NationStates Jolt Archive

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."

Which this is sort of the basis for welfare, which is giving the poor(in this example bears) money(in this example food). But as everybody with half a brain knows from atleast owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it. But sometimes bears become violent and attack people that run out of food. Did the liberals think of this when they gave the bear the food? Of course not, because giving the bear the food was a short term remidy to a long standing problem.

On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."

Peace
:mp5:

If I may be frank, you have a very, very strange view of liberal and conservative.

More, more I need more. What do you think about important issues?

Well, in order for job training programs to work, there have to be available jobs to take. The 'welfare reform' of the 1990's is great until the job market contracts. Then what about the people who want to work but can't find a job?

This should be in General. It certainly doesn't belong in the UN forum...

Give a man a fish, then he knows where to get good fish
Teach a man to fish, and you destroy your market base

We should get it moved.

It's not that the jobs are not out there, it's that the jobs that were promised to the people were not there. After the internet boom it was predicted (and was true for awhile) that computer programing would be huge. Since it basically didn't take much to be a programmer compared to the money that would be coming in it was worth it. But after the internet boom there was a sudden drop. These people with these degrees had no where to go, nobody wanted a computer programmer. And really they could get it done in China or Japan for half the cost and 2 times the quality. But these people in the US were out of the job. There are always jobs out there, they may be terrible jobs but they are there and since there is a minimum wage you wouldn't be doing good but you wouldn't starve to death. But most people are too high browed to want to pick fruit or to clean up hotel rooms. There are people that did it, but a lot opted out and to wait for the next recovery. I.e ride welfare. And if you are talking about the minority (i.e blacks) then that is a different thing all together. When their parents are not parents and their friends drop out of school to live on welfare for the rest of their lives then that's just fine. It's better then working at McDonalds.

O and that bill signed by Clinton in 96 pissed off all of the liberals because it put restrictions on the recipients. I think that for them to recieve their welfare check they should have to take random drug tests. You may say this against their rights. But, at work they have the right to drug test you, and since it is OUR money that we are giving to them for no reason other then they are poor and lazy then I think that's the least they could do.

Not quite sure why this is in the UN forum.

So what's the point here, we teach the bears to fish but don't feed them?

I thought bears could already fish.

actually i think it would be more like

the liberal would toss the poor man the change from his starbucks vente latte and feel smugly superior all day long

the conservative would walk to the edge of the sidewalk and vow to pass a law banning the poor from begging on the streets.

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."

Which this is sort of the basis for welfare, which is giving the poor(in this example bears) money(in this example food). But as everybody with half a brain knows from atleast owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it. But sometimes bears become violent and attack people that run out of food. Did the liberals think of this when they gave the bear the food? Of course not, because giving the bear the food was a short term remidy to a long standing problem.

On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."

Peace
:mp5:

A rhyme, if you will.

A liberal sees a starving man, and kindly gives some food
A conservative sees a starving man, and rudely says "fuck you!"

actually i think it would be more like

the liberal would toss the poor man the change from his starbucks vente latte and feel smugly superior all day long

the conservative would walk to the edge of the sidewalk and vow to pass a law banning the poor from begging on the streets.

Sounds about right.

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."

Which this is sort of the basis for welfare, which is giving the poor(in this example bears) money(in this example food). But as everybody with half a brain knows from atleast owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it. But sometimes bears become violent and attack people that run out of food. Did the liberals think of this when they gave the bear the food? Of course not, because giving the bear the food was a short term remidy to a long standing problem.

On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."

Peace
:mp5:This is bullshit for the simple reason that conservatives aren't teaching anyone to fish. They're cutting down on public education, they're polluting the waters where the fish live and the few who do know how to fish are overfishing.

My take on the conservative/liberal welfare thing is that the conservatives are saying "When he gets hungry enough, he'll learn to fish. Or starve. Either way, problem solved".

The term "left" is very broad, probably more so than the term "right". While what you say looks good in theory, in practice, capitalism doesn't always work nearly as well as in theory (like Marxism, though less overt).

I consider welfare to be a necessary evil until government and capitalism can be dismantled. Until then, the best we can do is show people the true nature of capitalism and government and provide ways to keep them from starving.

Welfare actually serves an important rôle to the status quo, disguising the coersive and élitist nature of the status quo so that the poor will think they have it good. As such, welfare is highly overrated.

O and that bill signed by Clinton in 96 pissed off all of the liberals because it put restrictions on the recipients. I think that for them to recieve their welfare check they should have to take random drug tests. You may say this against their rights. But, at work they have the right to drug test you, and since it is OUR money that we are giving to them for no reason other then they are poor and lazy then I think that's the least they could do.


It isnt 'your' money once the government takes it. It is the government's money.


Silly people think they own things that they dont... wooo

O and that bill signed by Clinton in 96 pissed off all of the liberals because it put restrictions on the recipients. I think that for them to recieve their welfare check they should have to take random drug tests. You may say this against their rights. But, at work they have the right to drug test you, and since it is OUR money that we are giving to them for no reason other then they are poor and lazy then I think that's the least they could do.
Cos, drug users deserve to starve?

Is there some joke to be had here about pissing away welfare money on urine tests?

...But, at work they have the right to drug test you, and since it is OUR money that we are giving to them for no reason other then they are poor and lazy then I think that's the least they could do.
Drug tests. Cannabis is detectable for weeks. Cocaine is gone in a day. What group do you think is affected by that drug-testing right?

The term "left" is very broad, probably more so than the term "right". While what you say looks good in theory, in practice, capitalism doesn't always work nearly as well as in theory (like Marxism, though less overt).

I consider welfare to be a necessary evil until government and capitalism can be dismantled. Until then, the best we can do is show people the true nature of capitalism and government and provide ways to keep them from starving.

Welfare actually serves an important rôle to the status quo, disguising the coersive and élitist nature of the status quo so that the poor will think they have it good. As such, welfare is highly overrated.
well said!

Cos, drug users deserve to starve?



That's right. There is no need to subsidize lawbreaking.

Do people ride far and high on welfare?

It's hard to take anyone seriously when they take broad terms like "left" or "right" and then apply sweeping generalizations to them.

Voted troll.

That's right. There is no need to subsidize lawbreaking.Hey, why don't we cut out the middle man and just kill them straight off?

:( Your arguement in worthless, and here's why:

You are mixing two separate metaphors and saying that you have somehow thus made a point. It doesn't make sense...at all.

Someone may have made your point and backed it up logically, but you didn't. Men vs Bears...what the hell is wrong with this place?

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."

Which this is sort of the basis for welfare, which is giving the poor(in this example bears) money(in this example food). But as everybody with half a brain knows from atleast owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it. But sometimes bears become violent and attack people that run out of food. Did the liberals think of this when they gave the bear the food? Of course not, because giving the bear the food was a short term remidy to a long standing problem.

On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."

Peace
:mp5:

You might have some good ideas here, but what the hell are you talking about?

Whatever clown started this thread doesnt understand that liberals give the poor money and try to help them become self sufficient while conservatives leave them to starve and die.

Drug tests. Cannabis is detectable for weeks. Cocaine is gone in a day. What group do you think is affected by that drug-testing right?Not only that, but I can think of a dozen ways to pass the typical drugs test even when you shouldn't, both with your own urine and with someone elses. When the government over here was talking about random tests in schools, I made it public knowledge that I had this information and would print it out to anyone who was interested or thought it would be necessary.

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."

Which this is sort of the basis for welfare, which is giving the poor(in this example bears) money(in this example food). But as everybody with half a brain knows from atleast owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it. But sometimes bears become violent and attack people that run out of food. Did the liberals think of this when they gave the bear the food? Of course not, because giving the bear the food was a short term remidy to a long standing problem.

On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."

Peace
:mp5:
Whoops! Silly me. He is of course being sarcastic. :D

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

I don't understand how a national test will increase the education level of the country.

:mp5:

This really helped accentuate your point. Very well done. It's hard to argue with logic like ":mp5:".

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."


Nah ... it's actually liberals who had the "Do not feed the bears" signs up in the first place. We know what they're for.

More, more I need more. What do you think about important issues?

I don't know about US issues - not to a specific level anyway. I can tell you what I see in the papers, and on the media, but that isn't going to be much help, because it can easily be argued that all the media is biased in one direction or another.

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other

This is what I would see as a totally right-wing way of thinking. The idea that tests are the best way to define anything - to take it down to an individual level, rather than a group level or a national level.

The same thing happened over here when the Conservative Party (the right wing party over here) set about abolishing unions, and putting more emphasis on individual rights than group rights. Testing is an example of this because it puts people in to competition. I know - you can use them to judge how well someone is doing, but it is how well they are doing in relation to the rest of the group who is being tested.

I am a self-professed liberal, because I think that the way the Tories screwed this (The UK) country over was appalling, and from what I have seen of Bush in the US, the same thing is happening/has happened over there. (I am not setting off on a Bush tirade, before you leap to his defense. I am just saying what I see the differences between liberal/conservative is).

I agree with the idea that if you teach a guy to fish, he is better off than getting a fish every day without doing anything. But sometimes there are people who won't be able to learn how to fish. They will either be incapable of using the rod, afraid of the water, or just not bright enough to pick up the idea. And if you simply say "they should learn", or you ignore the problems they are having becausae you don't think they are worthy of help, then honestly I believe you forfeit your right to call yourself a human being.

And if I see a sign that says "don't feed the bears" my first thought is not "am I forbidden from feeding the bears cause I am white", it is "oh - you should not feed the bears" or "why would I want to feed the bears". I can honestly say that if I see a sign warning me about something, I don't worry about why I am being warned against it, I just tend to make sure I don't ignore the warning. Cause 99% of the time it is there for a reason, even if I don't understand it.

I think that suggesting that every liberal thinks "why am I not allowed to do what I am not permitted to" is a sign that you think all liberals feel downtrodden. That the government is picking on them, and that they are just looking for what they can get out of life, rather than what they can do for the good of the country. Cause most of my experience tells me that conservatives, rather than liberals, are more likely to look out for themselves, demand their own rights be enforced over the rights of others, and that liberals tend to look out for the group rights, rather than their own.

I am not gay. I am not a communist. I am not a jew. I am not black. I am not a pedophile.
But I believe and advocate gay rights, communist rights, Jewish rights, black rights and although I do not defend the right of someone to have sex with children, I am not a fan of pedophiles being persecuted, hunted, tortured or killed because of what they have done.
Because I am a liberal.

Compare this to the Tory party over here, who tried to bring in something called Clause 8 that prevented any government authority from doing anything that could be perceived as condoning homosexuality. The right wing press that carried out a name and shame campaign that led to a number of high profile incidents of pedophiles out from jail being hunted and persecuted (and one pediatrician, cause the people who read the right wing press thought a doctor who heals children was a child molester). The BNP - the far right party over here - who want to kick out anyone who isn't white and have written some very "interesting" stuff about Jews. And while I am on that topic, The Tory party has quoted some stuff that the BNP has said, just in nicer language.

The mindset of the left - or in this country the mindest of the liberals - tends to be towards the group, and society, rather than the individual. The mindset of the right - the conservatives - tends to be towards the person, and towards "traditional values" rather than the group and the changing way we live.

That's my view at least.

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.



But what happens when you fail that test? and there's no welfare? and you can't work cuz you failed the test?

You get the chance to retake, and the government funds the education, instead of the welfare, amirite?

But how do you live while this is going on? Surely the program must include food and shelter... making it no different from welfare.

So there's my "what if" for ya. What if they fail that test.

But what happens when you fail that test? and there's no welfare? and you can't work cuz you failed the test?

You get the chance to retake, and the government funds the education, instead of the welfare, amirite?

But how do you live while this is going on? Surely the program must include food and shelter... making it no different from welfare.

So there's my "what if" for ya. What if they fail that test.


The conservative answer to "what if they fail that test" is death or enslavement.

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."


No not really. Liberals understand the balance of the environment and the destruction that comes from by ruining the predator-prey system. Conservatives seemes to have missed that one. Liberals work to protect the environment and make sure the bear can find enough food on its own. Conservatives kill the bears and build strip-malls.

Everybody with half a brain knows from at least owning a pet of some type that if you give an animal food then it will want more, and it will hang around you to get it.

Everyone also knows if you don't spoil your pet with table food it won't beg. It will just wait for its food. That's what my cat does.


On the other hand a conservative would think that "Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day, teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
Since when were conservatives the giving sort of people?

This being the basis for programs to increase not neccessarily spending in schools and libraries and such but to implement a national test to make sure everybody is up to par with each other.

Arizona did this. Do you know what happened? Most of the public school failed the aptitude tests and instead of trying to change the public schools, the government simply issued a new form of test that made more the of schools pass. It did nothing but change statistics.

So in that case a liberal would give money to the poor while a conservative taught the poor how to do jobs and how to make something of themselves with hard work. [quote]

The conservatives did nothing of the sort. Conservatives tend to justify the existence of a poor class by the current economic system, they make no effort the actually help the poor.

[quote]
But because of the welfare system as we know it there are hundreds of thousands if not millions of people sponging off of the welfare system all over the world. You just have to look at the European system today. They wonder why they keep making less and less, and it's because they have become lazy and fat off of the work of the hard working minority of Europe. But don't expect them to change, because they are by definition too ignorant to see that socialism as infiltrated their nations. And if they do see it, then they do not care, because as everybody knows that "communism/socialism works perfectly on paper."


Actually, they make less and less because they are a service based industry, not a manufacturing based industy. Also, there is not a 'hard working minority' in Europe. If that was the case, the nations would long since collapsed. Europe actually has better employment then the U.S. Two of the EU nations have better GDPs per capita and all of the others are immediatly behind the U.S. with only slight GDP gaps. I'd like to point out Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, and Switzerland as wonderful examples of working Socialism.

I'd like to point out Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France, and Switzerland as wonderful examples of working Socialism.


Interesting also how those socialist countries have the highest standard of living in the world.

Interesting also how those socialist countries have the highest standard of living in the world.

very true.

You are not presenting the mindset of the left. You are presenting the mindset of one particular conservative's idea of what he thinks is the mindset of the left.

Want to really know what a liberal thinks about an issue? Ask one. Then listen with the intent of understanding and not just looking for ammunition for attacking. Otherwise all you are doing is trying piss somebody off, which is fine, just don't try and pass off your flame as if you just hit upon some wonderful philosophical epiphany.

Interesting also how those socialist countries have the highest standard of living in the world.
Yeah, have you seen the nationstates countries run by the raving neo-cons? They're all hell-holes.

Basically a liberal looks at a sign that says "Do not feed the bears" and thinks "Why can't feed the bears? Am I not good enough to feed the bears? Is it because of my race that I cannot feed the bears? The bears are hungery and if we gave them food then they would be better off then before."
No, silly. A liberal looks at the sign that says, "Do not feed the bears" and thinks, "Why can't the bears feed themselves?"

Yeah, have you seen the nationstates countries run by the raving neo-cons? They're all hell-holes.


Sort of like what they're doing to their big real nation-state?

The one under canada and just above mexico.

This is bullshit for the simple reason that conservatives aren't teaching anyone to fish. They're cutting down on public education, they're polluting the waters where the fish live and the few who do know how to fish are overfishing.

My take on the conservative/liberal welfare thing is that the conservatives are saying "When he gets hungry enough, he'll learn to fish. Or starve. Either way, problem solved".
I'd suspect that when he says conservative he means what a conservative should be like. Not like what so many people who claim to be conservative are.

I'm basically using the same arguement so many on the left use about the USSR and communism.

Sort of like what they're doing to their big real nation-state?

The one under canada and just above mexico.
Yeah.... btw, I think Chicago would make a good capitol for the new nation resulting from the impending succession.

Sort of like what they're doing to their big real nation-state?

The one under canada and just above mexico.
I happen to be in that nation-state and I don't think it's a hell hole. In fact, if it weren't so damn cold right now I'd say it is pretty nice.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)

Yeah.... btw, I think Chicago would make a good capitol for the new nation resulting from the impending succession.
The blue states aren't going to secede from the red states. There's a whole lot of reasons why this wouldn't happen. Don't be a moron and believe this crap.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)

I'd suspect that when he says conservative he means what a conservative should be like. Not like what so many people who claim to be conservative are.

I'm basically using the same arguement so many on the left use about the USSR and communism.
Well, that's fine, but is there any part of the conservative tract, or any person generally regarded on most standards as a conservative, that says that public education is important, that preserving the environment should come above a marginal increase in prosperity for industries, or that conservation is a vital part of making sure that we can continue to do what we're doing for an extra couple of years?

I happen to be in that nation-state and I don't think it's a hell hole. In fact, if it weren't so damn cold right now I'd say it is pretty nice.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)


In English, when one says "are doing" what is meant is that the action is continuing and not yet completed.

The blue states aren't going to secede from the red states. There's a whole lot of reasons why this wouldn't happen. Don't be a moron and believe this crap.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)
I can dream can't I?

The blue states aren't going to secede from the red states. There's a whole lot of reasons why this wouldn't happen. Don't be a moron and believe this crap.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)
No, I don't think they should either. I think there should just be some redrawing of the be boundaries of Florida, or, alternatively, eliminate any state that begins with A, T or K, or is split into a North and a South.

Do all humans know how to make money in order to survive and thrive? Not especially. Supposedly all people can get a minimum wage job after attending , graduating high school, and being supported by their parents until they reach the age of majority. This is the best case scenario. Many people don't attend classes, can't finish high school and aren't supported by their parents. Should they be thrown out by the state to fend for themselves?


Let's take Sally. She she does have parents who supported her, who did graduate high school and who did land a sweet minimum wage Mcjob. If Sallyworked a minimum wage job for 40 hours a week 51 weeks of the year (let's give her a week off for good behaviour) at $5.15 an hour they would make $10,506 a year. Is that enough to live on? Let's assume she rents a cheap apartment. A really cheap apartment. She pays $275 a month for that apartment. She now has $7,206 a year. Let's say she pays around $200 a month for food. Like I said, she's poor, so she's not going to be eating out. She wants to save money for college. $200 a month will buy you alot of ramen. Not alot else, but plenty of ramen to be sure. She now has $4806, and probably malnutrition and obesity, a common problem with alot of low income/welfare recipients. What about power, heat, electricity, water, phone? Does she get cable tv? Nah, she wants to go to college one day, so no cable tv. Another extra $150/month for all the utilities leaves them with $3006. What about transportation? She's smart, so she gets a bus pass at $70/month leaves her with $2166. Now, at her minimum wage job she gets a uniform free of charge, but she has to provide shoes: 3 pairs a year X $50, now she has $2011, oh and shoes for the weekend: 3 pairs a year X $50 now she has $1861. Clothes? Let's give her $60/month to buy shirts and pants, socks and underwear, any cosmetics, any jewellry, toothbrushes, shampoo, toilet paper etc etc etc. Now she's got $1121. Wow! That's great! All of her expenses taken care of and she's still got money to burn! Except - oh wait. She gets sick, lose a weeks pay and has to be hospitalized because of the malnutrition that weakened her body so much that a simple cold turned into double pneumonia. So take away $206 dollars for the week off, she's left with $915. A week's hospital stay (she didn't qualify for medicaid because she has no dependants, and she's not old, blind, disabled or pregnant) at $420 a day (in Wisconsin, the average cost of a day in hospital http://www.facs.org/jacs/lead_articles/aug00lead.html ) and she's in debt more than $2000. I suppose college will just have to wait another year Sally.


And you wonder why more people choose to stay on welfare, and why the poor stay poor and the rich get richer. The entire American system is just screwed up, and the divide between the two classes is getting wider and wider. Welfare is not the best answer, but it's alot better than some of the alternatives.

Well, that's fine, but is there any part of the conservative tract, or any person generally regarded on most standards as a conservative, that says that public education is important, that preserving the environment should come above a marginal increase in prosperity for industries, or that conservation is a vital part of making sure that we can continue to do what we're doing for an extra couple of years?
The only people I know who say that public education isn't a good thing is the libertarian party. No Child Left Behind is a good act. It hasn't been properly funded though.
I'll admit that a goodly number or conservatives fail to recognize the environment and it's implications. I do though. And I am a semi-conservative, of sorts.

--------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)

I can dream can't I?
No. Dreams are against the rules. *snarls menacingly*

---------------
Go OSU! Beat Michigan! (even though we suck)

Oktoc, your argument, or rather the garbled ramblings and mixed metaphors which have no basis in reality which you present as your argument, has no empirical basis and makes no point, let alone any sense.

Please rephrase it so that it is comprehensible.

The left judges intentions, the right judges results. That's it in a nutshell.

Iraq for example:

The left hates the war in Iraq because of W's Dad and they believe it's just sending soldiers to die for oil and GW wants to create more terrorists.

The right is fine with the war in Iraq because of the minimal casualties, the liberation of an oppressed people, creating more schools, power plants, and hospitals than there were before the war, the rapid recruiting of a standing Iraqi army, and the effective strategies being used to kill the terrorists and the leverage it gives the US in case of future conflict in the Middle East.

The left judges intentions, the right judges results. That's it in a nutshell.

Iraq for example:

The left hates the war in Iraq because of W's Dad and they believe it's just sending soldiers to die for oil and GW wants to create more terrorists.

The right is fine with the war in Iraq because of the minimal casualties, the liberation of an oppressed people, creating more schools, power plants, and hospitals than there were before the war, the rapid recruiting of a standing Iraqi army, and the effective strategies being used to kill the terrorists and the leverage it gives the US in case of future conflict in the Middle East.

You started off so strong, and then you just degenerated into unadulterated bias.

It's not that the jobs are not out there, it's that the jobs that were promised to the people were not there. After the internet boom it was predicted (and was true for awhile) that computer programing would be huge. Since it basically didn't take much to be a programmer compared to the money that would be coming in it was worth it. But after the internet boom there was a sudden drop. These people with these degrees had no where to go, nobody wanted a computer programmer. And really they could get it done in China or Japan for half the cost and 2 times the quality. But these people in the US were out of the job. There are always jobs out there, they may be terrible jobs but they are there and since there is a minimum wage you wouldn't be doing good but you wouldn't starve to death. But most people are too high browed to want to pick fruit or to clean up hotel rooms. There are people that did it, but a lot opted out and to wait for the next recovery. I.e ride welfare. And if you are talking about the minority (i.e blacks) then that is a different thing all together. When their parents are not parents and their friends drop out of school to live on welfare for the rest of their lives then that's just fine. It's better then working at McDonalds.


Since when did I talk about IT people? Well, since you brought it up:

IT person gets laid off=IT person looks for job but can only find one as a cashier (or similar job)=one less job for someone in "welfare to work."

Gee, looks like the poor person is screwed once again. :rolleyes:

And the minimum wage isn't all it's cracked up to be. $5.15 an hour might be enough to get by in rural Wyoming, but it sure as hell won't cut it in a place like Chicago or New York. The miminum wage hasn't been raised in a decade and since then, its purchasing power has declined by about 20%. See the post where someone else did the math as I'm not going to repeat it. Oh, and it left out withholding for taxes (feds will give you a refund once a year, but state taxes vary). In IL, it's a flat 3% income tax with very few deductions (I couldn't deduct one cent on my state return because I'm someone else's dependent, but I had no federal tax liability). So chop off another $300 if you live in Chicago.