NationStates Jolt Archive

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?

There is nothing per se, that makes the US government obliged to take care of the poor. That said, our elected representatives have passed a bunch of laws that require it.

They could be repealed though.

Is this a legal or a moral question? The mixing of the legal and the moral in the OP is confusing.

Both, feel free to answer as you wish.

Is this a legal or a moral question? The mixing of the legal and the moral in the OP is confusing.
It's a leral question, duh!

No, I don't think the consitution requires it. The constitution is more than 200 years old though - not sure what being poor or unemployed meant back then, when everyone basically owned their own little farm.

The German Government for example has bits in its constitution that could mean the welfare state:
(1) Property and the rights of inheritance are guaranteed. Their content and limits are determined by the laws.
(2) Property imposes duties. Its use should also serve the public weal.
(3) Expropriation is permitted only in the public weal. It may take place only by or pursuant to law which provides for kind and extent of the compensation. The compensation shall be determined upon just consideration of the public interest and of the interests of the persons affected. In case of dispute regarding the amount of compensation, recourse may be had to the ordinary courts.
Other than this vague thing though, there's nothing in there, yet the country has a long tradition of helping the poor along. So just because it is or isn't in the constitution is not a reason.

It's a leral question, duh!

The cromulence of that word has not been sufficiently embiggened by its proponents for it to be used outside, umm, "knowledgeable" circles.

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?
Any private charity would have to make some form of organization for coodination and dispersion of funds ... in the end they too will end up with overhead themselfs

Does the US have a legal obligation to help the poor? Not exactly, but individual politicians are legally compelled to as the poor vote for them.

A moral obligation? Good question, it depends on what you think a government should do. In many views a government has responsibilities that private philanthropists do not, so that sort of substitution would not usually work.

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?
I do (the talk to part) I have workd with the homeless sense I was 16 and absolutly enjoy it

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?

So if some stranger was sitting on the side of the street and they weren't homeless, you think people would just talk to them?

The cromulence of that word has not been sufficiently embiggened by its proponents for it to be used outside, umm, "knowledgeable" circles.
If you're not a master of ramming words together for no reason whatsoever, then I fail to see why I should say things you will understand.

If you're not a master of ramming words together for no reason whatsoever, then I fail to see why I should say things you will understand.

I was hoping you would fail to see why you should address me at all, but I guess we've a while to go before I sleep.

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


*rolleyes*


Your right! It doesn't say that it must. However, anyone with half a modicum of sense realizes that the government is needed in quite a few areas to provide for stability (eg, national bank).

I was hoping you would fail to see why you should address me at all, but I guess we've a while to go before I sleep.
Meh, it's a slow night, and we all know that you swedes don't actually sleep. Rather, you harvest power from the Sun's rays for energy via Onehourphotosynthesis.

I do (the talk to part) I have workd with the homeless sense I was 16 and absolutly enjoy it

That's good. I do too. I would give more if I could afford it. But I think charity works best on a personal basis rather than having the government suck everyone dry equally and then supposedly use the funds to help those who need it. Somehow it doesn't work, and it just winds up making everyone a little bit poorer.

So if some stranger was sitting on the side of the street and they weren't homeless, you think people would just talk to them?

I'm not sure the point of this question, but yes, people generally do talk even to strangers. Don't you?

I don't get the difference between most laws and morals...Most laws were based on something that a majority of people thought to be morally wrong; eg. Eating babies.

However, I don't think legally or morally that the government needs to help most people. Most poor people just need to get off their lazy asses and work an extra job...thats what I did.

^Don't say that I'm just saying that...I know from experience.

And yes, I constantly talk to strangers. Its why I hate New York; I made eye contact with someone once and got a dirty look. I was like "What...its not like I'm visually raping you."

Meh, it's a slow night, and we all know that you swedes don't actually sleep. Rather, you harvest power from the Sun's rays for energy via Onehourphotosynthesis.

It explains the über-whiteness.

That's good. I do too. I would give more if I could afford it. But I think charity works best on a personal basis rather than having the government suck everyone dry equally and then supposedly use the funds to help those who need it. Somehow it doesn't work, and it just winds up making everyone a little bit poorer.



I'm not sure the point of this question, but yes, people generally do talk even to strangers. Don't you?
Personaly in an ideal world government funds would be used mostly for education and basic needs (provided not just money provided but the actual basic services)
And private charity would take a larger role filling anyhting in above basic substanance


While Idealy I would not mind private charity taking over the whole thing I have learned not to trust public whim ... people are fickle and I dont want peoples survival depenent on if it is an "in" thing to give to charity or not

I'm not sure the point of this question, but yes, people generally do talk even to strangers. Don't you?

No, and neither do most people. The people who aren't talking to homeless people probably don't talk to random homed people either, simply because they would have nothing to talk about.

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?

Not that I take this as a serious argument, but your premise is wrong.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No, and neither do most people. The people who aren't talking to homeless people probably don't talk to random homed people either, simply because they would have nothing to talk about.
Yeah I have a tendancy to have to work being outgoing to strangers of any flavor myself

No, and neither do most people. The people who aren't talking to homeless people probably don't talk to random homed people either, simply because they would have nothing to talk about.
"So, Bob. How was your weekend?"
"I was beaten up and someone stole my jacket last night. So cold . . ."
"Oh. I went to a movie, and, er, ate at that new Restaurant."
"I haven't eaten in three days!"
"Oh, how about those Carolina Panthers?"
"The Panthers is the name of the gang that stole my jacket. If I don't get $50 to pay them by tonight for a bagel I took from one of them they'll kill me!"
"I think . . . I think I should go."
"Please help me!"

No, I don't think the consitution requires it. The constitution is more than 200 years old though - not sure what being poor or unemployed meant back then, when everyone basically owned their own little farm.

Not true, there were poor people, with and without land. My mothers family was made up of poor farmers, my great uncle was the first to get a college degree. They were so poor that their main source of income was not the crops grown in the fields, but letting a Pennsylvania coal company stripmine the whole 100 acres, this didn't generate much income either, now my second cousin owns the farm (it was abandoned for a 30 year period). In my fathers family, we were more or less merchants during the age of this nation. My paternal ancestors were not poor, but they weren't rich either.

That being said, I do not think the government should provide any welfare.

That being said, I do not think the government should provide any welfare.

I certainly don't think the Constiution requires it. I do think sound public policy and basic human decency do require it.

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?


People are generally too selfish to donate. Private charity does not work. The only reason people currently donate to private charity is to get the tax write-offs. Without that, there is no way in hell rich greedy buttholes would EVER donate one red cent to help poor people. Rich people have no heart, no compassion, and no soul.

I certainly don't think the Constiution requires it. I do think sound public policy and basic human decency do require it.
Like I said before at least the basics for life ... and idealy maybe a bit of education to help them do for themselfs

Anything beyond the basics (and I do mean the actual product ... they need food GIVE them food not cash ... if they are at this point we need to make sure they really are geting what they need to be healthy) and some education should be provided by private charity ideally

The government is not obliged. We as human beings are obliged. How many of those who argue for welfare walk by homeless people as if they weren't there? How many give them their pity and disdain and fear? And how many actually talk to them and treat them like the relatively normal people they often are?

I just love how it is mostly Republicans who have the biggest problem with welfare of any kind...yet they claim to be Christian...and ignore what the Bible itself says on this subject..."As you do unto the least among you, so also, you do unto Me."
Some Christians, huh?

People are generally too selfish to donate. Private charity does not work. The only reason people currently donate to private charity is to get the tax write-offs. Without that, there is no way in hell rich greedy buttholes would EVER donate one red cent to help poor people. Rich people have no heart, no compassion, and no soul.
Nice steriotyping there ... I believe they should be compassioniate yes but claiming they have not heart compassion or soul is hardly justified

Like I said before at least the basics for life ... and idealy maybe a bit of education to help them do for themselfs

Anything beyond the basics (and I do mean the actual product ... they need food GIVE them food not cash ... if they are at this point we need to make sure they really are geting what they need to be healthy) and some education should be provided by private charity ideally

Historically, private charity has not filled this role well. Why would it magically work now?

Rich people have no heart, no compassion, and no soul.
And the poor are a bunch of worthless bums with no intelligence and no value as humans who should just die and remove their inferior genese from the genepool.

And the poor are a bunch of worthless bums with no intelligence and no value as humans who should just die and remove their inferior genese from the genepool.

Don't start. You aren't helping.

I just love how it is mostly Republicans who have the biggest problem with welfare of any kind...yet they claim to be Christian...and ignore what the Bible itself says on this subject..."As you do unto the least among you, so also, you do unto Me."
Some Christians, huh?

1. 'Republicans' don't claim to be Christian. Some members of the secular Republican party may happen to be Christians.
2. They presumably object to welfare because they feel is it an intrusion on private charity. And also theft. Which the Bible says something about, somewhere.

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;


*rolleyes*


Your right! It doesn't say that it must. However, anyone with half a modicum of sense realizes that the government is needed in quite a few areas to provide for stability (eg, national bank).

The bolded part completely nullifies the original poster's entire premise.

Historically, private charity has not filled this role well. Why would it magically work now?
Sorry my phrazing was wrong

What I ment to imply is the basics and some education provided by governemnt to ensure that it is indeed provided (their basic survival should not be subject to whim)

Above beyond that private charity should handle

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?


Compasion, logic and common-sense say: YES! Greed, selfishness and hypocrecy say: NO!

People are generally too selfish to donate. Private charity does not work. The only reason people currently donate to private charity is to get the tax write-offs. Without that, there is no way in hell rich greedy buttholes would EVER donate one red cent to help poor people. Rich people have no heart, no compassion, and no soul.

Take that back.

Many rich people are strong supporters of both private and public welfare.

Until recently, I made an income that would categorize me as rich. I still have substantial assets. Nonetheless, I support high taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor.

Your flaming generalization was uncalled for and simply inaccurate.

I don't get the difference between most laws and morals...Most laws were based on something that a majority of people thought to be morally wrong; eg. Eating babies.

However, I don't think legally or morally that the government needs to help most people. Most poor people just need to get off their lazy asses and work an extra job...thats what I did.

^Don't say that I'm just saying that...I know from experience.

And yes, I constantly talk to strangers. Its why I hate New York; I made eye contact with someone once and got a dirty look. I was like "What...its not like I'm visually raping you."

Yeah...and, as everyone knows, in this country, in this economy, there are just SO MANY JOBS out there that everyone already has one, let alone any second job...:rolleyes:
WHY IS IT SUCH A CONSTANT FUCKING PARADIGM THAT THE POOR ARE ALL LAZY...LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, GODDAMN YOU, WE AREN'T LAZY!!
We are victims of bad luck and bad circumstances...often circumstances beyond our control...and this somehow makes us "lazy??" God-DAMN this stereotype really pisses me the FUCK off!!

The bolded part completely nullifies the original poster's entire premise.

That depends on what one determines as general welfare. Does one mean having taxes for programs that provide utilties, create roads, and defend the country or does it mean to make sure that everyone is fed, has a job, and what not.

Yeah...and, as everyone knows, in this country, in this economy, there are just SO MANY JOBS out there that everyone already has one, let alone any second job...:rolleyes:
WHY IS IT SUCH A CONSTANT FUCKING PARADIGM THAT THE POOR ARE ALL LAZY...LET ME TELL YOU WHAT, GODDAMN YOU, WE AREN'T LAZY!!
We are victims of bad luck and bad circumstances...often circumstances beyond our control...and this somehow makes us "lazy??" God-DAMN this stereotype really pisses me the FUCK off!!
Kind of like your steriotype that the rich have no compassion :rolleyes: way to be a hypocrite

Nice steriotyping there ... I believe they should be compassioniate yes but claiming they have not heart compassion or soul is hardly justified

Listen to the way they TALK...and you have to know they are greedy, selfish, heartless, soulless bastards with not a shred of decency in them.

Take that back.

Many rich people are strong supporters of both private and public welfare.

Until recently, I made an income that would categorize me as rich. I still have substantial assets. Nonetheless, I support high taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor.

Your flaming generalization was uncalled for and simply inaccurate.

But while you support the taxes, would you actually take effort to get goods to people yourself? And I don't mean nearby people either. It's true that many do care, but that caring only goes to what's convenient. That's where the government steps in: to give people an easy way to support the poor.

Take that back.

Many rich people are strong supporters of both private and public welfare.

Until recently, I made an income that would categorize me as rich. I still have substantial assets. Nonetheless, I support high taxes for the rich and welfare for the poor.

Your flaming generalization was uncalled for and simply inaccurate.

Well pardon-fucking-me for sharing my own personal experiences and insights! If you got treated half as badly as life has treated ME, you'd fucking feel the same damn way I do.

Listen to the way they TALK...and you have to know they are greedy, selfish, heartless, soulless bastards with not a shred of decency in them.
Just like we know all poor people are lazy because some are and talk like it is a joke:rolleyes: you complain of others steriotyping you as lazy and you turn around and do the same to them

People are generally too selfish to donate. Private charity does not work. The only reason people currently donate to private charity is to get the tax write-offs. Without that, there is no way in hell rich greedy buttholes would EVER donate one red cent to help poor people. Rich people have no heart, no compassion, and no soul.


I'll dispute that one. I work for Goodwill. I get more people who donate items and don't want a reciept than those that do. On top of that there are many more who only take a reciept because I ask them if they want one. They weren't thinking about it. IN addition to that I believe it was around 65% or more (a large percentage anyway) of people don't bother itemizing their income tax even if they are qualified to thus negating any donating they've done

I'll dispute that one. I work for Goodwill. I get more people who donate items and don't want a reciept than those that do. On top of that there are many more who only take a reciept because I ask them if they want one. They weren't thinking about it. IN addition to that I believe it was around 65% or more (a large percentage anyway) of people don't bother itemizing their income tax even if they are qualified to thus negating any donating they've done
I know we dont bother with the recipts ... we have extra things they are welcome to them if it can help

I'll dispute that one. I work for Goodwill. I get more people who donate items and don't want a reciept than those that do. On top of that there are many more who only take a reciept because I ask them if they want one. They weren't thinking about it. IN addition to that I believe it was around 65% or more (a large percentage anyway) of people don't bother itemizing their income tax even if they are qualified to thus negating any donating they've done

Exactly: people do charity when its convenient. The advantage to government redistribution is it makes it convenient when it otherwise wouldn't be.

But while you support the taxes, would you actually take effort to get goods to people yourself? And I don't mean nearby people either. It's true that many do care, but that caring only goes to what's convenient. That's where the government steps in: to give people an easy way to support the poor.

I support the government supplying welfare. I thought I made that clear.

But while you support the taxes, would you actually take effort to get goods to people yourself? And I don't mean nearby people either. It's true that many do care, but that caring only goes to what's convenient. That's where the government steps in: to give people an easy way to support the poor.

While I would not be too upset if the government set up a program to facilitate such efforts, my biggest problem is the forcing of EVERYONE to contribute. Charity is not actual charity unless it is done voluntarily and willingly. And yes there are many people who go beyond convenient because they fel so strongly. Reader's Digest is always running such stories about these people (not every month but frequently).

No, it isn't, but the poor are not obliged to show the state any mercy, either. The sooner they realize that capitalism and government are their enemies, the better. In truth, it's wishful thinking to claim that private charity will be enough to support the poor, though. Welfare would never have been implimented in the first place if private charity was working fine.

Well pardon-fucking-me for sharing my own personal experiences and insights! If you got treated half as badly as life has treated ME, you'd fucking feel the same damn way I do.

"We should be careful to get out of an experience only the wisdom that is in it - and stop there; lest we be like the cat that sits down on a hot stove lid. She will never sit on a hot stove lid again - and that is well; but also she will never sit down on a cold one anymore." -Mark Twain.

And you don't know what I've been through, so don't presume.

I'm just gonna lay you all to rest.

The ideal system would not include a form of currency at all. people would work, or attend prison. People not in prison get what they need and want. coal-miners and lawyers, does'nt matter. they go to the state-run depot and take what they want.

Charity is irrelevant. As is welfare.

I'm just gonna lay you all to rest.

The ideal system would not include a form of currency at all. people would work, or attend prison. People not in prison get what they need and want. coal-miners and lawyers, does'nt matter. they go to the state-run depot and take what they want.

Charity is irrelevant. As is welfare.

And the depot has everything they want? You're ignoring the biggest problem in economics: scarcity.

There wouldn't be scarcity because it wouldn't be falsley created by the elitist rich upper class, because they wouldn't exist.

I would say that the government has an obligation to help the poor because that is what the voters obligated it to do.

Ideally, one should help the homeless. By help, I mean take an individual's efforts and add value onto it. That way, the people that are genuinely shiftless will rot and die while the people willing to make the effort will eventually work their way up to self sufficiency.

What about all those people begging for change on the street? If they're hungry, give them food, if they're cold, give them something warm to wear, but don't give them money. I've had it happen a few times where someone has asked me for money to get something to eat. I offered to buy them lunch at the closest fast food place and they told me that they didn't want to eat that stuff. Does this sound like someone that is starving or someone that is looking to get up enough cash for their next fix? A good panhandler can get 200 bucks a day easy.

While I would not be too upset if the government set up a program to facilitate such efforts, my biggest problem is the forcing of EVERYONE to contribute. Charity is not actual charity unless it is done voluntarily and willingly. And yes there are many people who go beyond convenient because they fel so strongly. Reader's Digest is always running such stories about these people (not every month but frequently).

What a government does is not charity, however. Charity is pursued for selfish reasons such as the gratification of one's personal conscience. Government redistribution programs are in pursuit of the societal interests: of increasing some form of societal happiness however that happens to be measured.

Well in order to understand that general section we have to look at the definition of welfare.

In general terms, welfare refers simply to well-being, the human condition whereby people are faring well, that is: prosperous, in good health and at peace.

* In economics, welfare is associated with material benefit or preferred outcomes. Welfare has a specific meaning in formal or technical economics (see welfare economics), as in the term social welfare function. In this context it refers to utility or well-offness, either for an individual, or aggregated for a group.

* In social policy, social welfare refers to the range of services intended to meet people's needs. This is the use of the term in the idea of the welfare state.


Now in the context of the time it would seem to me that the first definition would fit the meaning of the wording. Does anyone else agree or disagree?

While I would not be too upset if the government set up a program to facilitate such efforts, my biggest problem is the forcing of EVERYONE to contribute. Charity is not actual charity unless it is done voluntarily and willingly. And yes there are many people who go beyond convenient because they fel so strongly. Reader's Digest is always running such stories about these people (not every month but frequently).

If you choose to be a US citizen and earn income here, you agree to taxation.

You have a right to vote against such taxation.

No one said welfare was simply charity, anyway.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Stupid bitch, do your reading.


Provide:
1 : to take precautionary measures <provide for the common defense -- U.S. Constitution>
2 : to make a proviso or stipulation <the constitution... provides for an elected two-chamber legislature -- Current Biography>
3 : to make preparation to meet a need <provide for entertainment>; especially : to supply something for sustenance or support <provides for the poor>
transitive senses
1 archaic : to prepare or get ready in advance
2 a : to supply or make available (something wanted or needed) <provided new uniforms for the band>; also : AFFORD <curtains provide privacy> b : to make something available to <provide the children with free balloons>
3 : to have as a condition : STIPULATE <the contract provides that certain deadlines will be met>


Promote:
1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : RAISE b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : FURTHER <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : LAUNCH c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuity


Entry Word: promote
Function: verb
Text: 1 to move higher in rank or position <the Navy promoted her to captain for her record of outstanding performance>
Synonyms advance, elevate, raise, upgrade
Related Words forward, further; aggrandize, boost, heighten, improve, lift, uplift; commission, ennoble, knight; acclaim, applaud, celebrate, cite, commend, compliment, congratulate, decorate; eulogize, extol (also extoll), glorify, hail, honor, laud, praise, salute

As you can see promote and provide have two totally seperate meanings. Learn English.

There wouldn't be scarcity because it wouldn't be falsley created by the elitist rich upper class, because they wouldn't exist.

What you claimed, though, if I interpret your post correctly, is that people in your society would get not only what they need but also what they want. Are you saying the "elite rich" don't want the goods they have?

Everyone would have equal access to the goods, instead of some people having tons of money to buy them, while others can barely afford anything.

Is the government obliged to help the poor? Does the Pope like little boys?

If you choose to be a US citizen and earn income here, you agree to taxation.

You have a right to vote against such taxation.

No one said welfare was simply charity, anyway.

Ok I've review this thread and you are correct that no one has explicitly said it. However it has been mentioned in other threads and implied here several times that since charity doesn't work (their words not mine) the govt should step in and take over the role of providing to the poor, thus equating the welfare system to charity.

Also in reguards to the first part. I did NOT choose to be a US citizen. I was born to it. Yes I have choosen to remain one (as I have also chosen to WORK my way out of any low level income status I am in). Making that choice, I agree to abide by the laws and thus by default to be taxed. But can you honestly tell me of a place where I would not be taxed in some manner or form?

I also vote quite regularly on any type of EXCESSIVE taxation. Taxes are a necessary part of having a government. However, I do not agree to all that the govenment does with those taxes and by my votes fight to prevent or take back those powers which are beyond the scope of govenment.

Everyone would have equal access to the goods, instead of some people having tons of money to buy them, while others can barely afford anything.

But what if everyone wants to be as rich as Bill Gates? How will the state be able to give everyone what they want if there aren't enough resources to do it? The basic economic problem is how to satisfy unlimited desires with limited resources, and your system doesn't provide a solution to that.

Is the government obliged to help the poor? Does the Pope like little boys?

Or more accurately, is the Pope OBLIGED to like little boys? Does it come with the job?

Lyric, I especially want you to answer this question.

The words Rich and Poor are being flung about here. Lyric obviously puts herself in the poor catagory. I want a definition for those two terms. By this I mean an annual income amount in $USD that tells me who is Rich and who is Poor. Without being able to settle on this criteria then how do you determine who is to have money removed from them and who it is given to?

No one is obliged to help anyone else, ever. So, of course the US government isn’t. It doesn’t matter what’s in the constitution.

Lyric, I especially want you to answer this question.

The words Rich and Poor are being flung about here. Lyric obviously puts herself in the poor catagory. I want a definition for those two terms. By this I mean an annual income amount in $USD that tells me who is Rich and who is Poor. Without being able to settle on this criteria then how do you determine who is to have money removed from them and who it is given to?

These should help.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-191.pdf

But what if everyone wants to be as rich as Bill Gates? How will the state be able to give everyone what they want if there aren't enough resources to do it? The basic economic problem is how to satisfy unlimited desires with limited resources, and your system doesn't provide a solution to that.
How about we KILL greedy people who are not satisfied with what ought to satisfy any reasonable person?

No one is obliged to help anyone else, ever. So, of course the US government isn’t. It doesn’t matter what’s in the constitution.
Yeah it does matter what is in the constitution. It is the basis of the law. Any law that runs contrary to the constitution is not valid.

How about we KILL greedy people who are not satisfied with what ought to satisfy any reasonable person?
Define what is reasonably satisfiable

Yeah it does matter what is in the constitution. It is the basis of the law. Any law that runs contrary to the constitution is not valid.

Are you arguing that welfare is contrary to the Constitution?

If not, then the Constitution is irrelevant here. (As we should all agree the Constitution does not require poverty programs.)

How about we KILL greedy people who are not satisfied with what ought to satisfy any reasonable person?

People are not rich because they are obsessed with money. People are rich because they are obsessed with things from which money is a byproduct. Money is like air. The only time that you think about it is when you don't have enough of it.

Lyric, I especially want you to answer this question.

The words Rich and Poor are being flung about here. Lyric obviously puts herself in the poor catagory. I want a definition for those two terms. By this I mean an annual income amount in $USD that tells me who is Rich and who is Poor. Without being able to settle on this criteria then how do you determine who is to have money removed from them and who it is given to?

I am not going to put a dollar figure on that, because it is different in different areas of this country...some areas have a higher cost of living than others do.

Here is how I choose to define it....
Anyone who is willing to work a 40-hour week...and does so...and yet, does not make enough to provide for their own basic needs....is poor.
Any family of four with two income earners who both work 40 hours a week, and cannot provide for all the basic necessities...is poor.

Obviously, anyone unemployed is poor.

Rich...that is a bit harder to define. But let me say this: The point at which taxation should begin is the point beyond which all basic necessities would be met.
So, if you have, let's say, a family of four...and in your area, your cost of living requires you to earn $40,000 a year in order to provide the basic necessities to your family for survival...then all income over $40,000 should be taxed...all income under $40,000 should not be.

Does that somewhat clarify my position?

No one is obliged to help anyone else, ever. So, of course the US government isn’t. It doesn’t matter what’s in the constitution.

IF the Constution required or prohibited poverty relief programs, it certainly would be relevant.

As it happens, the Constitution is silent on such matters of policy.

As for your first statement, that is a very sad morality.

Define what is reasonably satisfiable

what most people would be reasonably satisfied with...the basic suvival necessities, a few luxuries like a TV, cable, internet...nothing too fancy...and there you have it.
Anyone who wants more than that should be forced to deal with less....or be killed as an enemy of the people.

People are not rich because they are obsessed with money. People are rich because they are obsessed with things from which money is a byproduct. Money is like air. The only time that you think about it is when you don't have enough of it.

You mean, like me?

IF the Constution required or prohibited poverty relief programs, it certainly would be relevant.

As it happens, the Constitution is silent on such matters of policy.

As for your first statement, that is a very sad morality.

Well, if you hadn't noticed by now that Undelia was totally without heart, soul, or compassion, then you haven't been paying attention! By her very words she proves it. You can't insult a horse by calling it a horse.

How about we KILL greedy people who are not satisfied with what ought to satisfy any reasonable person?

Ah yes, I'm always impressed by our resident leftist's heartwarming compassion for their fellow human.

what most people would be reasonably satisfied with...the basic suvival necessities, a few luxuries like a TV, cable, internet...nothing too fancy...and there you have it.
Anyone who wants more than that should be forced to deal with less....or be killed as an enemy of the people.
Im willing to do above minimum level of work and effort and training ... I should have the ability to have above minimum necessities

Ah yes, I'm always impressed by our resident leftist's heartwarming compassion for their fellow human.

Jesus Christ...tell me you can't recognize FUCKING SATIRE when it hits you between the eyes?!?!

Ahg, for Christ's sake, what's the use....

Im willing to do above minimum level of work and effort and training ... I should have the ability to have above minimum necessities

Not if it causes someone ELSE to have BELOW minimum necessities!!

I have said before, and I will say again...in all honesty, my ideal economic system would be that ALL BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS would be provided to everybody. Anything you can earn above and beyond that...the sky is the limit!

But you will NOT have opulence at the expense of other people's basic damned survival!

NOW, have I made my position perfectly clear??

All satire aside, the above is my true, honest view.

These should help.
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/04poverty.shtml

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/income_wealth/002484.html

http://www.census.gov/prod/1/pop/p60-191.pdf

excellant sources. Thank you.

They did a great job of defining poor (BTW those will be the numbers for determing the prebate under the Fair Tax </shameless plug>). SO what is the defining point of rich? Or is it that anyone over that line is automatically rich?

Jesus Christ...tell me you can't recognize FUCKING SATIRE when it hits you between the eyes?!?!

Ahg, for Christ's sake, what's the use....

Mainly it's the spelling and grammar that throw people off. Sarcasm is already hard to discern for most people when the medium is impersonal text and the writing styles aren't allowed to fully develop.

excellant sources. Thank you.

They did a great job of defining poor (BTW those will be the numbers for determing the prebate under the Fair Tax </shameless plug>). SO what is the defining point of rich? Or is it that anyone over that line is automatically rich?
I wouldn't draw that fine of a line.

If I had to put actual NUMBERS to it...I would say anyone who earns TWO TIMES the "poor" rate would have to begin to be counted in the "rich" category.

anyone between one and two times the "poor" line would be just plain average, getting by, whatever.

And anything THEY make, above and beyond that "poor" line should be taxed. All income below that "poor" line should not be. simple.

Jesus Christ...tell me you can't recognize FUCKING SATIRE when it hits you between the eyes?!?!

Ahg, for Christ's sake, what's the use....

I suppose it's difficult to recognize satire when it's not funny and when the satirist tends to advocate the underlying principle (anti-'greed' in this case) of said satire. Not to mention it's online as the above poster points out.

Not if it causes someone ELSE to have BELOW minimum necessities!!

I have said before, and I will say again...in all honesty, my ideal economic system would be that ALL BASIC SURVIVAL NEEDS would be provided to everybody. Anything you can earn above and beyond that...the sky is the limit!

But you will NOT have opulence at the expense of other people's basic damned survival!

NOW, have I made my position perfectly clear??

All satire aside, the above is my true, honest view.
I am all for making sure others have their basic needs like I have stated before

And willing to pay in taxes what is nessisary to make sure that is an option

Above and beyond that minimum contribution I want the right to collect the fruits of my labor ... I work longer hours ... study more and do more to improve my situation then anyone I have yet met ... and I deserve the benifits that come from that

If I choose to donate to help people be raized above that minimum that is my choice ... if I choose to spend it on myself so be it as well

Are you arguing that welfare is contrary to the Constitution?

If not, then the Constitution is irrelevant here. (As we should all agree the Constitution does not require poverty programs.)

No I was arguing that the constitution is quite relavant to what the gov't can and can't do. The poster I replied to and quoted seemed to be stating that the gov't isn't obligated regardless of what the constitution said. IF it said the gov't was obligated then the gov't would have to do so (although I would still feel it was morally wrong). Now if I was wrong as to the poster's intent I appologize

I wouldn't draw that fine of a line.

If I had to put actual NUMBERS to it...I would say anyone who earns TWO TIMES the "poor" rate would have to begin to be counted in the "rich" category.

anyone between one and two times the "poor" line would be just plain average, getting by, whatever.

And anything THEY make, above and beyond that "poor" line should be taxed. All income below that "poor" line should not be. simple.

And why should I as a person who works hard for my money and does well for myself have to pay for others. If I earn my money, if I do so in a legal manner, and if I do not want to pay for your lifestyle when I will not be getting anything from it why should I?

what most people would be reasonably satisfied with...the basic suvival necessities, a few luxuries like a TV, cable, internet...nothing too fancy...and there you have it.
Anyone who wants more than that should be forced to deal with less....or be killed as an enemy of the people.
Cable and internet are necessities? Necessities are the bare minimums needed to survive. Everything else is a luxury and all are entitled to however much they can amass due to hard work, talent and luck.
Well, if you hadn't noticed by now that Undelia was totally without heart, soul, or compassion, then you haven't been paying attention! By her very words she proves it. You can't insult a horse by calling it a horse.
I ain’t a chick.

And why should I as a person who works hard for my money and does well for myself have to pay for others. If I earn my money, if I do so in a legal manner, and if I do not want to pay for your lifestyle when I will not be getting anything from it why should I?

Do you seriously want a list of all of the reasons why it is good public policy to see that the population's basic survival needs are met?

Do you seriously want a list of all of the reasons why it is good public policy to see that the population's basic survival needs are met?

It would be nice. I mean I am here to see all the points so why not.

Do you seriously want a list of all of the reasons why it is good public policy to see that the population's basic survival needs are met?
I think he was more including lyrics idea's of some of the basic luxuries that people would also get rather then just at survival level

And why should I as a person who works hard for my money and does well for myself have to pay for others. If I earn my money, if I do so in a legal manner, and if I do not want to pay for your lifestyle when I will not be getting anything from it why should I?
I have but one word for you: S-E-L-F-I-S-H!!!

Cable and internet are necessities? Necessities are the bare minimums needed to survive. Everything else is a luxury and all are entitled to however much they can amass due to hard work, talent and luck.

I ain’t a chick.

READ....I said "AND A FEW LUXURIES LIKE CABLE...TV...INTERNET..."
I CLEARLY stated I felt those items were LUXURIES, not necessities. but, of course, your need to twist my words to fit your agenda takes control of your brain.

That depends on what one determines as general welfare. Does one mean having taxes for programs that provide utilties, create roads, and defend the country or does it mean to make sure that everyone is fed, has a job, and what not.

All of the above, plus much more!

I have but one word for you: S-E-L-F-I-S-H!!!
You could apply that to you ... as you have stated you are ... having job troubles and are in financial trouble

Sure it is not just your wish to have more that drives you to want to distrobute what others have earned to people in situations like yours?

Do you seriously want a list of all of the reasons why it is good public policy to see that the population's basic survival needs are met?

How about...for starters...most people will not willingly curl up and die...they would sooner smash your face in and TAKE what they needed, by force if necessary...if it was not provided to them.

I have been on the edge of survival before, and I know nothing about it is pretty, and I know what I am capable of doing if it means my very survival. And I assume most other people are like me.

It is important to the maintenance of civilization and society itself that we do not allow most people's basic survival needs go unmet.

READ....I said "AND A FEW LUXURIES LIKE CABLE...TV...INTERNET..."
I CLEARLY stated I felt those items were LUXURIES, not necessities. but, of course, your need to twist my words to fit your agenda takes control of your brain.
That or an honest mistake ... I almost read it like that myself

Of course you have to assume the worst of the two :rolleyes:

I think he was more including lyrics idea's of some of the basic luxuries that people would also get rather then just at survival level
I never said anyone would GET anything beyond basic survival for FREE!!! That was what WORK would be for. Duh-fucking-hickey!!

READ....I said "AND A FEW LUXURIES LIKE CABLE...TV...INTERNET..."
I CLEARLY stated I felt those items were LUXURIES, not necessities. but, of course, your need to twist my words to fit your agenda takes control of your brain.
My apologies. I hate to be misrepresented myself.

You could apply that to you ... as you have stated you are ... having job troubles and are in financial trouble

Sure it is not just your wish to have more that drives you to want to distrobute what others have earned to people in situations like yours?

No, it is not my wish to "have more." It is my wish to SURVIVE!! I would rather have a JOB, thank you very much, but, since no one seems willing to GIVE ME A FUCKING JOB...then, why the hell not? I never asked to be discriminated against! It isn't fair and it isn't right.

That or an honest mistake ... I almost read it like that myself

Of course you have to assume the worst of the two :rolleyes:

When a poster gives me good reason to assume the worst, bet your ass I do!

I have already stated I assume the worst of everyone until they give me ample reason to believe otherwise.

Undelia, thus far, has failed to give me ample reason to believe otherwise.

IN FACT...Undelia has given me even more ample reason to believe the worst of them.

No, it isn't, but the poor are not obliged to show the state any mercy, either. The sooner they realize that capitalism and government are their enemies, the better. In truth, it's wishful thinking to claim that private charity will be enough to support the poor, though. Welfare would never have been implimented in the first place if private charity was working fine.


But that makes too much sense for some to grasp! :p

How about...for starters...most people will not willingly curl up and die...they would sooner smash your face in and TAKE what they needed, by force if necessary...if it was not provided to them.

I have been on the edge of survival before, and I know nothing about it is pretty, and I know what I am capable of doing if it means my very survival. And I assume most other people are like me.

It is important to the maintenance of civilization and society itself that we do not allow most people's basic survival needs go unmet.

"Exactically!" said the Caterpillar.

No, it is not my wish to "have more." It is my wish to SURVIVE!! I would rather have a JOB, thank you very much, but, since no one seems willing to GIVE ME A FUCKING JOB...then, why the hell not? I never asked to be discriminated against! It isn't fair and it isn't right.
No its not

Lets just settle down and take a step back your agressive manner and ours (increasingly) is leading to misunderstanding

Let me restate my point of view and maybe it will help you understand where I am coming from
I think you are comming from a simmilar point of view but your style is throwing some of us off.


I Idealy would like to see all basic needs met through the government to assure that they are reliably met (for thoes not able to provide for themselfs)

Other then that private charity takes over ... if people wish to make sure others have more then the basics they are more then welcome to donate it to their cause

I have but one word for you: S-E-L-F-I-S-H!!!
And your point is? is it illegal to be selfish? I'm sure you feel it is immoral, but I would counter that it is immoral for anyone to take what I earned myself.

No its not

Lets just settle down and take a step back your agressive manner and ours (increasingly) is leading to misunderstanding

Let me restate my point of view and maybe it will help you understand where I am coming from
I think you are comming from a simmilar point of view but your style is throwing some of us off.


I Idealy would like to see all basic needs met through the government to assure that they are reliably met (for thoes not able to provide for themselfs)

Other then that private charity takes over ... if people wish to make sure others have more then the basics they are more then welcome to donate it to their cause


Then we agree more than we don't. But your style of speaking tends to really come across as advocating selfishness, and that tends to piss me off royally.

And your point is? is it illegal to be selfish? I'm sure you feel it is immoral, but I would counter that it is immoral for anyone to take what I earned myself.
Selfishness OUGHT to fucking be illegal!

And to your last statement, I counter with a quote from Jesus Himself..."as you do unto the least among you, so also you do unto Me."

In other words...TAKE CARE OF THE POOR, AND DO IT WILLINGLY!!

YOU don't seem willing. What's more, MOST people don't seem willing. which is why the government has to FORCE you to.

And I'm all in favor of it.

Then we agree more than we don't. But your style of speaking tends to really come across as advocating selfishness, and that tends to piss me off royally.
And yours comes across as condemning thoes that are only trying to do better for themselfs (after providing taxes to support others basic survival needs)

That tends to piss me off as well
I have worked awfully hard for everything I have

While I value life I also value the fruits of my labor

And your point is? is it illegal to be selfish? I'm sure you feel it is immoral, but I would counter that it is immoral for anyone to take what I earned myself.

Just curious, how do you "earn" the moral right to property?

I have but one word for you: S-E-L-F-I-S-H!!!

This is such a bullshit tactic of the left. Whenever your against welfare or entitlement programs all of a sudden you lack compasion and are selfish. Its on the same level of the right labeling all people who can't provide for themselves lazy. I'm for personal responsibility and freedom. If you want to give money to charities or to people who need it thats great but you shouldn't be forced to do so.

This is such a bullshit tactic of the left. Whenever your against welfare or entitlement programs all of a sudden you lack compasion and are selfish. Its on the same level of the right labeling all people who can't provide for themselves lazy. I'm for personal responsibility and freedom. If you want to give money to charities or to people who need it thats great but you shouldn't be forced to do so.

Why not?

Why not?

Because I tend to espouse the libertarian view of less government more freedom is better. Thats my reason at least. Now here is the thing Cat tribe I have no problem with the government taxing me for services I am going to use or have effect me. If the government wants to tax so they can build roads, upkeep infostructure, and provide a police force that will enforce the law and protect me I'm fine. But if the government wants to take my hard earned money and force me to give money that I may not want to give and will not directly influence me or go to a service I won't use then I'm not for that. And I don't believe that anyone else should be coerced into paying for my living, I think its something that should be done at ones own disgression.

Selfishness OUGHT to fucking be illegal!

More satire, I assume?

And to your last statement, I counter with a quote from Jesus Himself..."as you do unto the least among you, so also you do unto Me."

In other words...TAKE CARE OF THE POOR, AND DO IT WILLINGLY!!

I agree..

What's more, MOST people don't seem willing. which is why the government has to FORCE you to.

I disagree. That's like saying someone has a choice, and then saying "HA! Just kidding!" After all if the government has to FORCE me to as you so aptly put it, I can't very well be said to have done it willingly as Jesus suggests. All of which would seem to me very unChristian anyway.

Why not?

For the same reason I shouldn't be forced to fund a war I don't agree with.

Because I tend to espouse the libertarian view of less government more freedom is better. Thats my reason at least. Now here is the thing Cat tribe I have no problem with the government taxing me for services I am going to use or have effect me. If the government wants to tax so they can build roads, upkeep infostructure, and provide a police force that will enforce the law and protect me I'm fine. But if the government wants to take my hard earned money and force me to give money that I may not want to give and will not directly influence me or go to a service I won't use then I'm not for that. And I don't believe that anyone else should be coerced into paying for my living, I think its something that should be done at ones own disgression.

You don't think letting portions of the population starve to death will effect you?

Why should the poor agree to let you keep your property?

<snip>

Never planning to be poor then?

Hope that works out for you.

You don't think letting portions of the population starve to death will effect you?

Why should the poor agree to let you keep your property?

1. Who says I'm letting portions of the population starve? I fully support private charities which could do anything from donating food, cloathing, or providing shelter.
2. What kind of question is that. We are talking about should the government have to help the poor and you start changing the discussion to asking if the poor should agree to keep my property? Is that some sort of scare tactic that if I don't give money to the poor because the government makes me they are going to rise up and smite me?

Never planning to be poor then?

Hope that works out for you.
I don't suppose anyone plans to be poor do they?

For all of you that are against helping the poor or anyone for that matter, I have a question for you: What would you do to better yourself and improve your financial situation being dirt poor or even worse homeless?

Funny how no one has come up with the perfect solutions, otherwise, poverty would be non-existent. But tell the rest of us your simple solutions. Enlighten us please!

For all of you that are against helping the poor or anyone for that matter, I have a question for you: What would you do to better yourself and improve your financial situation being dirt poor or even worse homeless?

Funny how no one has come up with the perfect solutions, otherwise, poverty would be non-existent. But tell the rest of us your simple solutions. Enlighten us please!

No one here is saying we shouldn't help the poor. People are simply saying they don't think they should be forced to do so by the government. They would rather it be done by charities on a basis of giving if you want to rather then being forced to.

No one here is saying we shouldn't help the poor. People are simply saying they don't think they should be forced to do so by the government. They would rather it be done by charities on a basis of giving if you want to rather then being forced to.

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!

This is such a bullshit tactic of the left. Whenever your against welfare or entitlement programs all of a sudden you lack compasion and are selfish. Its on the same level of the right labeling all people who can't provide for themselves lazy. I'm for personal responsibility and freedom. If you want to give money to charities or to people who need it thats great but you shouldn't be forced to do so.

If people weren't FORCED TO...there wouldn't be enough to go around to meet all the needs of needy people, and you know it.

So much for private charity being the answer to everything. You know damn well they could not provide, on voluntary donations only, everything needed by the needy. why the fuck should you have opulence while someone else starves? Because you were lucky and they weren't? Horseshit. Your attitude is lousy and selfish and mean and I have no more to say about it.

Because I tend to espouse the libertarian view of less government more freedom is better. Thats my reason at least. Now here is the thing Cat tribe I have no problem with the government taxing me for services I am going to use or have effect me. If the government wants to tax so they can build roads, upkeep infostructure, and provide a police force that will enforce the law and protect me I'm fine. But if the government wants to take my hard earned money and force me to give money that I may not want to give and will not directly influence me or go to a service I won't use then I'm not for that. And I don't believe that anyone else should be coerced into paying for my living, I think its something that should be done at ones own disgression.
Great. then don't give to the poor. and when no one else does, either...and their needs are not met...do not expect them to just curl up and die. they would, at that point, just as soon smash your face in and TAKE what they need from you by force. NOW...would you rather the government do it, in a way that doesn't require you to undergo facial reconstruction....or would you rather the poor and destitute send you, if you are lucky, to a hospital and a good plastic surgeon...or if unlucky, maybe an undertaker?

I've BEEN on the edge of survival. Survival isn't preety. You back any animal into a corner, and leave it no way out, and nothing left to lose, and you see what it does to you. same principle applies.

SO...meeting of the basic needs of others DOES directly impact you, as you maybe now can see!

If people weren't FORCED TO...there wouldn't be enough to go around to meet all the needs of needy people, and you know it.

So much for private charity being the answer to everything. You know damn well they could not provide, on voluntary donations only, everything needed by the needy. why the fuck should you have opulence while someone else starves? Because you were lucky and they weren't? Horseshit. Your attitude is lousy and selfish and mean and I have no more to say about it.


And the longer this bad situation drags on, the worse it gets. One just falls further and further behind, and the situation goes from bleek to hopeless.

No one here is saying we shouldn't help the poor. People are simply saying they don't think they should be forced to do so by the government. They would rather it be done by charities on a basis of giving if you want to rather then being forced to.

Which is the same as saying..."Don't make ME support the poor, I don't want to...let SOMEONE ELSE do it." Which is greedy, selfish, mean, heartless, cruel, and evil.

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all tak and no action. Happy pleading and begging!
Appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, appeal to fear and I do believe a bit of false dilemma in there. Thats a hell of alot of logical fallacies there.

Which is the same as saying..."Don't make ME support the poor, I don't want to...let SOMEONE ELSE do it." Which is greedy, selfish, mean, heartless, cruel, and evil.
No its not. So I don't want the government to force me to give money to the poor rather I would like it to be volantary in the form of charaties or other private funded programs. That doesn't mean I don't want to help or to have other people not help. You are assuming that just because I don't want the government to force me to do it that I won't do anything once that pressure is lifted.

If people weren't FORCED TO...there wouldn't be enough to go around to meet all the needs of needy people, and you know it.

So much for private charity being the answer to everything. You know damn well they could not provide, on voluntary donations only, everything needed by the needy. why the fuck should you have opulence while someone else starves? Because you were lucky and they weren't? Horseshit. Your attitude is lousy and selfish and mean and I have no more to say about it.
As much as I agree that basic survival should not be dependant on the whim of peoples good will, your attitude is hardly peachy either

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!

Hey, that's pretty funny. Let me double-dare you! Get a job and quit whining.

And the longer this bad situation drags on, the worse it gets. One just falls further and further behind, and the situation goes from bleek to hopeless.

ah, but those who were born with a silver spoon in their mouths never understand this, do they?
They don't know what real, raw, grinding poverty feels like, in spite of their cute little anecdotes.

PROOF!! PROVE to me you know what it feels like.

It's like the fucking CEO claiming he started in the mail room and worked his way up. HORSE-SHIT!! Prove it, Mr. CEO...let's see the fucking TIME-CARDS, proving your ass was once in the mail room!!

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!

Oh, and one more rule: You are not entitled to aquire any donations from friends and relatives. Not everybody has those luxuries, you know?

Appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, appeal to fear and I do believe a bit of false dilemma in there. Thats a hell of alot of logical fallacies there.


No its not. So I don't want the government to force me to give money to the poor rather I would like it to be volantary in the form of charaties or other private funded programs. That doesn't mean I don't want to help or to have other people not help. You are assuming that just because I don't want the government to force me to do it that I won't do anything once that pressure is lifted.

No, I'm assuming nothing. I KNOW you won't help. None of the rich EVER would, without force or incentive. Without there being "something in it for them." Your very words prove your selfishness.
I need no more proof than your own words.

Which is greedy, selfish, mean, heartless, cruel, and evil.
Also stop with the generalizations Lyric. I don't think that everyone on welfare is fat, lazy, drug addicted, and want to live off of me for as long as they can. You do not have the right to generalize here. You can't claim to know the reasons why people don't give money, or why they support making supporting the poor voluntary instead of forced.

As much as I agree that basic survival should not be dependant on the whim of peoples good will, your attitude is hardly peachy either

Have my life...have my circumstances...let the world kick YOUR fucking guts out and chew you up and spit you out and stomp on you, and then let's see how fucking PEACHY your attitude is, okay, pal?

No, I'm assuming nothing. I KNOW you won't help. None of the rich EVER would, without force or incentive. Without there being "something in it for them." Your very words prove your selfishness.
I need no more proof than your own words.

Don't ever fucking assume to know who I am or what I will do. I've helped plenty of people and done tons of communtiy service. IF YOU EVER MAKE A GENERALIZATION ABOUT ME AGAIN LIKE THIS THEN YOUR GOING ON FUCKING IGNORE YOU PATRONIZING LITTLE TWIT.

Feel the love.

Also stop with the generalizations Lyric. I don't think that everyone on welfare is fat, lazy, drug addicted, and want to live off of me for as long as they can. You do not have the right to generalize here. You can't claim to know the reasons why people don't give money, or why they support making supporting the poor voluntary instead of forced.

Yes I can. there can only be one reason. They don't want it forced BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HELP THE POOR!!!

They don't give money voluntarily, when they could damn well afford to BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO...THEY'D RATHER HAVE THE LATEST GREATEST NEW LITTLE GADGET OR TRINKET FOR THEMSELVES, AND FUCK THE POOR STARVING PERSON WHO CAN'T EVEN HAVE DINNER!!

Also stop with the generalizations Lyric. I don't think that everyone on welfare is fat, lazy, drug addicted, and want to live off of me for as long as they can. You do not have the right to generalize here. You can't claim to know the reasons why people don't give money, or why they support making supporting the poor voluntary instead of forced.

Don't bother. Lyric has always expressed the notion that every single corporation is run by an evil Mr Monopoly corporate dictator whose sole purpose in life is to exploit the honest and hard working peons for sadistic pleasure and greedy self-interest, and that anyone who disagrees with this highly logical assessment just doesn't understand Lyric's martyr-like life experiences which entitle her to insult, slanderize, rant and rave about the evil, stupid and oppressive economic liberals.

And the thing is, she does have the right to make such generalizations here. Within certain forum set limits that is.

Don't ever fucking assume to know who I am or what I will do. I've helped plenty of people and done tons of communtiy service. IF YOU EVER MAKE A GENERALIZATION ABOUT ME AGAIN LIKE THIS THEN YOUR GOING ON FUCKING IGNORE YOU PATRONIZING LITTLE TWIT.

Do me a fucking favor! At least I won't have to be aggrivated by you any more.

Have my life...have my circumstances...let the world kick YOUR fucking guts out and chew you up and spit you out and stomp on you, and then let's see how fucking PEACHY your attitude is, okay, pal?
Ahh so you hold yourself to different standards then others

You expect them to have good atitudes and bash them when you detect that they dont but expect different standards applied to you as well

Yes I can. there can only be one reason. They don't want it forced BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO HELP THE POOR!!!
Nope I am opposed to programs such as welfare because I value freedom more then coercive government policies which are not used by the people.

They don't give money voluntarily, when they could damn well afford to BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO...THEY'D RATHER HAVE THE LATEST GREATEST NEW LITTLE GADGET OR TRINKET FOR THEMSELVES, AND FUCK THE POOR STARVING PERSON WHO CAN'T EVEN HAVE DINNER!!
Generalizations.

Nope I am opposed to programs such as welfare because I value freedom more then coercive government policies which are not used by the people.


Generalizations.
MOSTLY TRUE GENERALIZATIONS AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!!

Don't bother. Lyric has always expressed the notion that every single corporation is run by an evil Mr Monopoly corporate dictator whose sole purpose in life is to exploit the honest and hard working peons for sadistic pleasure and greedy self-interest, and that anyone who disagrees with this highly logical assessment just doesn't understand Lyric's martyr-like life experiences which entitle her to insult, slanderize, rant and rave about the evil, stupid and oppressive economic liberals.
I didn't mind debating with her before but she crossed the line when she made a statement about me without even knowing who I am or what I am like.

And the thing is, she does have the right to make such generalizations here. Within certain forum set limits that is.
I mean more in the line of presenting an arguement using generalizations is a bad thing. I used stronger language because she decided to insult me back there and has pissed me off.

MOSTLY TRUE GENERALIZATIONS AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!!
Its as true as saying people on welfare are lazy.

Hey, that's pretty funny. Let me double-dare you! Get a job and quit whining.

I have a job, thank you. I have been in the grocery business for 29 years. I make roughly $20.00 an hour and work 40 hours. Most importantly however, is that I am a Christian, and I do care about my fellow man. I donate and help the poor on a DAILY basis. How about you?

Ahh so you hold yourself to different standards then others

You expect them to have good atitudes and bash them when you detect that they dont but expect different standards applied to you as well

Not at all. I'd expect anyone who has been thru the kind of shitstorm I have been, to have an equally rotten attitude about it.

You think I LIKE the fucking circumstances life has placed me in??

Ypu're criticising me for having a shitty attitude, and I am just telling you...hey...before you criticize me for having a shitty attitude, why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes, and see what kind of attitude YOU would develop?

Then judge me all you want. But until you have walked a mile in my shoes, STFU.

Have my life...have my circumstances...let the world kick YOUR fucking guts out and chew you up and spit you out and stomp on you, and then let's see how fucking PEACHY your attitude is, okay, pal?

You have a really shitty attitude. There are so many people in the world that are worse off than you right now, and all you can do is scream, "what about ME ME ME!!!!".

It's clear why you don't believe in charity. In the odd event that you were ever sucessful, you would probably flaunt your wealth and never give a penny to those who were less fortunate. You assume, therefore, that everyone holds themselves to your own poor standards.

Indeed, your whole reason for hating repubilcans seems to be that you believe that they have caused you own personal misery, and that under the democrats you will personally do better. Your seem to care little or nothing about others at all. I suppose, in some ways, that makes you a libertarian. But idelogically, you are certainly not a left winger.

no

Not at all. I'd expect anyone who has been thru the kind of shitstorm I have been, to have an equally rotten attitude about it.

You think I LIKE the fucking circumstances life has placed me in??

Ypu're criticising me for having a shitty attitude, and I am just telling you...hey...before you criticize me for having a shitty attitude, why don't you try walking a mile in my shoes, and see what kind of attitude YOU would develop?

Then judge me all you want. But until you have walked a mile in my shoes, STFU.
Have you walked a mile in the shoes of the person you are critisizing?

How much do you know about them?


Hell do you even know what I have gone through in life?
Probably not you just one of thoes people that use their past to set them apart ... no better then thoes that use their wealth to feel superior to others or any other defining feature

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!


Appeal to emotion, appeal to consequences, appeal to fear and I do believe a bit of false dilemma in there. Thats a hell of alot of logical fallacies there.


I see you backed out of this in a hurry, as I know you would. So that makes you a hypocrite that's all talk and no action. I provided 2 choices. Thanks for providing us all with your choice.

I have a job, thank you.

No problem.

I have been in the grocery business for 29 years. I make roughly $20.00 an hour and work 40 hours. Most importantly however, is that I am a Christian, and I do care about my fellow man. I donate and help the poor on a DAILY basis. How about you?

I do what I can. I don't, however, make 20 dollars an hour and can't afford to donate cash in any real amount on a DAILY basis. And if being a Christian was so important in how you donate, how is it that you assume charities - presumably including Christian ones - are ineffective, inept, corrupt or whatever else? Is it a case of you being more truly Christian than everyone else or what?

I see you backed out of this in a hurry, as I know you would. So that makes you a hypocrite that's all talk and no action. I provided 2 choices. Thanks for providing us all with your choice.
You act as if thats the only way one can get themselves out of poverty and force us to make a choice accordingly. Thats called a false dilema logical fallacy. You also make an appeal to fear and emotions when you made this senario. And now you use the strawman fallacy where instead of addressing the points I've brought up about the logic of your example you attack me. Thats got to be the most logical fallacies I've seen used ever.

MOSTLY TRUE GENERALIZATIONS AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW IT!!


Absolutely!

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!





I see you backed out of this in a hurry, as I know you would. So that makes you a hypocrite that's all talk and no action. I provided 2 choices. Thanks for providing us all with your choice.

Heh yes, he's a hypocrite because he didn't voluntarily become a homeless man for six months and attempt to drain money from charities designed to help those who really do need it? because some random guy on the internet told him he ought to do it?

I don't think so.

Your 'argument,' if you could call it that, had many fallacies and pointing them out is not "backing out" and certainly not being a hypocrite. I could "dare" you to do all kinds of things, its not an argument, and your lack of ability or desire to follow through with my command would only prove you have sensibility.

Had he actually done this he would have strained a system designed to help people who are in need, just because of some online pissing contest. What a great way to help your fellow man, by actually incouraging charity scamming.

You have a really shitty attitude. There are so many people in the world that are worse off than you right now, and all you can do is scream, "what about ME ME ME!!!!".

It's clear why you don't believe in charity. In the odd event that you were ever sucessful, you would probably flaunt your wealth and never give a penny to those who were less fortunate. You assume, therefore, that everyone holds themselves to your own poor standards.

Indeed, your whole reason for hating repubilcans seems to be that you believe that they have caused you own personal misery, and that under the democrats you will personally do better. Your seem to care little or nothing about others at all. I suppose, in some ways, that makes you a libertarian. But idelogically, you are certainly not a left winger.


The usual hate rhetoric used by the haves to stomp on, deprive, demoralize and subdue the have-nots. Pssst, it doesn't work. Try something else!

No problem.



I do what I can. I don't, however, make 20 dollars an hour and can't afford to donate cash in any real amount on a DAILY basis. And if being a Christian was so important in how you donate, how is it that you assume charities - presumably including Christian ones - are ineffective, inept, corrupt or whatever else? Is it a case of you being more truly Christian than everyone else or what?


Charities are not ineffective, inept nor corrupt. They simply give help with the donations they receive. And there is never enough donations to cover the needs.

I probably shouldn't, but I can't help it.


You think I LIKE the fucking circumstances life has placed me in??

Actually, yes. You seem to enjoy what you consider your right to have a rotten attitude so much, and in every single thread you feel compelled to mention how the world has chewed you up and spat you out, it's your major card politically and I suspect you rather feel it was at least somewhat worth it, having lived your life, just so you get to feel self righteous in your argumentations...


Then judge me all you want. But until you have walked a mile in my shoes, STFU.

Interesting how someone has to walk a mile in your shoes to judge you, but you get to judge anyone and everyone else whose shoes, presumably, you have no walked in. Maybe this is a case of you can dish it out, but you can't take it?

You act as if thats the only way one can get themselves out of poverty and force us to make a choice accordingly. Thats called a false dilema logical fallacy. You also make an appeal to fear and emotions when you made this senario. And now you use the strawman fallacy where instead of addressing the points I've brought up about the logic of your example you attack me. Thats got to be the most logical fallacies I've seen used ever.


Thanks for providing us with your tired and useless rhetoric. Take the challenge and prove me wrong or move along to a thread with subject matter you might be a bit wiser and more knowlegeble with. Adress the issue and stop beating around the bush and trying to change the subject. I doubt that you are able to!

You act as if thats the only way one can get themselves out of poverty and force us to make a choice accordingly. Thats called a false dilema logical fallacy. You also make an appeal to fear and emotions when you made this senario. And now you use the strawman fallacy where instead of addressing the points I've brought up about the logic of your example you attack me. Thats got to be the most logical fallacies I've seen used ever.


Thanks for providing us with your tired and useless rhetoric. Take the challenge and prove me wrong or move along to a thread with subject matter you might be a bit wiser and more knowlegeble with. Adress the issue and stop beating around the bush and trying to change the subject. I doubt that you are able to!

No problem.



I do what I can. I don't, however, make 20 dollars an hour and can't afford to donate cash in any real amount on a DAILY basis. And if being a Christian was so important in how you donate, how is it that you assume charities - presumably including Christian ones - are ineffective, inept, corrupt or whatever else? Is it a case of you being more truly Christian than everyone else or what?


Charities are not ineffective, inept nor corrupt. They simply give help with the donations they receive. And there is never enough donations to cover the needs.

You act as if thats the only way one can get themselves out of poverty and force us to make a choice accordingly. Thats called a false dilema logical fallacy. You also make an appeal to fear and emotions when you made this senario. And now you use the strawman fallacy where instead of addressing the points I've brought up about the logic of your example you attack me. Thats got to be the most logical fallacies I've seen used ever.

Thanks for providing us with your tired and useless rhetoric. Take the challenge and prove me wrong or move along to a thread with subject matter you might be a bit wiser and more knowlegeble with. Adress the issue and stop beating around the bush and trying to change the subject. I doubt that you are able to!

Charities are not ineffective, inept nor corrupt. They simply give help with the donations they receive. And there is never enough donations to cover the needs.

In regards to taxation, the FORCED method of 'charity' Lyric mentions, well, I might be able to donate more if I didn't have to pay so much taxes and so might everyone else. It's exactly this [generally mistaken] belief that welfare works and charity doesn't, which compells people to pay their taxes and be done with it - ignoring the homeless in their daily lives since they feel that by filing taxes they have already done their part.

And I have to admit that of the two, I trust a Christian charity to do good more than I do the federal government.

The usual hate rhetoric used by the haves to stomp on, deprive, demoralize and subdue the have-nots. Pssst, it doesn't work. Try something else!

Don't equate the specific with the general. It makes a moron of you, and a pissed off puppy with me.

Thanks for providing us with your tired and useless rhetoric. Take the challenge and prove me wrong or move along to a thread with subject matter you might be a bit wiser and more knowlegeble with. Adress the issue and stop beating around the bush and trying to change the subject. I doubt that you are able to!

How is that rhetoric. You provided an arguement full of logical fallacies and I'm supposed to answer it? You have yet to address any of the logical fallacies I have pointed out in your arguement and yet I'm the one trying to change the subject? I haven't even moved on to another part of this discussion yet I've been waiting to see if you can refute the fallacies. The main fallacy being the false dilema fallacy where you have a set amount of things I can do as if they are the only options I have when in fact they are not. You make the situation this hopeless horrible thing in an attempt to appeal to fear thinking that well that option is so bad that your view has to be right. Except the option you have presented as mentioned before is not the only way to go about the situation.

Heh yes, he's a hypocrite because he didn't voluntarily become a homeless man for six months and attempt to drain money from charities designed to help those who really do need it? because some random guy on the internet told him he ought to do it?

I don't think so.

Your 'argument,' if you could call it that, had many fallacies and pointing them out is not "backing out" and certainly not being a hypocrite. I could "dare" you to do all kinds of things, its not an argument, and your lack of ability or desire to follow through with my command would only prove you have sensibility.

Had he actually done this he would have strained a system designed to help people who are in need, just because of some online pissing contest. What a great way to help your fellow man, by actually incouraging charity scamming.


Nope! He would just donate it again! This was simply to prove a point of how charities work. A point you and others apparentely don't understand or refuse to accept because it might cost you a few dollars out of your paychecks to work properly (general welfare). As long as nothing too bad ever happens to you, life is peachy. Ignorance is bliss as well!


According to people with your views, it's the EMPLOYEES fault for losing their job due to layoffs, outsourcing, sickness, pregnancy or whatever else might happen. Tough luck! Too bad! Try again! Oh well! I'm sure glad it didn't happen to me! I'm sorry to hear that (not really)! Who cares! Well you must have done something wrong! You were obviously in the wrong field. Don't feel bad, things can only get better! Hey, don't worry, be happy! :rolleyes:

Don't ever fucking assume to know who I am or what I will do. I've helped plenty of people and done tons of communtiy service. IF YOU EVER MAKE A GENERALIZATION ABOUT ME AGAIN LIKE THIS THEN YOUR GOING ON FUCKING IGNORE YOU PATRONIZING LITTLE TWIT.

You need to calm down, NOW. Any further attacks will give you an official warning, so I suggest you cool it.

Everyone else, this is just a reminder for you to keep it civil and knock off the personal attacks. Stick with the debate, and don't result to insulting someone else just because they have a different opinion. I don't want to have to hand out official warnings if this gets ugly.

Don't equate the specific with the general. It makes a moron of you, and a pissed off puppy with me.


I see you are resorting to the usual namecalling. When all else fails.....

Sorry to see that you lack an extensive vocabulary to defend your positions. That is usually the case with many. Good day!

How is that rhetoric. You provided an arguement full of logical fallacies and I'm supposed to answer it? You have yet to address any of the logical fallacies I have pointed out in your arguement and yet I'm the one trying to change the subject? I haven't even moved on to another part of this discussion yet I've been waiting to see if you can refute the fallacies. The main fallacy being the false dilema fallacy where you have a set amount of things I can do as if they are the only options I have when in fact they are not. You make the situation this hopeless horrible thing in an attempt to appeal to fear thinking that well that option is so bad that your view has to be right. Except the option you have presented as mentioned before is not the only way to go about the situation.


That is the scenario I have set up for you! And that is the same scenario many people have to work with in the real world. But apparently they are too harsh and unfair for you, who cares about anyone else! The only option you had was to accept it or reject it. No customizing to your liking was an available option! Still want to participate and prove me wrong?

Nope! He would just donate it again!

Say again?

This was simply to prove a point of how charities work. A point you and others apparentely don't understand or refuse to accept because it might cost you a few dollars out of your paychecks to work properly (general welfare). As long as nothing too bad ever happens to you, life is peachy. Ignorance is bliss as well!

I don't particularly appreciate your argument that I must be ignorant and that I have my political beliefs only because they personally benefit me financially.

They don't, as a matter of fact - I'm one of those 'poor people', you know, who don't make 20 dollars an hour or consider the tax bite to be a "few" dollars.


According to people with your views, it's the EMPLOYEES fault for losing their job due to layoffs, outsourcing, sickness, pregnancy or whatever else might happen.

No, it's the employees responsibility to look after his own employment.

Laid off? Sucks. Tough luck. Too bad. TRY AGAIN. That's how life works. If you don't succeed, try again. There are 25 million businesses in this country. What's the excuse for lying down after falling off the horse? None.

And "people with your views" assume that anyone who is homeless lost their job due to layoffs, outsourcing (OH NO! DAMN FURRENERS TAKIN OUR JOBS11!!), sickness and pregnancy. Apparently there are no other kinds of unemployment?


Tough luck! Too bad! Try again! Oh well! I'm sure glad it didn't happen to me! I'm sorry to hear that (not really)! Who cares! Well you must have done something wrong! You were obviously in the wrong field. Don't feel bad, things can only get better! Hey, don't worry, be happy! :rolleyes:

Okay, and the better message is what? Don't bother trying again - Government will take care of you? Yeah, all you have to do is keep paying taxes, and they will gladly support you so that you can continue to pay taxes!?

I see you are resorting to the usual namecalling. When all else fails.....

Sorry to see that you lack an extensive vocabulary to defend your positions. That is usually the case with many. Good day!

What refutation of my postions have you proffered?

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?

It doesn't need to at the federal level. This is something that can be handled at the state government level.

Say again?


YES! After he has completed and failed the test, he will return all money to their respective charities! Got it yet?



I don't particularly appreciate your argument that I must be ignorant and that I have my political beliefs only because they personally benefit me financially.

They don't, as a matter of fact - I'm one of those 'poor people', you know, who don't make 20 dollars an hour or consider the tax bite to be a "few" dollars.


Well I don't particularly appreciate yours and others arguments that I must be ignorent and that I have my political beliefs only because they benefit everyone financially.


No, it's the employees responsibility to look after his own employment.


Agreed!


Laid off? Sucks. Tough luck. Too bad. TRY AGAIN. That's how life works. If you don't succeed, try again. There are 25 million businesses in this country. What's the excuse for lying down after falling off the horse? None.


That's how life works. You don't say? There are 25 million businesses (according to your figures), but only 50,000 job openings (according to my figures), to employ 13 million jobless people (according to the U.S. governments figures), or roughly 5%.

And "people with your views" assume that anyone who is homeless lost their job due to layoffs, outsourcing (OH NO! DAMN FURRENERS TAKIN OUR JOBS11!!), sickness and pregnancy. Apparently there are no other kinds of unemployment?


Of course, there are other types of unemployment. Did you want me to list all that came to mind? The result is the same: The person would still be UNEMPLOYED, right?



Okay, and the better message is what? Don't bother trying again - Government will take care of you? Yeah, all you have to do is keep paying taxes, and they will gladly support you so that you can continue to pay taxes!?


Of course people should keep trying. But welfare was created as a safety net for that very reason. Just like Social Security is a safety net for the elderly. And neither should change, but both need increased spending. Free Healthcare and Education for all should be added to this list as well. That is absolutely the way to go, for me anyway.


Regardless of our opposing views, we can still vote and only hope that we get someone that closely resembles most of our views. We win some, we lose most!

You prove to me that private charities will recieve enough donations if welfare was abolished to make sure none who are starving or suffering from easily treatable diseases, probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life, get enough help, and i'll agree. However, as right wingers keep stressing - people are naturally greedy. It seems a little strange to me why right wingers constantly praise greed/selfishness and look down upon altruism, yet think people would donate a large proportion of the money they save through tax cuts to charity. It doesn't make sense by their logic, nor by empirical evidence - poor people give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich. Maybe deep down they know that when they say "people are naturally greedy", they mean "I'm naturally greedy", and plain don't want to help others but want other people to do it.

You prove to me that private charities will recieve enough donations if welfare was abolished to make sure none who are starving or suffering from easily treatable diseases, probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life, get enough help, and i'll agree. However, as right wingers keep stressing - people are naturally greedy. It seems a little strange to me why right wingers constantly praise greed/selfishness and look down upon altruism, yet think people would donate a large proportion of the money they save through tax cuts to charity. It doesn't make sense by their logic, nor by empirical evidence - poor people give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich. Maybe deep down they know that when they say "people are naturally greedy", they mean "I'm naturally greedy", and plain don't want to help others but want other people to do it.


Hear, hear! I second that. Proof anyone?

That being said, I do not think the government should provide any welfare.

And those who are poor due to a medical comdition? Where the cost of the drugs themselves are over 1200.00 a month? Those who CANNOT put in a full day's work? If your response is 'Oh well', I hope you never are in that situation.

Of course people should keep trying. But welfare was created as a safety net for that very reason. Just like Social Security is a safety net for the elderly. And neither should change, but both need increased spending. Free Healthcare and Education for all should be added to this list as well. That is absolutely the way to go, for me anyway.


I could grudgingly accept that as a temporary thing but only if the net balance was the same or less than it is now currently. I suppose cutting back on military spending and taxation overall could help if we got the right people in to streamline government overhead a lot.


Regardless of our opposing views, we can still vote and only hope that we get someone that closely resembles most of our views. We win some, we lose most!

Yeah, I still think writing myself in is the best choice. :D

You prove to me that private charities will recieve enough donations if welfare was abolished to make sure none who are starving or suffering from easily treatable diseases, probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life, get enough help, and i'll agree.

That's a rather loaded statement. First I note the "probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life" qualifier designed to portray the classic Marxist struggle. Second there's the assumption that starvation is a major problem in the US in the first place. What America calls "food insecure" is not what African nations call "starvation." Lastly there's the hidden admittance that you yourself will not donate and that your income must be extracted by force of government in order to help those poor, disadvantaged proletariats, and therefore the assumption that the same is true of everyone else. Well if so, why not instead of making me prove the unprovable, incouraging donation itself and help MAKE it a reality? Forget abolishing welfare - incourage donation, not just to private charities, but person to person!

However, as right wingers keep stressing - people are naturally greedy. It seems a little strange to me why right wingers constantly praise greed/selfishness and look down upon altruism,

This is a strawman. People ARE naturally greedy, yet few if anyone looks down upon altruism. It just necessarily comes at a secondary priority to selfishness. One can't very well help others if one can't help oneself. Ever receive charity from a homeless man? Didn't think so. And as well, "altruism" is not "welfare" nor is it "taxation." To donate is to be altruistic, to fork over your cash to the government is at best compliance and at worst theft.

yet think people would donate a large proportion of the money they save through tax cuts to charity.

If they have more money to spend, they will be more willing to part with it. If they have less, AND if they assume as we are taught that government tax dollars will take care of all the problems, they will be less likely to donate.

empirical evidence - poor people give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich.

Do you have a source for this evidence, or is that just an assumption you've pulled somewhere out of the dark recesses of ass space?

Maybe deep down they know that when they say "people are naturally greedy", they mean "I'm naturally greedy", and plain don't want to help others but want other people to do it.

Interesting psychological analysis, but I could just as easily reverse that around to the authoritarians who are against private charity, private donations, private anything and who feel that they themselves must be taxed in order for good to be done with their income. In any case, when I say people are naturally greedy, I DO mean I am as well, because, gasp, I'm a member of the group "people." Your mistake and the mistake of most neo-leftists is the faux moral high ground wherein apparently only communists and hardline socialists are truly altruistic since they want to force everyone to follow their command-economics.

The New York state constitution says that the state must provide for the poor. Your state constitution might say the same. Check it out.

I could grudgingly accept that as a temporary thing but only if the net balance was the same or less than it is now currently. I suppose cutting back on military spending and taxation overall could help if we got the right people in to streamline government overhead a lot.


It would be nice if we would all be willing to meet halfway. However, finding the middle ground is a lot harder than it looks. But it's a start!



Yeah, I still think writing myself in is the best choice. :D [/QUOTE]


I've already done that and failed. :( Better luck to you! :D


Interesting psychological analysis, but I could just as easily reverse that around to the authoritarians who are against private charity, private donations, private anything and who feel that they themselves must be taxed in order for good to be done with their income. In any case, when I say people are naturally greedy, I DO mean I am as well, because, gasp, I'm a member of the group "people." Your mistake and the mistake of most neo-leftists is the faux moral high ground wherein apparently only communists and hardline socialists are truly altruistic since they want to force everyone to follow their command-economics.[/QUOTE]


This does not just fit us Authoritarians, but any Party out there wants control of certain areas of government, be it social or fiscal. This even applies to Libertarians and Anarchists. ;)

I say no. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the government must provide for the general welfare. That's right, nowhere.

Why should the government help the poor? Why should people be forced to help the poor? Personally, I hate the income tax, but that's another story for another day.

In a free-market society, private charity would take the place of welfare. That's bad? No, I wouldn't say so. Private charity wouldn't have all of the bureaucratic red tape that welfare does; thus, less money is lost and more money goes directly to the poor. Those people that wanted to keep their money, could; that's their choice.

However, all of those people that like to cry about welfare being necessary and how capitalism sucks could still donate! They could directly help that poor guy down the street!

Oh well, what do you think?
it shouldn't be a choice: it is the responsibility of all society to help those who need it, be it welfare or healthcare, based on moral standing... not just what the almighty constitution says (because everyone knows thats the basis of all things just and true :rolleyes: ;) )

That's a rather loaded statement. First I note the "probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life" qualifier designed to portray the classic Marxist struggle. Second there's the assumption that starvation is a major problem in the US in the first place. What America calls "food insecure" is not what African nations call "starvation." Lastly there's the hidden admittance that you yourself will not donate and that your income must be extracted by force of government in order to help those poor, disadvantaged proletariats, and therefore the assumption that the same is true of everyone else. Well if so, why not instead of making me prove the unprovable, incouraging donation itself and help MAKE it a reality? Forget abolishing welfare - incourage donation, not just to private charities, but person to person!

Until enough public money is invested to make perfect social mobility a reality, such as in Sweden, I will assume that many poor people are in their position because they started out disadvantaged. America itself has a fairly poor rate of social mobility and you're still likely to stay in the class position you were born into. Unless you want to make out that the working class are genetically inferiour, then this is clearly not meritocratic.

Of course very few Americans are starving now - precisely because of the welfare system. If you removed that, regardless of what you might think, there would be nowhere near enough charity to go round and at least some people would either starve or turn to crime in order to survive. Don't tell me "They'd all get off their lazy asses and get jobs!". There aren't enough jobs to go around, and besides - some people are physically unable to work either due to their own or family members disabilities.

I see no hidden admittance that I would not donate. I know that I would give at least as much tax as I would have paid. I give money to charity now anyway. The problem is that a lot of people probably wouldn't donate, or at least donate nowhere near as much as they would have paid in taxes.



This is a strawman. People ARE naturally greedy, yet few if anyone looks down upon altruism. It just necessarily comes at a secondary priority to selfishness. One can't very well help others if one can't help oneself. Ever receive charity from a homeless man? Didn't think so. And as well, "altruism" is not "welfare" nor is it "taxation." To donate is to be altruistic, to fork over your cash to the government is at best compliance and at worst theft.


I've seen some right wingers criticising ANY form of help to the poor - since it apparently breeds laziness. Therefore, they look down on altruism and prefer people not to help those less fortunate, even when it comes to charity. I never claimed paying taxes was altruism - it's simply a duty. The majority of tax frauds, especially those who can easily afford tax, are probably horrible and selfish individuals, but that doesn't imply people who pay taxes are altruistic. However, if welfare were abolished then it wouldn't be a case of duty any more, it would be a case of going above and beyond the call of duty to help others. Personally I think it is a duty to at least stop people dying, bearing in mind my above point about not everyone having the same chances. Therefore, in my mind it is perfectly moral to impose a duty on people to give money so that the state can at least stop innocent people, especially the children of underprivilaged families - a lot, if not most, poor have children to support - from dying. If you don't like it, you can go and live in some ultra capitalist country and revel in the crippling crime rates and enjoy seeing those lazy, subhuman poor dying everywhere.


If they have more money to spend, they will be more willing to part with it. If they have less, AND if they assume as we are taught that government tax dollars will take care of all the problems, they will be less likely to donate.

Do you have a source for this evidence, or is that just an assumption you've pulled somewhere out of the dark recesses of ass space?


More money = more charity is a common assumption, but in my experience it just doesn't work that way. Wealth corrupts and absolute wealth corrupts absolutely. Or something. Anyway, I have no direct source, although I swear I read something about this years ago, so will have to rely on anecdotal evidence. Firstly, whenever I got given tips on my paper round when I was a kid, it was always the families from the poorer areas who gave more. Not charity really, but after the same pattern showing itself after three years, during which my route changed a few times, it gave me reason to believe the middle classes are in general are less generous in general - after all, that may have being one of the ways they got rich in the first place.

Secondly, when I was collecting money door to door for polysystic kidney research (My father and brother have it. Very recently I found I have it too - it's hereditry and I got unlucky ), again, the poorer areas were the areas which donated more. On my own road, which is fairly affluent, someone even had the nerve to put a penny in the envelope for donations and hand it in, and one person laughed in my face at the door at the suggestion they might give money to charity.

Thirdly, when visiting Greece, a friend told me that him and his family were looking for a restaurant. After looking for ages with no luck, they found a place with tables and chairs outdoors next to a small building, assumed it a cheap restaurant, so sat down and waited to be served. The owner approached them and apologetically told them they didn't have a big range of food to choose from. My friend said it didn't matter, they were just all starving, and would eat anything. They were served plenty of filling and delicious traditional Greek food. After eating, my friend asked for a bill, whose request was met with bewilderment. "No, you don't understand." the owner said "We live here." It turns out they had accidently sat down in a poor peasant families garden, who had freely offered a big meal despite the fact they had little themselves. Imagine sitting down on the porch of a well to do person and recieving the same response - not very likely.

I understand all these are anecdotal examples and only the second is concerned with actual charity, but the other two at least give a little evidence that the poor are more willing to give up their money for others than the rich - if you have little, possessions aren't as important to you and you will be more free with them. If you have a lot but not unlimited money, possessions are more important. Bill Gates on the other hand gives a lot of money to charity, as do many multi millionaires - probably because many who have THAT much are less likely to see it as important as those who have a lot, but not unlimited. I would say that upper middle to lower upper classes are generally the least generous of all.



Interesting psychological analysis, but I could just as easily reverse that around to the authoritarians who are against private charity, private donations, private anything and who feel that they themselves must be taxed in order for good to be done with their income. In any case, when I say people are naturally greedy, I DO mean I am as well, because, gasp, I'm a member of the group "people." Your mistake and the mistake of most neo-leftists is the faux moral high ground wherein apparently only communists and hardline socialists are truly altruistic since they want to force everyone to follow their command-economics.

I'm not trying to take the moral high ground. If you were suggesting that help of all kind is wrong because the poor had an equal chance of succeeding and screwed up, then i'd be pretty much entitled to since you would be making false assumptions to legitimise your own selfishness. However, i'm merely pointing out that relying on charity is never going to work if you want to build a fair society - tax cuts might lead to some increase in chairtable donations, but not the amount you assume by far.

The Constitution of the United States of America makes congress responsible for the general welfare of the people .

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

I've BEEN on the edge of survival. Survival isn't preety. You back any animal into a corner, and leave it no way out, and nothing left to lose, and you see what it does to you. same principle applies.

So has my family. We were so down that it came to the point where we had to choose between buying bread and milk once a week. And this is the United Kingdom, a comparatively socialist country. What did the government do to help? Gave us a bill for all the taxes we couldn't pay over the last few years (which is still being paid off, mind, 10 years later). No welfare of any type. No charities came along to help. There was no family income aside from a few quid here and there from odd jobs.

We now have a family income of just over £60,000 (which is roughly $100,000 I believe). Three cars, satellite TV, more computers and gadgets than you could shake Bill Gates at, and nobody's knocking on the door every day to try and drag us out and throw us onto the streets. And we did it alone, with no help from anybody. And do you know what? I hate the idea of welfare. I hate the idea of charity. We all do. It's called survival of the fittest -- we are fit, we survived. You are fit, you survived. Those who starve, don't. It's how humans evolved to the point we are at now. It's how all animals evolved to the point they are at. What you people are proposing is an end to evolution. I want no part of that. It's not heartless, it's not selfish, it's nature, and it works. If those starving want to try and take my money or food to survive, let them try. If they can get it, they earned it. But I've spent large sums of money to make sure that it's extremely difficult for them to do so.

So has my family. We were so down that it came to the point where we had to choose between buying bread and milk once a week. And this is the United Kingdom, a comparatively socialist country. What did the government do to help? Gave us a bill for all the taxes we couldn't pay over the last few years (which is still being paid off, mind, 10 years later). No welfare of any type. No charities came along to help. There was no family income aside from a few quid here and there from odd jobs.

We now have a family income of just over £60,000 (which is roughly $100,000 I believe). Three cars, satellite TV, more computers and gadgets than you could shake Bill Gates at, and nobody's knocking on the door every day to try and drag us out and throw us onto the streets. And we did it alone, with no help from anybody. And do you know what? I hate the idea of welfare. I hate the idea of charity. We all do. It's called survival of the fittest -- we are fit, we survived. You are fit, you survived. Those who starve, don't. It's how humans evolved to the point we are at now. It's how all animals evolved to the point they are at. What you people are proposing is an end to evolution. I want no part of that. It's not heartless, it's not selfish, it's nature, and it works. If those starving want to try and take my money or food to survive, let them try. If they can get it, they earned it. But I've spent large sums of money to make sure that it's extremely difficult for them to do so.
sounds like you're just bitter that welfare wasn't there to help you when you needed it. it also sounds like a completely uncaring, discompassionate standpoint that i hate.

personally i don't think its just or fair to let those who can't or don't survive in the the 'survival of the fittest', fall down or starve. society has brought us beyond such animalistic tendancies - through society and organisation, and government, survival of the fittest need no longer be the case - where all can survive, grow, and 'win'. plus, you ever stopped to think that some people fall or need help not entirely due to their own actions or their own fault? where would the justice be then if they got to a point where they need help by no fault of their own, and yet are refused it in the name of this outmoded idea of survival of the fittest?

we used to pay for the families' food from the child support as we were 'earning too much' to qualify for any other kind of benefit. problem is, if you're earning 50 grand a year and 60 grand goes straight out again in debts, you're still just as broke as someone who earns a hundered quid a week, who would qualify for welfare. but thanks to that welfare we survived.

and also don't forget it sounds like you were hard done by by the tory government starving off the welfare state (not to mention fucking up the economy with recessions). don't be crazy and affiliate yourself with a party who would only serve to do the same again.

i hate your viewpoint.

I haven't read the thread yet, but I will offer my two cents (or two pence :) )

Does the government have an obligation, No.

To private citizens do, Yes.

My humble libertarian viewpoint.

Does the government have an obligation, No.

To private citizens do, Yes.

My humble libertarian viewpoint.

So it's your position that there are obligations that the people have that the government doesn't? What's the reasoning here?

Are there other such obligations, or is it just conveniently this one?

sounds like you're just bitter that welfare wasn't there to help you when you needed it. it also sounds like a completely uncaring, discompassionate standpoint that i hate.

I never have agreed with it. The fact that it fails only compounds the problem.

personally i don't think its just or fair to let those who can't or don't survive in the the 'survival of the fittest', fall down or starve.

Really? LIFE ISN'T FAIR. I earn every penny I have, and I don't think it's particularly fair that I have to give it away to someone who is very likely sitting around feeling sorry for himself.

society has brought us beyond such animalistic tendancies - through society and organisation, and government, survival of the fittest need no longer be the case - where all can survive, grow, and 'win'.

Just because we CAN, doesn't mean we SHOULD. You people keep saying that we CAN help the poor, and that we SHOULD help the poor, but nobody says WHY.

Let's cover some basic facts of life. ALL THINGS DIE. Whether they starve to death, or die whilst slumbering in the back of their new Rolls Royce, they all DIE. You will DIE, I will DIE, the poor will DIE. Nothing you or I can do will ever stop that from happening. Why, then, is everyone so fussed about people dying from starvation? Because they didn't get an extra 10-20 years worth of suffering?

Besides, we have not gone 'beyond' animalistic tendencies. Everything we do is motivated by instincts, we have just made them more complicated as the years go by. You eat because you are compelled to eat. You talk to other humans because humans are by nature a social species, just like dogs and other such creatures. You comb your hair in the morning because you aim to look good for the opposite sex, without even realising it. You go to work because you are instinctual mandated to survive, and working is the new hunting. National borders exist because we are a territorial species. Weapons of mass destruction exist because we are an aggressive species. We need the police for this reason as well. Do not mistake more advanced tools and systems for 'behavioural sophistication'.

plus, you ever stopped to think that some people fall or need help not entirely due to their own actions or their own fault? where would the justice be then if they got to a point where they need help by no fault of their own, and yet are refused it in the name of this outmoded idea of survival of the fittest?

Where is the justice for the antelope when a lion rips its throat out? It's not the antelope's fault that the lion needs food, so why should it suffer? Where is the justice for the thousands upon thousands of insects that you have stamped on (either deliberately or unknowingly) over the course of your existence? They're not big enough to defend themselves or fight back, why should they be crushed? Where is the justice for the cow that you tear to pieces so that you can have an unnecessarily large portion of meat in your weekly diet? It's not like the cow can escape the humans, so it's not the cow's fault it's being eaten.

Why is it that humans, a species which often suggests to itself that it is nothing more than a virus, are any more worthy of protection against the fact that life is unfair than any other species?

There is no such thing as 'no fault of your own'. If you can't find a job, you're not looking hard enough -- there are ALWAYS job vacancies, of some type, somewhere. The United Kingdom actually has a labour shortage in several industries, which aren't being filled so they are having to bring in immigrants.

we used to pay for the families' food from the child support as we were 'earning too much' to qualify for any other kind of benefit. problem is, if you're earning 50 grand a year and 60 grand goes straight out again in debts, you're still just as broke as someone who earns a hundred quid a week, who would qualify for welfare. but thanks to that welfare we survived.

Quite frankly, if you can manage to struggle on 50 grand a year, you're spending too much on luxuries and not budgeting well enough. We're talking about survival here, you can do that on bread and water in a wooden hut if you're that broke.

and also don't forget it sounds like you were hard done by by the tory government starving off the welfare state (not to mention fucking up the economy with recessions). don't be crazy and affiliate yourself with a party who would only serve to do the same again.

We were hard done by another member of the public ripping us off and lumbering us with massive debts and tax bills. Not our fault, but I don't go around crying about how nobody should have any responsibilities for their own survival.

And I have no intention of voting for the Conservative Party. I would vote for anarchy, but there isn't such a party standing in our constituency, so I have to forgo the privilege.

i hate your viewpoint.

And I hate anybody looking to put the human race's future in jeopardy.

sorry i'm actually at WORK right now (seeing how you like to capitalise things so much), and i work a good 12 hour day. my parents work longer, 14 or 16 hour days. so before you label me as a lazy hippie, know that i'm not. also, a quick skim over your reply and you actually had me laughing :p
*wipes tears from eyes*

sorry i'm actually at WORK right now (seeing how you like to capitalise things so much), and i work a good 12 hour day. my parents work longer, 14 or 16 hour days. so before you label me as a lazy hippie, know that i'm not. also, a quick skim over your reply and you actually had me laughing :p
*wipes tears from eyes*

Excellent. Can't argue, insult instead. I'll be sure to avoid talking to you in the future, you're obviously incapable of intelligent discussion.

I hate the idea of welfare. I hate the idea of charity. We all do. It's called survival of the fittest -- we are fit, we survived. You are fit, you survived. Those who starve, don't. It's how humans evolved to the point we are at now. It's how all animals evolved to the point they are at. What you people are proposing is an end to evolution. I want no part of that. It's not heartless, it's not selfish, it's nature, and it works. If those starving want to try and take my money or food to survive, let them try. If they can get it, they earned it. But I've spent large sums of money to make sure that it's extremely difficult for them to do so.

No - YOU hate the idea of charity. Not everyone is as morally bankrupt as yourself.

You have an incredibly simplistic and confused view of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean "Inferior individuals die off". It simply means those who are most adapted to their current enviroment tend to be more successful in reproducing. Human society is an unnatural enviroment, with massive variation on what makes you successful - different societies and different periods of history see different traits of humans as desirable. Indeed, Darwin himself strongly criticised those who used his ideas for their own warped political views. After all, social animals which take responsiblity for their whole pack are generally far more intelligent than independent animals. That's why dogs are more intelligent than cats.

If anything, a pure capitalist state would make humans degenerate. Since pure capitalism inevitably leads to massive inequality of opportunity, people who were intelligent and industrious but came from a poor backgrounds would not succeed, and likely die at an early age from disease, harming the gene pool. On the other hand, lazy and stupid people from a rich background would succeed, and again harm the gene pool.

Excellent. Can't argue, insult instead. I'll be sure to avoid talking to you in the future, you're obviously incapable of intelligent discussion.
no time to argue now. i'll have time later. :rolleyes:
which is actually what i said should you bother to read it


edit: but then again i don't particularly care what you have to say, or anyone for that matter, so avoid me if you wish - there's an ignore list you can add me to *shrugs*

Let's cover some basic facts of life. ALL THINGS DIE. Whether they starve to death, or die whilst slumbering in the back of their new Rolls Royce, they all DIE. You will DIE, I will DIE, the poor will DIE. Nothing you or I can do will ever stop that from happening. Why, then, is everyone so fussed about people dying from starvation? Because they didn't get an extra 10-20 years worth of suffering?

If that is how we should view the world, why should we care about your rights to property at all?

Besides, we have not gone 'beyond' animalistic tendencies...


Alright, but what does that mean? You can't assert anything beyond 'we are still a lot like animals.' Anything more would be an appeal to nature fallacy.

Why is it that humans, a species which often suggests to itself that it is nothing more than a virus, are any more worthy of protection against the fact that life is unfair than any other species?

So why should we bother to make safe your property? If the government can take something from you, even if it is unjust, then you seem to purport that you have no recourse.

You have gone so far to establish your sociopathic lack of sympathy that you have talked your way out of any reason to respect your rights.

No - YOU hate the idea of charity. Not everyone is as morally bankrupt as yourself.

By, 'we all', I meant, my family. And morality is a subjective issue.

You have an incredibly simplistic and confused view of evolution. "Survival of the fittest" does not mean "Inferior individuals die off".

In this case, yes it does, unless you have an alternative term for them. If they can't find their own food, legally or illegally, they die of starvation.

Indeed, Darwin himself strongly criticised those who used his ideas for their own warped political views. After all, social animals which take responsiblity for their whole pack are generally far more intelligent than independent animals. That's why dogs are more intelligent than cats.

Quite so. And I ensure that I help everyone in my family, and my closest friends, whenever I can. Mr. Jones at #58 Generic Drive isn't in my 'pack', so to speak.

Since human society is unnatural, you can't apply natural laws to it.

The ego of humanity showing through yet again. Humans are perfectly 'natural', unless you're religious, in which case this discussion should probably stop.

If anything, a pure capitalist state would make humans degenerate. Since pure capitalism inevitably leads to massive inequality of opportunity, people who were intelligent and industrious but came from a poor backgrounds would not succeed, and likely die at an early age from disease, harming the gene pool. On the other hand, lazy and stupid people from a rich background would succeed, and again harm the gene pool.

Even if that were true, and not simply focused entirely on hereditary wealth, if that is the path that humanity chose to take, then that is how humanity would end. I'd much rather we didn't end it prematurely and on purpose, though.

If that is how we should view the world, why should we care about your rights to property at all?

You shouldn't. You should care about YOUR property.

Alright, but what does that mean? You can't assert anything beyond 'we are still a lot like animals.' Anything more would be an appeal to nature fallacy.

It wasn't me who asserted that we HAD, I was simply pointing out that we haven't. That's a different subject entirely; humanity's ego simply irritates me.

So why should we bother to make safe your property? If the government can take something from you, even if it is unjust, then you seem to purport that you have no recourse.

That's exactly the point. It should be up to ME to ensure my property is safe, it should be up to ME to ensure that I have enough food to survive. It's my problem, and I should deal with it. Besides which, I don't trust a police force which has a 30 minute response time, so quite obviously my safety IS in my own hands.

You have gone so far to establish your sociopathic lack of sympathy that you have talked your way out of any reason to respect your rights.

I've not once said I have no sympathy. I'm just saying that it isn't my responsibility. Just like it's not your responsibility to make sure I have enough food. And I quite clearly have no rights already -- the government is making sure of that. So far in the United Kingdom I am not allowed to be in charge of my own destiny, I'm not allowed to keep what I earn, I'm not allowed to decide who I should help, I'm not allowed to defend myself, my family or my property from other people looking to do them harm, and, what do you know, they're even banning words.

no time to argue now. i'll have time later.
which is actually what i said should you bother to read it


Interesting. The 'laughter' part doesn't really seem to have much of a bearing on how much time you have.

I haven't read the thread yet, but I will offer my two cents (or two pence :) )

Does the government have an obligation, No.

To private citizens do, Yes.

My humble libertarian viewpoint.

Having skimmed the thread, I can tell you yours seems to have been the reasonable post in the wilderness.

I didn't mind debating with her before but she crossed the line when she made a statement about me without even knowing who I am or what I am like.


Yeah? Well NOW you know what it feels like to me when YOU and others on this Forum make assumptions about ME when you don't know what I am like. tit-for-tat. Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it, buddy?

Yeah? Well NOW you know what it feels like to me when YOU and others on this Forum make assumptions about ME when you don't know what I am like. tit-for-tat. Shoe don't feel so good on the other foot, does it, buddy?
Why should we feel obligated to acord you any favor when you are unwilling to do the same?

Dont worry I know better then to ask you to be the better person ... last time you showed you were either incapable or unwilling to do such so no worries I guess we will have to be this time.

You have a really shitty attitude. There are so many people in the world that are worse off than you right now, and all you can do is scream, "what about ME ME ME!!!!".

It's clear why you don't believe in charity. In the odd event that you were ever sucessful, you would probably flaunt your wealth and never give a penny to those who were less fortunate. You assume, therefore, that everyone holds themselves to your own poor standards.

Indeed, your whole reason for hating repubilcans seems to be that you believe that they have caused you own personal misery, and that under the democrats you will personally do better. Your seem to care little or nothing about others at all. I suppose, in some ways, that makes you a libertarian. But idelogically, you are certainly not a left winger.

You are really going to piss me the fuck off!! Do you know what it is like to be suffering from MOTHERFUCKING DEPRESSION!?!?!?!
I'll give you a goddamn hint...when you are suffering from depression, you tend to stop caring about everything, because you are so consumed with YOUR OWN PROBLEMS.

I am a victim of depression, goddamn you, and don't you fucking DARE assume anything about my character when you don't know me. Fact is...if I ever DID get rich, I would donate every last cent I didn't need, because I don't want to be rich...I have no one to leave it to, anyway. All's I want is to NEVER FUCKING AGAIN have to worry about money, and never fucking again lose nights of sleep fucking worrying about the goddamn future. So you can fucking lay off me now, or so help me, you are going on fucking ignore!!

Learn the fuck about depression, damn you...and learn what effects it has on people!! You obviously have never fucking suffered from depression!

Damn I'm trying so fucking hard to hold back what I really want to say....

That's exactly the point. It should be up to ME to ensure my property is safe, it should be up to ME to ensure that I have enough food to survive. It's my problem, and I should deal with it. Besides which, I don't trust a police force which has a 30 minute response time, so quite obviously my safety IS in my own hands.

Alright it seems to me that you are dropping any kind of moral or political philosophy that would establish a moral imperative or a legal requirement to keep your property safe. If you are doing that then you have absolutely no reason to object to the government taking your property other than you don't like the fact.

So far in the United Kingdom I am not allowed to be in charge of my own destiny, I'm not allowed to keep what I earn, I'm not allowed to decide who I should help, I'm not allowed to defend myself, my family or my property from other people looking to do them harm, and, what do you know, they're even banning words.

/shrug

Then move to the U.S. or run for office. But if you aren't going to accept the most basic principles of classic Liberalism then you probably won't get very far.

Have you walked a mile in the shoes of the person you are critisizing?

How much do you know about them?


Hell do you even know what I have gone through in life?
Probably not you just one of thoes people that use their past to set them apart ... no better then thoes that use their wealth to feel superior to others or any other defining feature
I guaran-fucking-tee you...whatever you or anyone else on these boards has been through, it is nowhere near as bad as what I have been through. No one deserves the shitstorm that has been mine, and turned me into a person with such a shitty attitude. I know I have a shitty attitude. I know it. Shit circumstances in life have caused me to have a shit attitude. Maybe if I ever got treated decently, for once, by life...and things started going my way, for once, maybe I would not have such a shitty attitude!

It's real fucking easy to point fingers at someone else's shitty attitude when things are going great in your own life!!!

snip
and don't you fucking DARE assume anything about my character when you don't know me
<snip>


Wow for someone hating assumptions so much you sure have been making a lot in this thread ... thats what we call hypocrisy

Here we go with the charities bit again. I'll tell you what, why don't you try it for 6 months and then tell us how it went? Let us know what churches and other organizations were willing and able to help you out, with what and how much. Then tell us if it covered all your minimum needs. By the way, just to be fair, here's some rules you must follow: contact these places by walking and talking to them directly, since the poorest of poor do not have transportation, internet, phones or any money to get around. Let's see how long it takes you before you get totally discouraged, tired, disapointed, mad, sad and fed up with the whole ordeal. Let's shoot for $1000.00! That sounds like a fair amount to cover the basics, at least in some areas of the world.

I would also like a list of all the places you contacted. Let's see the ratio of how many actually were able to help you. I'll even start you off with a $50.00 donation. Deal? If so, good luck. If not, then you're just one more hypocrite that's all talk and no action. Happy pleading and begging!





I see you backed out of this in a hurry, as I know you would. So that makes you a hypocrite that's all talk and no action. I provided 2 choices. Thanks for providing us all with your choice.


Of course he did! All elitist people like him who think their droppings don't stink, and think they are better than everyone else...and think they have all the answers...they always back down when challenged to actually TRY being the way some of us have ended up. Because they know their answers are full of shit, and they know that deep down inside, they have no feeling or compassion, whatever, for the plight of those less fortunate.

I guaran-fucking-tee you...whatever you or anyone else on these boards has been through, it is nowhere near as bad as what I have been through. No one deserves the shitstorm that has been mine, and turned me into a person with such a shitty attitude. I know I have a shitty attitude. I know it. Shit circumstances in life have caused me to have a shit attitude. Maybe if I ever got treated decently, for once, by life...and things started going my way, for once, maybe I would not have such a shitty attitude!

It's real fucking easy to point fingers at someone else's shitty attitude when things are going great in your own life!!!

Sheesh more assumptions

And
They are going great in my life because I have MADE them go great
No luck and no one else besides myself made them that way

Governments have no obligation to people other than to safeguard individual liberties. Individual people, however, have an obligation (a moral one, not a legal one) to help their fellow man. Forcing people at gunpoint to be charitable destroys the whole purpose of charity. Welfare is to charity what rape is to sex- both force someone against their will to do a good thing.

You act as if thats the only way one can get themselves out of poverty and force us to make a choice accordingly. Thats called a false dilema logical fallacy. You also make an appeal to fear and emotions when you made this senario. And now you use the strawman fallacy where instead of addressing the points I've brought up about the logic of your example you attack me. Thats got to be the most logical fallacies I've seen used ever.

And your "solutions" most of which are NOT VIABLE for one reason or another, for the desperately poor...they AREN'T logical fallacies and strawmen??

Yep. you have all the answers, don't you, Economic Associates??

Well, then, why don't you adopt me as a project, and see if YOU can improve MY life. Heaven knows I haven't managed to do shit with it!

So let's trade places. You take my circumstances, I'll take yours. You take your knowledge and whatever else you have...I'll take mine. and let's see if YOU can dig yourself out of the kind of hole I'm in??

The usual hate rhetoric used by the haves to stomp on, deprive, demoralize and subdue the have-nots. Pssst, it doesn't work. Try something else!

Exactly. All it does is piss us the FUCK off. but of course, I suspect that was his intention, all along...to piss me off, and kick me when I'm down.

Real fucking man, going around, taking pleasure from kicking people who are down...hope Lacadaemon feels real fucking good about himself!!

And your "solutions" most of which are NOT VIABLE for one reason or another, for the desperately poor...they AREN'T logical fallacies and strawmen??

Yep. you have all the answers, don't you, Economic Associates??

Well, then, why don't you adopt me as a project, and see if YOU can improve MY life. Heaven knows I haven't managed to do shit with it!

So let's trade places. You take my circumstances, I'll take yours. You take your knowledge and whatever else you have...I'll take mine. and let's see if YOU can dig yourself out of the kind of hole I'm in??
Who is to say he would have gotten himself into the situation you are in?
You are wanting him to recover himself from potentialy rock bottom, a situation that because of his work style he may never have gotten into

Personaly I have been there ... I have eaten food out of dumpsers ... I have slept on the streets in january in minnesota

But I have picked myself up out of that I am deffinatly proud of that fact

I probably shouldn't, but I can't help it.



Actually, yes. You seem to enjoy what you consider your right to have a rotten attitude so much, and in every single thread you feel compelled to mention how the world has chewed you up and spat you out, it's your major card politically and I suspect you rather feel it was at least somewhat worth it, having lived your life, just so you get to feel self righteous in your argumentations...



Interesting how someone has to walk a mile in your shoes to judge you, but you get to judge anyone and everyone else whose shoes, presumably, you have no walked in. Maybe this is a case of you can dish it out, but you can't take it?


You know what? Yes, I CAN judge others, because I have been through WORSE than they could ever even imagine, let alone anything they have actually been through. when someone has had as bad a time of it as I have, THEN they can judge me, until then, they...and you...can STFU.

By virtue of having been through worse than they already have...I get the right to judge them.

Exactly. All it does is piss us the FUCK off. but of course, I suspect that was his intention, all along...to piss me off, and kick me when I'm down.

Real fucking man, going around, taking pleasure from kicking people who are down...hope Lacadaemon feels real fucking good about himself!!
Of course cause its all about you :rolleyes: making an assumption that he even cares enough about you to make it about you

Exactly. All it does is piss us the FUCK off. but of course, I suspect that was his intention, all along...to piss me off, and kick me when I'm down.

Real fucking man, going around, taking pleasure from kicking people who are down...hope Lacadaemon feels real fucking good about himself!!


Can I just illustrate quite how good a debater Lyric remains...

In a post of 53 words, Lyric contrives to swear no less than 5 times, an average swear ratio of once per 10.6 words.

Incidentally, how does Lyric contrive to pervade every post with that irately hysterical tone?

Personally, no, in terms of the constitution is behoved to do nothing, but morally, it is compelled to give welfare.

In regards to taxation, the FORCED method of 'charity' Lyric mentions, well, I might be able to donate more if I didn't have to pay so much taxes and so might everyone else. It's exactly this [generally mistaken] belief that welfare works and charity doesn't, which compells people to pay their taxes and be done with it - ignoring the homeless in their daily lives since they feel that by filing taxes they have already done their part.

And I have to admit that of the two, I trust a Christian charity to do good more than I do the federal government.

Yeah...you might be ABLE to. I fucking doubt, seriously that you, or most other people WOULD!! You'd pocket the fucking extra money, and buy yourself some new trinket, and still walk by the poor guy, not giving a fuck.

Most people are selfish assholes.

Yeah...you might be ABLE to. I fucking doubt, seriously that you, or most other people WOULD!! You'd pocket the fucking extra money, and buy yourself some new trinket, and still walk by the poor guy, not giving a fuck.

Most people are selfish assholes.
Yeah, and some people smell really bad!

Can I just illustrate quite how good a debater Lyric remains...

In a post of 53 words, Lyric contrives to swear no less than 5 times, an average swear ratio of once per 10.6 words.


Maybe, but at least he's not pretentious enough to constantly use over-elaborate words in a vain attempt to sound more intelligent than he is ;)

You know what? Yes, I CAN judge others, because I have been through WORSE than they could ever even imagine, let alone anything they have actually been through. when someone has had as bad a time of it as I have, THEN they can judge me, until then, they...and you...can STFU.

By virtue of having been through worse than they already have...I get the right to judge them.

My word, any bets as to when the internet forum coup is likely to be arriving?:p

Incidentally, this does not, in no circumstances, give on the right to judge, it affords one the capacity to interject in the knowledge of events, not conjecture, since few indeed are those capable of judging us, we are, as we are eternally, reminded, equal.

Maybe, but at least he's not pretentious enough to constantly use over-elaborate words in a vain attempt to sound more intelligent than he is ;)

Just making an observation;)

How is that rhetoric. You provided an arguement full of logical fallacies and I'm supposed to answer it? You have yet to address any of the logical fallacies I have pointed out in your arguement and yet I'm the one trying to change the subject? I haven't even moved on to another part of this discussion yet I've been waiting to see if you can refute the fallacies. The main fallacy being the false dilema fallacy where you have a set amount of things I can do as if they are the only options I have when in fact they are not. You make the situation this hopeless horrible thing in an attempt to appeal to fear thinking that well that option is so bad that your view has to be right. Except the option you have presented as mentioned before is not the only way to go about the situation.

No...by limiting your options, he is making the challenge realistic! Because LIMITED OPTIONS is what causes most people to end up destitute. And when you are destitute, your options are even further limited.

By design, force, or circumstances beyond control, the poor often have very limited options. By limiting yours, he was trying to place you in the actual position poor people are in....you...on the other hand, are trying to solve the problems of the poor...from the position you are in, and the options available to you....AND GUESS WHAT?? THAT POSITION IS NOT WHERE THE POOR ARE!!! THE OPTIONS YOU HAVE AVAILABLE TO YOU IN YOUR CURRECNT POSITION...THOSE OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE POOR!!!

But, of course, you are too blinded by your greed and your exalted position to see this.

Nope! He would just donate it again! This was simply to prove a point of how charities work. A point you and others apparentely don't understand or refuse to accept because it might cost you a few dollars out of your paychecks to work properly (general welfare). As long as nothing too bad ever happens to you, life is peachy. Ignorance is bliss as well!


According to people with your views, it's the EMPLOYEES fault for losing their job due to layoffs, outsourcing, sickness, pregnancy or whatever else might happen. Tough luck! Too bad! Try again! Oh well! I'm sure glad it didn't happen to me! I'm sorry to hear that (not really)! Who cares! Well you must have done something wrong! You were obviously in the wrong field. Don't feel bad, things can only get better! Hey, don't worry, be happy! :rolleyes:

Exactly!! And it is those views that piss me the fuck off!!

It's like people telling someone like me, who is depressed...that the answer to all my problems is to "turn the frown upside down!"

God if only it WERE that goddamn easy!!

Exactly!! And it is those views that piss me the fuck off!!

It's like people telling someone like me, who is depressed...that the answer to all my problems is to "turn the frown upside down!"

God if only it WERE that goddamn easy!!
It was for me ... that and medication lol

It was for me ... that and medication lol

I keep saying that if the government put Prozac in the water so we were all at 80mg/day, the US would be a much happier place.

Just making an observation;)

Meh, I don't agree with him either since he claimed all rich were evil. Just as bad as people saying all poor are lazy. I'm just bored with the debate so resorted to making cheap, pointless shots :cool:

I keep saying that if the government put Prozac in the water so we were all at 80mg/day, the US would be a much happier place.
Lol mine was lithum combined with a few other things ... but in the end I leveled out

Just took time and hard work

Hell I had to go without food to get thoes meds but it was what was nessisary to correct some of the biological issues with my depression

After I got thoes taken care of I was better able to correct my social factors

Then was able to get off the meds ... good for 4 years now

Say again?
The point was...when and if, Economic Associates reached the goal set for him...he would simply turn around and re-donate that money back to the charities he'd scraped it from.
The point was to challenge Economic Associates to even manage to GET that much out of charities, and the bet was that he could not.

And, whatever he DID manage to get out of them...he would just turn around and re-donate...so there would be no loss of funds for the people who REALLY need them.

Bavaria tried to limit Economic's options, to make it a more realisitic challenge, by limiting his options to the options that most poor people have to work with. He would not be allowed, under this challenge...to use options that were not available to most poor people.

Again....an attempt to make it more realistic! And, in the end, whatever monies were gleaned from charities...whatever he DID manage to get...would be re-donated back into the system. so as to not cause a loss for those who actually needed it.

Of course, Economic refused the challenge, because he knows that, to accept it...would cause him to have to re-think his views, and he does not want to do that. It would cause him to be better in touch with those less fortunate than he...and he does not want to do that.

Thus proving Bavaria's point that Economic is basically talking out of his ass when he proposes solutions for poor people. You can't solve the problems of the poor if you do not even understand the circumstances that caused them to become poor...and the circumstances that are keeping them poor!

That challenge was an attempt to make people like Economic understand what it really IS to be poor.

What refutation of my postions have you proffered?

Plenty. You just refuse to see them, as all people like you always do. If it doesn't agree with your own world view, you reject it out of hand. why anyone ever even bothers arguing with people like you is beyond all understanding. i have no more use for you.
You are the cruelest link. goodbye.

Meh, I don't agree with him either since he claimed all rich were evil. Just as bad as people saying all poor are lazy. I'm just bored with the debate so resorted to making cheap, pointless shots :cool:

I find them fairly tedious personally. It generally devolves into a poor against rich, left against right pitched battle:rolleyes:

As for my personal sentiments, I think state run employment schemes ought to be run, with adult education and public works in place of a proportion of the welfare budget, since it is more consructive, and beeaks the reliance of some upon welfare.

You prove to me that private charities will recieve enough donations if welfare was abolished to make sure none who are starving or suffering from easily treatable diseases, probably mostly due to starting off at a disadvantaged position in life, get enough help, and i'll agree. However, as right wingers keep stressing - people are naturally greedy. It seems a little strange to me why right wingers constantly praise greed/selfishness and look down upon altruism, yet think people would donate a large proportion of the money they save through tax cuts to charity. It doesn't make sense by their logic, nor by empirical evidence - poor people give a higher proportion of their income to charity than the rich. Maybe deep down they know that when they say "people are naturally greedy", they mean "I'm naturally greedy", and plain don't want to help others but want other people to do it.
EGG-fucking-ZACTLY!!
Goddam, are you a genius, or what??
Damn, I like you already!

I find them fairly tedious personally. It generally devolves into a poor against rich, left against right pitched battle:rolleyes:

As for my personal sentiments, I think state run employment schemes ought to be run, with adult education and public works in place of a proportion of the welfare budget, since it is more consructive, and beeaks the reliance of some upon welfare.
Hey dont you start assuming ... you have a large contingent of thoes that usualy tend to be left or libertarian on your side (specialy if we are arguing against the model that people like lyric propose)

Hey dont you start assuming ... you have a large contingent of thoes that usualy tend to be left or libertarian on your side (specialy if we are arguing against the model that people like lyric propose)

My mistake, I actually intended it to be the far, far left in this context, in terms of socialist and further.

Damn, I like you already!

Sound the alarum bells, tis a unique, unprecedented event:p

Is the government obliged to help the poor? No.

So has my family. We were so down that it came to the point where we had to choose between buying bread and milk once a week. And this is the United Kingdom, a comparatively socialist country. What did the government do to help? Gave us a bill for all the taxes we couldn't pay over the last few years (which is still being paid off, mind, 10 years later). No welfare of any type. No charities came along to help. There was no family income aside from a few quid here and there from odd jobs.

We now have a family income of just over £60,000 (which is roughly $100,000 I believe). Three cars, satellite TV, more computers and gadgets than you could shake Bill Gates at, and nobody's knocking on the door every day to try and drag us out and throw us onto the streets. And we did it alone, with no help from anybody. And do you know what? I hate the idea of welfare. I hate the idea of charity. We all do. It's called survival of the fittest -- we are fit, we survived. You are fit, you survived. Those who starve, don't. It's how humans evolved to the point we are at now. It's how all animals evolved to the point they are at. What you people are proposing is an end to evolution. I want no part of that. It's not heartless, it's not selfish, it's nature, and it works. If those starving want to try and take my money or food to survive, let them try. If they can get it, they earned it. But I've spent large sums of money to make sure that it's extremely difficult for them to do so.


Holyfuck. What can I say?
I have no use for you.
You are the greediest link. Goodbye.

Holyfuck. What can I say?
I have no use for you.
You are the greediest link. Goodbye.

I've offered to help you before, and you refused. Why? Is help only good if it comes from the government?

My word, any bets as to when the internet forum coup is likely to be arriving?:p

Incidentally, this does not, in no circumstances, give on the right to judge, it affords one the capacity to interject in the knowledge of events, not conjecture, since few indeed are those capable of judging us, we are, as we are eternally, reminded, equal.
This is so weird...in one thread you are spouting bigotted, eurocentric crap, and in this one you seem to be a paragon of acceptance...

1. We're talking about survival here, you can do that on bread and water in a wooden hut if you're that broke.

2. And I hate anybody looking to put the human race's future in jeopardy.

1. Yeah...until someone decides that your poor, wooden shack is on land that THEY own, and then tear your little wooden hut down around your ears and kick you off the property so that they can build a Wal-Mart Supercenter there!

2. Do you know what contribution to the human race that person might make, IF GIVEN A CHANCE?? For all you know, you just killed off the guy who would have invented a cure for cancer, had he been fed, and had his education been provided for. Perhaps he would have gone on to great things, including making a better future for humankind.

But, because of selfish assholes, we will never know, now will we?

Is any government obliged to help the poor?

Only if the people of that nation require them to.:(

Excellent. Can't argue, insult instead. I'll be sure to avoid talking to you in the future, you're obviously incapable of intelligent discussion.
And you are SO capable, O Great Swami Studium!! :rolleyes:

You are capable of nothing but greed, selfishness, callousness, and meanness.
I need no more than your own words to prove it to my own satisfaction.
You are the greediest link. goodbye.

This is so weird...in one thread you are spouting bigotted, eurocentric crap, and in this one you seem to be a paragon of acceptance...
Sinuhue, sometimes I think that most of the posters on NS General are inmates at rehab facilities who have Internet access and are killing time before the next group therapy meeting.

I think when you have a nation that is founded on individualism, the onus will always be on the individual. It's a strange worldview. Which is why natives want out.

Sinuhue, sometimes I think that most of the posters on NS General are inmates at rehab facilities who have Internet access and are killing time before the next group therapy meeting.
It would explain A LOT. So. When's your next session?:eek:

You have gone so far to establish your sociopathic lack of sympathy that you have talked your way out of any reason to respect your rights.

Damn right he has! In fact, if there's ever a revolution, I will make sure to see to it that he is the first one to lose all of his property. Every last scrap of it.

He who will not share deserves not riches himself.

Who is to say he would have gotten himself into the situation you are in?
You are wanting him to recover himself from potentialy rock bottom, a situation that because of his work style he may never have gotten into

Personaly I have been there ... I have eaten food out of dumpsers ... I have slept on the streets in january in minnesota

But I have picked myself up out of that I am deffinatly proud of that fact

I call bullshit! PROVE IT!! No one who has been where you CLAIM to have been, could possibly be so selfish and mean when he sees others where he once was!

No WAY do I believe your claims, not for a nanosecond.

I call bullshit! PROVE IT!! No one who has been where you CLAIM to have been, could possibly be so selfish and mean when he sees others where he once was!

No WAY do I believe your claims, not for a nanosecond.

I've eaten food out of Dumpsters as well. And woke up frozen to the ground in Kentucky in winter.

I call bullshit! PROVE IT!! No one who has been where you CLAIM to have been, could possibly be so selfish and mean when he sees others where he once was!

No WAY do I believe your claims, not for a nanosecond.
It's fine not to believe him, but his selfishness or lack thereof does not constitute proof. Just your basis for disbelief. And sorry...how do you prove you ate out of dumpsters? It's not really a Kodak moment. Has anyone asked you to prove the claims you've made about your life?

Maybe, but at least he's not pretentious enough to constantly use over-elaborate words in a vain attempt to sound more intelligent than he is ;)

She, thank you very much.

It was for me ... that and medication lol

Yeah...well that is why I have an intake appointment with my state's Office of Vocational Rehabilitation next week. Maybe I can get some fucking happy pills, too.
Yeah, that's surely the way to solve all the problems!
No, it only treats the SYMPTOM...not the problem. I need my problems solved.

For me, all it will take is for someone to give me a fucking CHANCE!!!

This is so weird...in one thread you are spouting bigotted, eurocentric crap, and in this one you seem to be a paragon of acceptance...

The two are not mutually exclusive in truth, we are all equal, however culturally we are not.

She, thank you very much.

He was referring to me, as the quote would imply:rolleyes:

You know what? Yes, I CAN judge others, because I have been through WORSE than they could ever even imagine, let alone anything they have actually been through. when someone has had as bad a time of it as I have, THEN they can judge me, until then, they...and you...can STFU.

By virtue of having been through worse than they already have...I get the right to judge them.

That's an interesting rule. You get to judge if you've been through worse than someone else? Who made that up? Oh thats right.... YOU.

Let me introduce you to a concept of a world where not only CAN I judge anyone I damn well feel like regardless of my assumptions about whether their suffering is less than mine, I DO and I WILL. As can you.

So no, I won't STFU but thanks for the attempt at overregulation. ;)

Yeah...you might be ABLE to. I fucking doubt, seriously that you, or most other people WOULD!! You'd pocket the fucking extra money, and buy yourself some new trinket, and still walk by the poor guy, not giving a fuck.


No I wouldn't but thank you kindly for assuming I'm a careless asshole.

The point was...when and if, Economic Associates reached the goal set for him...he would simply turn around and re-donate that money back to the charities he'd scraped it from.
The point was to challenge Economic Associates to even manage to GET that much out of charities, and the bet was that he could not.

And, whatever he DID manage to get out of them...he would just turn around and re-donate...so there would be no loss of funds for the people who REALLY need them.

Bavaria tried to limit Economic's options, to make it a more realisitic challenge, by limiting his options to the options that most poor people have to work with. He would not be allowed, under this challenge...to use options that were not available to most poor people.

Again....an attempt to make it more realistic! And, in the end, whatever monies were gleaned from charities...whatever he DID manage to get...would be re-donated back into the system. so as to not cause a loss for those who actually needed it.

Of course, Economic refused the challenge, because he knows that, to accept it...would cause him to have to re-think his views, and he does not want to do that.

No, I think he refused the challenge because people don't voluntarily enter into a life of poverty just because some random debater on the internet commands them to.

Thus proving Bavaria's point that Economic is basically talking out of his ass when he proposes solutions for poor people. You can't solve the problems of the poor if you do not even understand the circumstances that caused them to become poor...and the circumstances that are keeping them poor!

That challenge was an attempt to make people like Economic understand what it really IS to be poor.

Ah, well perhaps a better method of communicating would be something other than "As part of my argument, I assume you don't understand being poor! So be poor, now, or else you lose the debate neener neener!"

Frankly, drastic lifestyle changes should not be necessary to discuss anything with anyone.

Until enough public money is invested to make perfect social mobility a reality, such as in Sweden, I will assume that many poor people are in their position because they started out disadvantaged. America itself has a fairly poor rate of social mobility and you're still likely to stay in the class position you were born into. Unless you want to make out that the working class are genetically inferiour, then this is clearly not meritocratic.

You can assume that, but you don't appear to be basing it on anything substantial. Genetic inferiority has nothing to do with this topic, I don't know why you think I need to argue pro-nazism just to debate this.


Of course very few Americans are starving now - precisely because of the welfare system. If you removed that, regardless of what you might think, there would be nowhere near enough charity to go round and at least some people would either starve or turn to crime in order to survive. Don't tell me "They'd all get off their lazy asses and get jobs!". There aren't enough jobs to go around, and besides - some people are physically unable to work either due to their own or family members disabilities.

Why aren't there enough jobs to go around? I think there are. Not enough charity to go around? Perhaps, its hard to say since the welfare system replaces the concept of charity in day to day life right now.


I see no hidden admittance that I would not donate. I know that I would give at least as much tax as I would have paid. I give money to charity now anyway. The problem is that a lot of people probably wouldn't donate, or at least donate nowhere near as much as they would have paid in taxes.

That may be true, but without the extortion of tax we'll likely never find out. And there is an enormously erroneous assumption that the welfare system in the US helps those in need. Judging by how much Lyric is frothing at the mouth, I would say it doesn't. So why is it a beneficial idea as opposed to charity? Because it benefits the government to have all that extra cash, I suspect.

It would be nice if we would all be willing to meet halfway. However, finding the middle ground is a lot harder than it looks. But it's a start!

Wouldn't it?

Personally I might be a bit more impressed with the welfare concept if I knew more people who were needy and got help from welfare than people who weren't so needy and got help from welfare.

This does not just fit us Authoritarians, but any Party out there wants control of certain areas of government, be it social or fiscal. This even applies to Libertarians and Anarchists.

True, but at least the libertarians and anarchists don't demand quite so much life-blood from the taxpayers. Also they tend to allow a bit more freedom. But in reality they have no power; hence the conclusion is that only a party that robs the people blind, wastes the money and dupes the most people into thinking this is a good thing is a successful party.

I've offered to help you before, and you refused. Why? Is help only good if it comes from the government?

I've never seen you offer any help.
Where?
Link to the post!!

And for me...the only fucking help I want is for SOMEONE TO GIVE ME A FUCKING JOB AT A LIVABLE RATE OF PAY, AND LET ME WORK FOR MY OWN SURVIVAL!! I don't want a fucking hand-OUT....I want a hand-UP!!!

I've never seen you offer any help.
Where?
Link to the post!!

And for me...the only fucking help I want is for SOMEONE TO GIVE ME A FUCKING JOB AT A LIVABLE RATE OF PAY, AND LET ME WORK FOR MY OWN SURVIVAL!! I don't want a fucking hand-OUT....I want a hand-UP!!!

I posted once before that I would have you come live in my house, and get a job down here in the Washington DC area, and you could live in my house until you got on your feet. I was posting under a different NS name.

You refused, saying that you could not leave your mother.

It's fine not to believe him, but his selfishness or lack thereof does not constitute proof. Just your basis for disbelief. And sorry...how do you prove you ate out of dumpsters? It's not really a Kodak moment. Has anyone asked you to prove the claims you've made about your life?

No. but if they DID ask me to prove it, at least I COULD.

I personally believe it is the responablity of any government to help the poor. However the system should be designed so that it encorages them not to remain poor. This does not mean, in the Thathcer tradition of making benefits so low you have to work, because without minimum wage laws it means it can be better off for you to be on benefits than in work. The problem with the blanket "no benefits/people should work" etc attiude adopted by those of a right wing persuasion on the terms of economics is that it refuses to accept that poverty is far more complicated than just simple lazieness. There are a range of social phonomina which drag people into poverty.

1. So no, I won't STFU but thanks for the attempt at overregulation. ;)



2. No I wouldn't but thank you kindly for assuming I'm a careless asshole.



1. Yes, you will STFU. You're going on my ignore list. That will insure that you do STFU.

2. I assumed nothing that wasn't justified by the reading of your words. Did I ever come out and SAY you were an asshole? No, I did not. I may well THINK it, but I never vocalized it.