Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
That is such a fabulous way to say nothing noteworthy that I can only laugh hysterically in disbelieve
Let put one myth to rest - Largesse for the Rich
- Thread starter Chiteng
- Start date
OK, so I think I understand your position:
Any actions that violate current laws are grounds for denying the criminal access to all government services.
Right?
I ask, because I want to be sure that this is your view, but I'm pretty sure that it is, since this is (what I think) you have posted a couple times already in this thread:
"If I break a law, for example by consuming an illegal drug, I should be prevented from accessing government services."
No it is more than that. I see food stamps and Gov aid as FAVORS to the recip.
I do not see them as entitled to a damn thing.
If a drug test is too onerous, you have free will. You can refuse the aid.
And there you are wrong. They are not "favors", and that is fundamentally a wrongheaded way of looking at it. Charity exists for many reasons. Morally it is the correct thing to do. However private charity simply is never sufficient to the need. We have a system under which, no matter how positively motivated people are, not all people are going to be able to earn sufficient money to live independently. And because that system profits the rest of us, we have a moral obligation to not leave those that it does not profit to die. Further, there are many practical reasons to support welfare. First, it mainly only applies to the disabled, elderly, and those with dependent children. People who could not be self sufficient even if they wanted to be. Second, it is largely temporary. By providing some assistance, you increase the odds that the people will go back to being self sufficient. Third, it is the children that suffer the worst for the harm you would inflict on their parents for the alleged sins of their parents. Finally, you have to consider that when you cut people off from all possible legal sources of food, you breed beggars and criminals. So the costs to society of doing nothing are often worse than the costs to the taxpayers of doing something.
So given that you cannot make a moral or practical argument against welfare generally, then you next need to minimize the impact on the taxpayer. And all these restrictions that are placed on welfare for so called "moral reasons", the real victim of those policies is the taxpayer, who ends up paying more in taxes to receive less in results. These programs to weed people out of the welfare system are expensive, and very unlikely to work properly in the first place. So by insisting on them, you insist on a huge and inefficient bureaucracy that exists for the purpose of making both the taxpayer and the welfare recipient worse off.
It is a lose, lose, situation. And can only be justified by the most perverse of failures to understand morality.
So 'I' am enslaved to the well being of some entitled person =)
Lincoln freed the slaves. The time will come when we will no longer be able to bribe
drug users to leave us alone.
This is another argument for closing the borders, with an iron fist. Using deadly force against the drug smugglers. If they cant afford the drugs, they wont be able to use them. Do not tell me drugs are needed. I dont use them, I never have. Abstinence is easily possible.
And neither drugs nor immigration have any relevance to this conversation.
They are unrelated subjects, and should remain unrelated. As for that silly, silly, slavery comment, less money will come out of your pocket in the long run with a decent welfare system than without it. So if you are going to make that fundamentally wrong argument that taxes are slavery, that paying one's bills is slavery, that personal responsibility for one's own actions is slavery, then you need to understand that the slavery you intend to impose on me is far more onerous than the one you think that I am imposing on you.
And neither drugs nor immigration have any relevance to this conversation.
As for that silly, silly, slavery comment, less money will come out of your pocket in the long run with a decent welfare system than without it. So if you are going to make that fundamentally wrong argument that taxes are slavery, that paying one's bills is slavery, that personal responsibility for one's own actions is slavery, then you need to understand that the slavery you intend to impose on me is far more onerous than the one you think that I am imposing on you.
When you ask for largesse it is sensible to expect strings. It doesnt matter how YOU view the problem. Obviously someone is attaching strings. They dont agree with you
layered opinion. They think like I do. That the people getting this stuff are being granted FAVORS. They think that an easy solution (unstated) is to let them all starve if they refuse to behave.
And I've already explained how it is not favors. You demonstrating that you don't understand the situation doesn't change that.
No I understand the situation just fine. I simply do not agree with you.
Enabling simply attracts more.
You're wrong. Government assistance is not a favor at all. Cutlass explained very well why this is the case.
I hope for your sake you never fall on hard times and need to use the support system that society has decided to provide for you - swallowing all that pride will probably rupture your stomach.
chiteng said:
This is not true. Laws don't express the will of the majority. Laws perpetuate the existing power structure. Yes, some may express the will of the majority, but that's only in the special case where the interests of the majority and the interests of the powerful overlap. It's a coincidence, not a cause.
By blindly pledging allegiance to every law and demanding iron-fisted prosecution of infractions you're doing precisely the bidding of people who have power - people who have very little interest in what's good for you.
Do you really want to live like a pawn? You don't strike me as the type who does, but that's what your statements in this thread lead me to believe.
I'm guessing you haven't read much Howard Zinn....
EDIT:
"enabling simply attracts more"
Nope, wrong again. Increasing disparity of wealth, reduced economic and social mobility, and a 3-year recession for the 99% CAUSES more. People are never poor by choice, but by circumstance.
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Yes you are.
You're assuming a very American attitude here. A few friends of mine visited America through a school student exchange and were baffled with this antihuman egoistic way of life some of you preach.
Nope. I have my own opinions. I dont need other people spoon feeding me theirs.
Sounds like you and your peers are very kind to yourselves
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Greater social security, most areas of welfare publicly funded, general friendliness, solidarity as well as great wealth. We like that, yes.
And yet colonies of Islam spreading across the country. If it isnt stopped, the country wont even be yours. No thanks.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
There's a grand scary total of 3.7% of Muslims in Denmark.
Even assuming that all the immigration to Denmark is Muslim, that 5000 Danes a year convert to Islam, that muslim families will never adapt to denmark and become danes themselves, and that eighty percent of people being born in Denmark are Muslims, you're looking at over a century before any "Islamic takeover".
All those assumptions are ridiculous: the majority of immigration to Denmark comes from the Nordic countries, the conversion rate is closer to 2500 a year, third generation immigrants tend to be quite well integrated, and you won't have 3.7% of the population (itself the highest estimate by the US department of states; the Danish government report lower statistics) giving birth to 80% of babies.
The Muslims won't even be a large minority (as in 20%+ in Denmark) within the lifetime of this forum. Perhaps not even within the lifetime of any users here, and quite possibly never.
----------------------
None of which really bears on the central point here, which is one of simple logic: the idea that more money for the rich = everyone gets richer.
This idea relies on the idea that
1. The rich invest their money. This is far from always the case. Money spent on gambling the stock market (by purchasing other people's stocks as opposed to newly emitted company stocks), the foreign currency exchange, etc, does not enable a corporation to innovate, grow bigger, invest more.
2. That any such investment is actually beneficial to the country. Which, when corporations constantly delocalize and set off-shore tax-haven, become less and less obvious. If investing in company X create manufacturing job in China and fill its taxes in the Cayman islands, it doesn't benefit America or the American people very much. Since corporations that delocalize tend to have better profit margin and attract more investers (looking for a return on their money), this is a big one.
3. That the investment will be, in the long term, superior to any investment the government might have made with the same money and/or superior to the additional costs the middle and lower class will have to bear (either in additional costs or in additional taxes). Given that investment tend to be about maximal profit for the investor in the short term, not about national benefits in the long term, this is dubious.
In other words, it's ideological nonsense to make the middle classes believe it's in their interest to let the upper classes get richer at their expense.
Even assuming that all the immigration to Denmark is Muslim, that 5000 Danes a year convert to Islam, that muslim families will never adapt to denmark and become danes themselves, and that eighty percent of people being born in Denmark are Muslims, you're looking at over a century before any "Islamic takeover".
All those assumptions are ridiculous: the majority of immigration to Denmark comes from the Nordic countries, the conversion rate is closer to 2500 a year, third generation immigrants tend to be quite well integrated, and you won't have 3.7% of the population (itself the highest estimate by the US department of states; the Danish government report lower statistics) giving birth to 80% of babies.
The Muslims won't even be a large minority (as in 20%+ in Denmark) within the lifetime of this forum. Perhaps not even within the lifetime of any users here, and quite possibly never.
----------------------
None of which really bears on the central point here, which is one of simple logic: the idea that more money for the rich = everyone gets richer.
This idea relies on the idea that
1. The rich invest their money. This is far from always the case. Money spent on gambling the stock market (by purchasing other people's stocks as opposed to newly emitted company stocks), the foreign currency exchange, etc, does not enable a corporation to innovate, grow bigger, invest more.
2. That any such investment is actually beneficial to the country. Which, when corporations constantly delocalize and set off-shore tax-haven, become less and less obvious. If investing in company X create manufacturing job in China and fill its taxes in the Cayman islands, it doesn't benefit America or the American people very much. Since corporations that delocalize tend to have better profit margin and attract more investers (looking for a return on their money), this is a big one.
3. That the investment will be, in the long term, superior to any investment the government might have made with the same money and/or superior to the additional costs the middle and lower class will have to bear (either in additional costs or in additional taxes). Given that investment tend to be about maximal profit for the investor in the short term, not about national benefits in the long term, this is dubious.
In other words, it's ideological nonsense to make the middle classes believe it's in their interest to let the upper classes get richer at their expense.
Then why are so much of your posts consistent with radical right-wing talking points developed by think tanks funded by corporations and the exceptionally wealthy, policies that benefit the very few at the expense of the vast majority?
Oh, and you're pretty wrong about the 'colonies of Islam' bit. You shouldn't believe everything you hear on WorldNut Daily.
And yet you are trying to protect the people responsible fro, being held responsible....
I read it on the London Times
My politics are Green, not Green Party. Just green.
I am not at all interested in your attributions. I loath the monied elite.
Keep on guessing
Angst
Rambling and inconsistent
Even if that was the case, what the hell do you have against Muslims?
Why would I feel the need to reserve soil for a demographic not of a certain religion? It seems kind of bigoted to have anything against these supposed "colonies of Islam" to begin with in my eyes.Similar threads
