loans, I don't feel like doing math on amortization tables, there are too many variables, and I'm just to plain lazy this late into the night.[/QUOTE]
In regards to the government paying the student, you are right the government pays the school your allocated amount regardless of the cost of tuition. The school then takes their share and forwards the rest to you. It is up to you to tell the school not to send you a check for the remainder, but again how many 18-24 year olds do you think turn down 1 maybe 2 thousand "free at the time" dollars.
I don't even know what you are talking about in regards to the tax credit. For one, the credit doesn't even apply to single status people who make over $80,000. For two, it is a tax credit not a deduction, I am guessing you don't know the difference. For three, the past two years I have received $3,100 dollar tax returns, $600 for my normal federal return, plus the $2,500 for the Credit. I am no special case, most people qualify and most people get the full amount.
Did you even read the link?
I'm not that dogmatic. But it's not like I said that we should pump more money into grants, so that loans wouldn't be as burdensome right?
At the top marginal tax rate, a $2500 tax credit would give you an additional federal refund of maybe $900? To get that, you'd have to have an income of over $388k a year when most students will fall between a 10 and 15% marginal rate, which would mean no more than another $400 in their pocket for the year.
As for student loans, I don't feel like doing math on amortization tables, there are too many variables, and I'm just to plain lazy this late into the night.[/QUOTE]
In regards to the government paying the student, you are right the government pays the school your allocated amount regardless of the cost of tuition. The school then takes their share and forwards the rest to you. It is up to you to tell the school not to send you a check for the remainder, but again how many 18-24 year olds do you think turn down 1 maybe 2 thousand "free at the time" dollars.
I don't even know what you are talking about in regards to the tax credit. For one, the credit doesn't even apply to single status people who make over $80,000. For two, it is a tax credit not a deduction, I am guessing you don't know the difference. For three, the past two years I have received $3,100 dollar tax returns, $600 for my normal federal return, plus the $2,500 for the Credit. I am no special case, most people qualify and most people get the full amount.
Did you even read the link?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Last time you said something this narrowminded, you quickly backtracked when it was pointed out that several individuals, including IHari, used the "offending" phrase. So, yeah...[/QUOTE]
I don't recall backtracking. The point is that the right-wing message machine is excellent at imposing their frame on a number of political issues in *very* innocuous ways. That's precisely why "Obamacare" became an accepted substitute for the PPACA, or "redistribution of wealth" became a hue and cry used by many when it's a way of framing "getting those whose income and wealth have disproportionately increased to stop getting further and further tax cuts on top of that."
I don't care if someone I agree with uses "redistribution of wealth." It is a vapid euphemism used to refer to one kind of political outcome - the people who uses that phrase refuse to acknowledge that any and every government action that involves finances or has even the most mild effect on economics is, by its very definition, "redistribution of wealth." That's what government *does*.
So that's why I say people who use that phrase need not be listened to. It shows that they've capitulated their mind to talking heads of the beltway - and those disproportionately on one side. It shows that they don't understand what they're saying, but they can sure repeat the lyrics they head on the radio.
I don't recall backtracking. The point is that the right-wing message machine is excellent at imposing their frame on a number of political issues in *very* innocuous ways. That's precisely why "Obamacare" became an accepted substitute for the PPACA, or "redistribution of wealth" became a hue and cry used by many when it's a way of framing "getting those whose income and wealth have disproportionately increased to stop getting further and further tax cuts on top of that."
I don't care if someone I agree with uses "redistribution of wealth." It is a vapid euphemism used to refer to one kind of political outcome - the people who uses that phrase refuse to acknowledge that any and every government action that involves finances or has even the most mild effect on economics is, by its very definition, "redistribution of wealth." That's what government *does*.
So that's why I say people who use that phrase need not be listened to. It shows that they've capitulated their mind to talking heads of the beltway - and those disproportionately on one side. It shows that they don't understand what they're saying, but they can sure repeat the lyrics they head on the radio.
[quote name='Msut77']If you are acknowledging that my statement is correct then why bother?[/QUOTE]
Because I believe that people need to be held responsible for their actions and debts regardless of what inaccurate information they are told.
According to google the word invest means to expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result and to devote time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. Based on this, it is exactly an investment in which people invest time and money.
Having an educated workforce being good for the country has nothing to do with the fact that college is an investment, you are changing the topic. Since you say I choose not to engage, let me "engage". The federal government assists people with grants and through low interest loans and I am fine with these programs. The government limits the amount of unsecured student debt they will allow you to undertake through their loan programs during college - good, they need to, this is responsible on the government's part. It is not like the government doesn't help.
OK, are you saying the government should assist people so that college doesn't get more expensive?
I notice that you don't disagree though.
I would call thinking we need to control government spending keeping in touch with the reality of our staggering national debt.
Because I believe that people need to be held responsible for their actions and debts regardless of what inaccurate information they are told.
According to google the word invest means to expend money with the expectation of achieving a profit or material result and to devote time, effort, or energy to a particular undertaking with the expectation of a worthwhile result. Based on this, it is exactly an investment in which people invest time and money.
Having an educated workforce being good for the country has nothing to do with the fact that college is an investment, you are changing the topic. Since you say I choose not to engage, let me "engage". The federal government assists people with grants and through low interest loans and I am fine with these programs. The government limits the amount of unsecured student debt they will allow you to undertake through their loan programs during college - good, they need to, this is responsible on the government's part. It is not like the government doesn't help.
OK, are you saying the government should assist people so that college doesn't get more expensive?
I notice that you don't disagree though.
I would call thinking we need to control government spending keeping in touch with the reality of our staggering national debt.
[quote name='mykevermin']I don't recall backtracking. The point is that the right-wing message machine is excellent at imposing their frame on a number of political issues in *very* innocuous ways. That's precisely why "Obamacare" became an accepted substitute for the PPACA, or "redistribution of wealth" became a hue and cry used by many when it's a way of framing "getting those whose income and wealth have disproportionately increased to stop getting further and further tax cuts on top of that."
I don't care if someone I agree with uses "redistribution of wealth." It is a vapid euphemism used to refer to one kind of political outcome - the people who uses that phrase refuse to acknowledge that any and every government action that involves finances or has even the most mild effect on economics is, by its very definition, "redistribution of wealth." That's what government *does*.
So that's why I say people who use that phrase need not be listened to. It shows that they've capitulated their mind to talking heads of the beltway - and those disproportionately on one side. It shows that they don't understand what they're saying, but they can sure repeat the lyrics they head on the radio.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing that redistribution of wealth should not be used because it far too accurately describes what the government is doing? Or do you think there are varying degress and forms of redistributing wealth that exist, and that people can be criticizing different ones at different times.
Example:
"I don't mind that the government takes a mild portion of my income to support our country. "
I can classify that as redistribution of wealth with a positive connotation, sure.
"I dislike when the government takes 50% of my income through federal tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, etc etc."
I can also classify this as redistribution of wealth but with a very negative connotation.
Are we done with english class yet? Or are you going to keep having tantrums over the way people project accurate terms because it doesn't sound nice.
You only dislike it because it brings a negative notion into your ideals.
I don't care if someone I agree with uses "redistribution of wealth." It is a vapid euphemism used to refer to one kind of political outcome - the people who uses that phrase refuse to acknowledge that any and every government action that involves finances or has even the most mild effect on economics is, by its very definition, "redistribution of wealth." That's what government *does*.
So that's why I say people who use that phrase need not be listened to. It shows that they've capitulated their mind to talking heads of the beltway - and those disproportionately on one side. It shows that they don't understand what they're saying, but they can sure repeat the lyrics they head on the radio.[/QUOTE]
So you are arguing that redistribution of wealth should not be used because it far too accurately describes what the government is doing? Or do you think there are varying degress and forms of redistributing wealth that exist, and that people can be criticizing different ones at different times.
Example:
"I don't mind that the government takes a mild portion of my income to support our country. "
I can classify that as redistribution of wealth with a positive connotation, sure.
"I dislike when the government takes 50% of my income through federal tax, state tax, sales tax, property tax, etc etc."
I can also classify this as redistribution of wealth but with a very negative connotation.
Are we done with english class yet? Or are you going to keep having tantrums over the way people project accurate terms because it doesn't sound nice.
You only dislike it because it brings a negative notion into your ideals.
[quote name='mykevermin']That's what government *does*. [/QUOTE]
It's amazing how much knowing you and DD believe this answers so many questions about you.
[quote name='dohdough']So in other words, you WERE implying something.[/quote]
Sure. If, by the fact in the very first post I directly said something about no one commenting on it, you consider that "implying".
Sorry, I don't read every single one of your posts. You're just really not that important to me.
I am curious, who do you think I'm "scoring points" with? This should be a good one.
First, I don't admit to making mistakes.
Then, I don't admit to as many mistakes as you do.
Maybe you just make far more mistakes than I do.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
It's amazing how much knowing you and DD believe this answers so many questions about you.
[quote name='dohdough']So in other words, you WERE implying something.[/quote]
Sure. If, by the fact in the very first post I directly said something about no one commenting on it, you consider that "implying".
Sorry, I don't read every single one of your posts. You're just really not that important to me.
I am curious, who do you think I'm "scoring points" with? This should be a good one.
First, I don't admit to making mistakes.
Then, I don't admit to as many mistakes as you do.
Maybe you just make far more mistakes than I do.
You thinking I'm wrong doesn't equal me being wrong.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='megma42']Because I believe that people need to be held responsible for their actions and debts regardless of what inaccurate information they are told.[/quote]
So when companies were putting poison in baby formula you were blaming the parents for not having labs in their own homes testing everything before they fed it to their infant?
So a job is investment, life is an investment etc...
I am not changing the topic, you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility and not that say both parties have looked to education for self improvement since forever. It so happens it is failing people.
I feel a lot of things should happen, people can agree that college is overpriced and not worth the "return" but without for example the german vocational training system there is relatively little to do concerning that. It appears it really just going to be more people fighting for less professional positions, but that still doesn't mean " everyone who doesn't find a spot when the music stops".
If I could possibly convey more contempt I would.
I think you reached your quota of pablum and talking points a few pages ago.
So when companies were putting poison in baby formula you were blaming the parents for not having labs in their own homes testing everything before they fed it to their infant?
So a job is investment, life is an investment etc...
I am not changing the topic, you are pretending basically everyone just floats in their invisible bubble of self responsibility and not that say both parties have looked to education for self improvement since forever. It so happens it is failing people.
I feel a lot of things should happen, people can agree that college is overpriced and not worth the "return" but without for example the german vocational training system there is relatively little to do concerning that. It appears it really just going to be more people fighting for less professional positions, but that still doesn't mean "
everyone who doesn't find a spot when the music stops".If I could possibly convey more contempt I would.
I think you reached your quota of pablum and talking points a few pages ago.
[quote name='Knoell']In regards to the government paying the student, you are right the government pays the school your allocated amount regardless of the cost of tuition. The school then takes their share and forwards the rest to you. It is up to you to tell the school not to send you a check for the remainder, but again how many 18-24 year olds do you think turn down 1 maybe 2 thousand "free at the time" dollars.[/quote]
Hold on a sec. Aren't you also including grants into the equation?
[quote name='UncleBob']Sure. If, by the fact in the very first post I directly said something about no one commenting on it, you consider that "implying".
Sorry, I don't read every single one of your posts. You're just really not that important to me.
I am curious, who do you think I'm "scoring points" with? This should be a good one.
First, I don't admit to making mistakes.
Then, I don't admit to as many mistakes as you do.
Maybe you just make far more mistakes than I do.
You thinking I'm wrong doesn't equal me being wrong.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.[/QUOTE]
Looks like all you got left is personal attacks and can't address the issue any longer. I can take as good as I get because it's part of the game and I couldn't care less if you called me an ingrate that couldn't type to save my life. You can fluff up your posts with bullshit, but I guess you couldn't be assed to stay on point even a little and we come full circle with this:
Hold on a sec. Aren't you also including grants into the equation?
You're absolutely right. Congratulations. After arguing with your compatriot for several hours and being up for 19 hours, I tend to make mistakes.
[quote name='UncleBob']Sure. If, by the fact in the very first post I directly said something about no one commenting on it, you consider that "implying".
Sorry, I don't read every single one of your posts. You're just really not that important to me.
I am curious, who do you think I'm "scoring points" with? This should be a good one.
First, I don't admit to making mistakes.
Then, I don't admit to as many mistakes as you do.
Maybe you just make far more mistakes than I do.
You thinking I'm wrong doesn't equal me being wrong.
Whatever helps you sleep at night.[/QUOTE]
Looks like all you got left is personal attacks and can't address the issue any longer. I can take as good as I get because it's part of the game and I couldn't care less if you called me an ingrate that couldn't type to save my life. You can fluff up your posts with bullshit, but I guess you couldn't be assed to stay on point even a little and we come full circle with this:
How about you tell us what questions it answers instead of spending more time on focusing on my attacks. I noticed that you conveniently left out that part where I asked about taxation and it's relation to student loans and PPACA.
I left out a lot of stuff because I am tired of playing this "game" you're obsessed with.
Just like when you barrage me with questions regarding my personal life, you're not really interested in learning or expanding your knowledge base. You're only looking for more reasons to attack, slam, and be in an all out pissing match.
So, congrats, you win. You've outlasted me.
Just like when you barrage me with questions regarding my personal life, you're not really interested in learning or expanding your knowledge base. You're only looking for more reasons to attack, slam, and be in an all out pissing match.
So, congrats, you win. You've outlasted me.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']You really are this challenged...
You are the one spending money/buying goods at the store.
The government is the one spending money/providing basic services.
You:store :: government:spending
Didn't do very well on that section of the SATs, eh?[/QUOTE]
So in your mind me buying groceries has something to do with how the government prepares a budget. Because, you know, one person buying food and detergent has so much to do with funding infrastructure and national defense.
Sorry UB, you said something so monumentally stupid it's epic. Now everyone reading this thread is going to know.
You are the one spending money/buying goods at the store.
The government is the one spending money/providing basic services.
You:store :: government:spending
Didn't do very well on that section of the SATs, eh?[/QUOTE]
So in your mind me buying groceries has something to do with how the government prepares a budget. Because, you know, one person buying food and detergent has so much to do with funding infrastructure and national defense.
Sorry UB, you said something so monumentally stupid it's epic. Now everyone reading this thread is going to know.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='Knoell']So you are arguing that redistribution of wealth should not be used because it far too accurately describes what the government is doing? Or do you think there are varying degress and forms of redistributing wealth that exist, and that people can be criticizing different ones at different times.[/quote]
It describes *everything* the government does, therefore it describes *nothing* of value because it can not be used selectively without being used inaccurately.
Y'all go figure out what a "tautology" is, why it's not a good thing to use in an argument, and come back here and explain to me how "redistribution of wealth" is *not* a tautological concept. Then we can move forward.
Yes, except we've moved on to epistemology, and you and Bob still have your religion books open. Catch the up.
It describes *everything* the government does, therefore it describes *nothing* of value because it can not be used selectively without being used inaccurately.
Y'all go figure out what a "tautology" is, why it's not a good thing to use in an argument, and come back here and explain to me how "redistribution of wealth" is *not* a tautological concept. Then we can move forward.
Yes, except we've moved on to epistemology, and you and Bob still have your religion books open. Catch the
up.
Trancendental
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 4 (100%)
[quote name='UncleBob']I left out a lot of stuff because I am tired of playing this "game" you're obsessed with.
Just like when you barrage me with questions regarding my personal life, you're not really interested in learning or expanding your knowledge base. You're only looking for more reasons to attack, slam, and be in an all out pissing match.
So, congrats, you win. You've outlasted me.[/QUOTE]
Meh that's not fair. I also think DD won, but it's not because he outlasted you.
DD won because he beat you hands down on an intellectual level. Not being able to admit that is just sour grapes.
Just like when you barrage me with questions regarding my personal life, you're not really interested in learning or expanding your knowledge base. You're only looking for more reasons to attack, slam, and be in an all out pissing match.
So, congrats, you win. You've outlasted me.[/QUOTE]
Meh that's not fair. I also think DD won, but it's not because he outlasted you.
DD won because he beat you hands down on an intellectual level. Not being able to admit that is just sour grapes.
[quote name='Knoell']So you are arguing that redistribution of wealth should not be used because it far too accurately describes what the government is doing? Or do you think there are varying degress and forms of redistributing wealth that exist, and that people can be criticizing different ones at different times.[/QUOTE]
Would you sleep with a horse for $50? No? Would you sleep with a horse for $1000000000? Yes? Great, now we know what you are.
Would you sleep with a horse for $50? No? Would you sleep with a horse for $1000000000? Yes? Great, now we know what you are.
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='mykevermin']It describes *everything* the government does, therefore it describes *nothing* of value because it can not be used selectively without being used inaccurately.
[/QUOTE]
What government are you talking about? It certainly is not the United States Of America's government.
The rest of your statement is void as the first part is false.
[/QUOTE]
What government are you talking about? It certainly is not the United States Of America's government.
The rest of your statement is void as the first part is false.
[quote name='Pliskin101']What government are you talking about? It certainly is not the United States Of America's government. "Everything" the government does is not just redistributing the wealth.
The rest of your statement is void as the first part is false.[/QUOTE]
Look who's back!
Oh, and you're confusing "everything" for "only."
edit: you also didn't pay attention to the "tautology" part of the argument.
The rest of your statement is void as the first part is false.
[/QUOTE]Look who's back!
Oh, and you're confusing "everything" for "only."
edit: you also didn't pay attention to the "tautology" part of the argument.
[quote name='camoor']So in your mind me buying groceries has something to do with how the government prepares a budget. Because, you know, one person buying food and detergent has so much to do with funding infrastructure and national defense.
Sorry UB, you said something so monumentally stupid it's epic. Now everyone reading this thread is going to know.[/QUOTE]
So... we've finally moved on from your inability to see that I never compared the government to a store. Good. We're making progress.
Now if I can get you to see beyond the fact that I didn't compare your individual budget with that of the government, we'll be golden.
Okay, now, the next step. When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money, or is it to safely, legally, and in the most efficient way possible acquire the goods that you need/want?
If someone says "You know that camoor - he's all about giving his money to the store", would that be an accurate statement?
Sorry UB, you said something so monumentally stupid it's epic. Now everyone reading this thread is going to know.[/QUOTE]
So... we've finally moved on from your inability to see that I never compared the government to a store. Good. We're making progress.
Now if I can get you to see beyond the fact that I didn't compare your individual budget with that of the government, we'll be golden.
Okay, now, the next step. When you go to the store, is your primary objective to give the store your money, or is it to safely, legally, and in the most efficient way possible acquire the goods that you need/want?
If someone says "You know that camoor - he's all about giving his money to the store", would that be an accurate statement?
P
Pliskin101
Guest
[quote name='dohdough']Look who's back!
Oh, and you're confusing "everything" for "only."
edit: you also didn't pay attention to the "tautology" part of the argument.[/QUOTE]
I am not confusing anything. mykevermin said EVERYTHING the government does. That is a false statement. Therefore the rest of the post is just as useless.
Why don't you let them answer?
Or is that one of your sock puppets?
Oh, and you're confusing "everything" for "only."
edit: you also didn't pay attention to the "tautology" part of the argument.[/QUOTE]
I am not confusing anything. mykevermin said EVERYTHING the government does. That is a false statement. Therefore the rest of the post is just as useless.
Why don't you let them answer?
Or is that one of your sock puppets?
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
everything the government does effects markets, yes. War effects markets, laws effect markets, community services effects markets.
What does the government do that has *zero* economic impact?
That's my point - "redistribution of wealth" is a stupid thing to argue. If you don't like the expenditure - how much it is, who it's going to, how long it will last, the deficit impact it's estimated to have - okay, fine. That's tangible. Knoell, you hit at this earlier in the form of a strawman (though perhaps an incidental one) - arguing the degree of expenditure is a fine critique. That's measurable, its effects are measurable. But I wouldn't argue against it for being "redistribution of wealth," because that's a quality one could argue about literally any piece of legislation. Partial-birth abortion ban? That effects clinics directly, other economies more indirectly. Redistribution of wealth. Going to war in Iran? Oh, goody - more no-bid contracts to Xe and KBR. Redistribution of wealth. SCOTUS upholds or overturns PPACA? Redistribution of wealth.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a critique one could level at ANY BILL EVER. So to criticize legislation for something true of ever other bill makes for a silly, childish argument - an argument that comes from the mouths of people who should not be taken seriously.
But to lambast something for being "redistribution of wealth" demonstrates that a person need not be taken seriously because they don't understand what they're saying. If a whole block of people opposed a bill because "Senators are voting on it," you'd be sure to tell those people that *all* bills are voted on by Congress*, therefore it's a foolish thing to critique *some* bills for being voted on by Congress. You would tell those people that, right?
Well, that's what I'm doing here for you. It's my community service.
What does the government do that has *zero* economic impact?
That's my point - "redistribution of wealth" is a stupid thing to argue. If you don't like the expenditure - how much it is, who it's going to, how long it will last, the deficit impact it's estimated to have - okay, fine. That's tangible. Knoell, you hit at this earlier in the form of a strawman (though perhaps an incidental one) - arguing the degree of expenditure is a fine critique. That's measurable, its effects are measurable. But I wouldn't argue against it for being "redistribution of wealth," because that's a quality one could argue about literally any piece of legislation. Partial-birth abortion ban? That effects clinics directly, other economies more indirectly. Redistribution of wealth. Going to war in Iran? Oh, goody - more no-bid contracts to Xe and KBR. Redistribution of wealth. SCOTUS upholds or overturns PPACA? Redistribution of wealth.
"Redistribution of wealth" is a critique one could level at ANY BILL EVER. So to criticize legislation for something true of ever other bill makes for a silly, childish argument - an argument that comes from the mouths of people who should not be taken seriously.
But to lambast something for being "redistribution of wealth" demonstrates that a person need not be taken seriously because they don't understand what they're saying. If a whole block of people opposed a bill because "Senators are voting on it," you'd be sure to tell those people that *all* bills are voted on by Congress*, therefore it's a foolish thing to critique *some* bills for being voted on by Congress. You would tell those people that, right?
Well, that's what I'm doing here for you. It's my community service.
I like how we're arguing what "redistribution of wealth" is, while, at the same time, also arguing about how it's crappy to attempt to use the fine points of semantics while arguing.
Every single one of you knows that when someone refers to the "redistribution of wealth", no logical person is talking about paying someone for their goods or labor.
By the strictest definition, is the government "redistributing wealth" when they pay someone to build a road? Sure. In the logical sense, is this a whole world apart from mailing someone a monthly check for no other reason than that they exist and don't have money? Yes, yes it is.
I fear that some of you will never get this. It's like the earlier question - does your employer give you a paycheck, or do you earn it? A lot of you will never understand the difference.
Every single one of you knows that when someone refers to the "redistribution of wealth", no logical person is talking about paying someone for their goods or labor.
By the strictest definition, is the government "redistributing wealth" when they pay someone to build a road? Sure. In the logical sense, is this a whole world apart from mailing someone a monthly check for no other reason than that they exist and don't have money? Yes, yes it is.
I fear that some of you will never get this. It's like the earlier question - does your employer give you a paycheck, or do you earn it? A lot of you will never understand the difference.
mykevermin
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 34 (97%)
[quote name='UncleBob']Every single one of you knows that when someone refers to the "redistribution of wealth", no logical person is talking about paying someone for their goods or labor.[/QUOTE]
I agree, we all know what you mean when y'all say it. It's a phantom used by people who wish to have opinions without delving into nasty bits like "facts" and "details" when braying about their ideological pap. It's what people say when they want to say something but don't know what to say. It's what people say when they turn on their Rush Limbaugh See-N-Say.
Good to see we're on the same side, and finally agree on something, Bobby-boy-boy-boy.
I agree, we all know what you mean when y'all say it. It's a phantom used by people who wish to have opinions without delving into nasty bits like "facts" and "details" when braying about their ideological pap. It's what people say when they want to say something but don't know what to say. It's what people say when they turn on their Rush Limbaugh See-N-Say.
Good to see we're on the same side, and finally agree on something, Bobby-boy-boy-boy.
bread's done