|
Cool, but what about monopolies, specifically? Maybe I'm getting my history muddled, but I'm thinking of a railroad situation starting up again. Also, what of companies/situations like Enron? Or Pinkerton?Regulate interstate commerce covers all of that. Unless a company does business wholly inside of a single state, the Feds can regulate how business is conducted. And if business is wholly conducted inside of one state, the state government can regulate that business.Two things the Federal government was tasked with in the Constitution: provide for general defense and regulate interstate commerce. Beyond that, the government is overstepping its bounds.You keep mentioning 70 years. Presumably you're talking about the New Deal?
Incidentally, this post was to the point, factual, and (as far as I can see) anger-free. Thanks.
Though this post was specifically about the Federal Goverment, your other, general comments about government leave curious: Who, if not government, do you propose takes on the role of protecting the free market? In other words, who goes after the insider traders? Who prevents abuses of monopoly power? Or do you think such things should be accepted? Or do they legitimately fall under the regulation of interstate commerce? This is not a rhetorical question; I really want to know how you see these issues being handled.
Enron? Ask Chris Dodd, he was neck deep in that. Oh, wait, isn't he a Dem???
Enron got what they had coming. One of them was my cellie in prison.
T. Roosevelt (a.k.a. the one who was actually a great president), regulated the hell out of monopolies. Invoked the interstate commerce clause and did his level best to eliminate unfair business practices. In modern times, however, the AT&T debacle was disgusting. Nothing kept MCI or Sprint from buying land and running lines along side all the lines AT&T ran on their own dime. AT&T and Bell Labs used private money to do their thing, MCI and Sprint wanted access for free.
Laisses Faire capitalism is great, if everyone is an upstanding guy. One of the only functions government should have, and one that is in the Constitution, is make sure that there is equality of opportunity. Equality of outcome, however, is what a large segment of the population seems to want, and, well, it ain't going to happen. Not as long as we're talking about human beings.
(Freehold, and, sorry it took so long, I'm at work ;) )
|
|
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Remind me...which party do you feel represents your values? ;-)
Edit: Seriously though, most of this seems like an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism.
None of them. Libertarians were already on thin ice with me for thinking Ron Paul is anything but a whacko, but after they nominated right wing nut job Bob Barr, they're irrelevant.
I'm definitely not a "conservative" using your broad brush. I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, I think the whole abortion/gay rights/drug prohibition/whatever social crap debates are smokescreens to hide how badly our pols are ripping us off. It isn't government's job to regulate what I put in my body, whom I sleep with or fall in love with, any of that stuff.
@ HoustonDerek:
I normally just lurk around here, but you have inspired me to jump in and give you a piece of my mind. Why does this always seem to happen – some reasonable adults are having a civil (if heated) discussion, and you have to show up and spray your antipathy and vileness all over everyone? And I’m not even talking about how tired and unoriginal your whole “everything suxx and the world is going to Hell in a handbasket” routine is – I’m just talking about your language. Do you even understand what the Code of Conduct is for? The language filter is not there to encourage you to come up with creative ways to insert punctuation into your curse words, it’s there to let you know that WE DON’T APPRECIATE CURSING HERE. Just because this is an involved political discussion, it does not automatically mean that there aren’t children reading it. Your ranting and swearing just makes you come off like a boor, and a bore (and possibly a boar, but I’m not going to speculate about your personal grooming habits). All kidding aside, please can the sailor talk, dude. It comes down to a show of respect. If you can’t manage to muster any respect for the other people who post here, then maybe the Paizo Forums just aren’t for you. However, I do know of a place where your particular brand of atrocious behavior is acceptable.
Unable to get a job period, or unable to get a job that covers their living costs? If you have bills based on a $5,000/month job, you probably can't survive on a $800/month job. Unforunately the system is set up people not to get crappy jobs while still looking for a good job in those cases, because it is not financially feasible. It would be nice if we could come up with a system where people could get a crappy job and still get some of the benefits of unemployment thus making the choice feasible.
Funny you should use those figures; I have a $5,000/month job. I'm also divorced, and $800/month wouldn't pay my child support. You're right about the disincentive to take a very low-paying job when on unemployment. In many cases, the resulting damage to employment history results in *lower* earnings over time.
At the very least, we should look at people that could work, but that are on the government money as being force to "volunteer" to do odd jobs. Pick up trash on the high way. Shovel sidewalks. Whatever. If you are getting government money, you should be providing a service to the public.
My only problem with that is that picking up trash makes it hard to be out looking for a job. Maybe 20->24 hours a week in "volunteer" labor?
First: Only in the minds of the media. They're the ones who paint all conservatives with the same brush. Have fun with that.
Remind me...which party do you feel represents your values? ;-)
Edit: Seriously though, most of this seems like an argument for libertarianism, not conservatism.
None of them. Libertarians were already on thin ice with me for thinking Ron Paul is anything but a whacko, but after they nominated right wing nut job Bob Barr, they're irrelevant.
I'm definitely not a "conservative" using your broad brush. I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, I think the whole abortion/gay rights/drug prohibition/whatever social crap debates are smokescreens to hide how badly our pols are ripping us off. It isn't government's job to regulate what I put in my body, whom I sleep with or fall in love with, any of that stuff.
But then why don't we see conversatives fighting amongst themselves or(as the accusation often is as they point across the aisle) "cleaning up their own house"? Is the mandate to close ranks and vote together so overwhelming? Or are conversatives that think your way leaving for greener(certainly not liberal) pastures?
Also, regarding your response to my post, you didn't mention specifically what you felt the role of government should be regarding monopolies. I'd also like very much to know what your opinions on Pinkertons are.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
But then why don't we see conversatives fighting amongst themselves or(as the accusation often is as they point across the aisle) "cleaning up their own house"? Is the mandate to close ranks and vote together so overwhelming? Or are conversatives that think your way leaving for greener(certainly not liberal) pastures?Also, regarding your response to my post, you didn't mention specifically what you felt the role of government should be regarding monopolies. I'd also like very much to know what your opinions on Pinkertons are.
I don't think you're seeing the same conservatives, that I do.
I'm definitely not a "conservative" using your broad brush. I don't give a crap what people do in their private lives, I think the whole abortion/gay rights/drug prohibition/whatever social crap debates are smokescreens to hide how badly our pols are ripping us off. It isn't government's job to regulate what I put in my body, whom I sleep with or fall in love with, any of that stuff.
Well, it isn't my brush, any more than the brush often used to paint me as "liberal" is yours. Lumping people into categories is universal.
As for your beliefs, good for you (seriously). I just think the lack of a party that supports those values is telling (that is, not many people feel that way). If there were such a party, I might join it.
In general, you would be much more persuasive if you toned down the anger. I get that you feel that your rage is justified, but that doesn't really matter if people are too defensive to hear what you're saying.
Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
*Sigh*
Do imagine that this post was clever? Do you actually believe that deliberately misrepresenting people is somehow useful or insightful? Was the thread becoming too civil for you?
Or are you really just more interested in stirring s~$$ up?
some stuff
So, taking the exact words you write and even giving you my own interpretation of those words is misinterpreting you? Again we seem to have different views of what common words mean.
But hey, it seems like you're unwilling to actually answer my questions, questions based on the actual words you wrote. If you want to admit that you didn't mean that the US is the leading nation of political and religious freedom, then just say so. But that's not what you said, so I've just asked you to give examples of why you think it is so. You've just dismissed every question I've asked everytime and started on some rant on Kerry and Obama, so I take it that you can't defend the position you started out with.
I think someone upthread said something about admitting being wrong...
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
When someone can show me an efficient government, I'll believe it. and don't point to Europe, they are hitting a wall with their social programs. All those "smart" people who didn't have kids are wondering how a system is going to take care o0f them with no one to pay into it...Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the way the US government (well, its agencies really) currently operates isn't the most efficient? By holding on to your position you also close yourself off from the possibility that government CAN be effective, it just needs to get a serious overhaul.This is my biggest bone with people who think government is the answer. Head in the sand attitudes about how efficient government is.
And, seriously, I am right. Proof is in the pudding, and the government pudding is spoiled. Unfit for service.
I'd add that they also don't pay for their defense as much as we do.
Or does anyone else remember the panic when we talked about 'drawing down' the forces in Europe?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
*Sigh*
Do imagine that this post was clever? Do you actually believe that deliberately misrepresenting people is somehow useful or insightful? Was the thread becoming too civil for you?
Or are you really just more interested in stirring s&*& up?
So you concede you don't feel the government should take your money and give it to someone else.
Thank you.
now explain why it should take someone else's money instead.
Oh, I forgot, you don't understand the concept of personal money.
Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
*Sigh*
Do imagine that this post was clever? Do you actually believe that deliberately misrepresenting people is somehow useful or insightful? Was the thread becoming too civil for you?
Or are you really just more interested in stirring s&*& up?
So you concede you don't feel the government should take your money and give it to someone else.
Thank you.
now explain why it should take someone else's money instead.
Could one of you please muzzle your dog? He's undermining the progress that has been made in elevating the discourse.
|
|
Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
*Sigh*
Do imagine that this post was clever? Do you actually believe that deliberately misrepresenting people is somehow useful or insightful? Was the thread becoming too civil for you?
Or do you really just more interest in stirring s#*! up?
Just wanted Bugley and Freehold to know that I am still in your corner. Been reading this thread with interest and (often) laughter. I find it most humorous how some folks try to justify selfishness with intellectual-sounding excuses. "How dare someone tell me I have to spend my money on the unwashed masses!" and all that stuff. Hilarious. And sad at the same time. To think there are still people that feel that way in this day and age is, put simply, mind-boggling. I'd comment more, but I tend to get them even more riled up than the average Liberal poster. So I'll keep reading and raising my fist every time the Left gets a good jab in!
As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
I can't tell if you're serious or not... You think the whole world would implode if the US withdrew its troops from around the world? Pray tell why that would happen.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?And who are these other predators you are keeping at bay?
Also, please clarify which "world peace" it is that the US is upholding.
RPG Superstar 2013
|
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Do you agree? If so, Is that acceptable to you? How do you propose it be addressed?
I am not sure what you mean. My social conservatism stems from my Christianity and my belief in Biblical morality. While the precepts of free capitalism are certainly Biblical, I wouldn't say I formed my beliefs about fiscla conservatism in relation to my faith. I suppose therefore you could have the fiscal without the social.I don't believe you can have the social without the fiscal - that would always result in religious despotism. Give everything you have to the commune and receive the blessings of God? No. people can give what theyhave wililngly, but they have to have the freedom to retain it if they chose. Othewise you end up coercing everyone to give on the basis that they have to give to find God. this is not true.
Second, what do you find acceptable in terms of unemployment? You discussed people unable to work, and those unwilling to work, but what about those who are both willing and able but can't find a job? I certainly don't believe that everyone unemployed at a given time "deserves" it.
If a conservative tells you they think everyone can have a job or that a certain level of employment will result from free markets, I'd be suspicious. I think the point is to encourage prosperity by creating a climate that allows it, rather than that is inimical to it. By taxing less, removing embedded taxes, and removing unnecessary regulation, you create that climate. But by seizing money from one generation, to pay the bills of the last generation, while saving your debt for the next generation, you are not helping ANY generation. You have to create a climate that creates job. Any talk of the government creating jobs is Keynesian bullcrap. Jobs are created when employers think they need more people, or when someone decides the time is right to try their hand at running a business. Encouraging that climate depends on raising the value of the dollar, lowering taxes for those companies, and a healthy flow of credit not weighed down by toxic debt. A huge step in all three categories would be removing embedded taxes.
The short answer is 4%. 4% unemployment is a fair mark, probably not perfect, and habitually prone to being massaged from one administration to the next, but fair if it's mostly honest. Generally, everyone who wants a job can have one, and how good their job is is up to them. Meanwhile, companies need people for growth but some peple will choose not to work. You have to allow them that choice, but you can't weigh down the system by paying all their bills. Give them an emergency room, and give them a stipend if there's a chance they really can't help themselves. Give them a little help if they have kids. But by and large, stop paying the bills for a growing class of people who believe government is there to pay their bills. Paying their bills makes them right. and then their kids get bored, commit crime, a gang mentality enters the generational poverty equation, and then you have one big, expensive, demagogued mess.
And the biggest one: The correlation between merit and reward. This is my biggest problem, because merit often seems to boil down to "whomever can get the most money, any way they can."
This is a canard. People should make money to live comfortable lives, retire well, and leave wealth to their kids. No one should ever tell someone they make too much. It's no one else's business. Suppose I wrote a book and make a million dollars. Do I deserve that? Wrong question. Ask the Bible, and I deserve Hell but for God's grace. Ask my mom and she'll say I put up with enough garbage that I deserve my success. Ask a pro athlete and he'll say "that's all?" Ask someone at the John 3:16 Mission here in town and who knows what he'll say. But what is true, is it's my money and no one should tell me how to spend it. In my case, I will use that money to open a couple of businesses, buy an annuity for my retirement and for my kids' first house. And I'll live farther south and begin work on my next book. Some of it goes to the SBCP to pay for missionaries, clothes, food and books for kids abroad. You can bet that I am gonna upgrade my car and buy one of everything from Paizo. I have a right to do all those things. My point is, I benefit, my family and progeny benefit, and people I will never meet benefit. If you confiscate that money, the good I can do is limited. Some of that money does have to be sacrificed so we can have roads and a military that defends us and opposes the evil in the world. But the more you take after that, the more you limit myability to impact the world.
Take a huge corporation. Windfall profits? There's no such thing. An oil company has millions of stockholders, and many of those stockholders are pension funds, investments, teachers' retirements, mutual fuunds, insurance investments and more. When an oil company finaly gets to a mere 6% profit in a year, that money looks like a lot of greed. Why are gas prices so high while these jerks make a trillion dollars? First, because oil prices and taxes are high. Let's say the oil company makes a dime on $10 of gas. The government, who produced nothing during any party of the process, makes more. When those simple dimes add up to billions, you have to divide those billions into searching for future energy sources, looking for more oil, etc.
What about obscene salaries? What's an obscene salary? A man works 80 hours a week fending the government and other predators away from his shareholders. Every time a market opens or closes somewhere in the world, he has to deal with it or pay someone else to. His shareholders reward him by paying him maybe $2-5 a year each. He is paying for his lifestyle, sometimes his own work expenses. He is paying half what he makes in income taxes. The nicer his house, the more he pays in other taxes. He intends to make sure his entire family tree can do anything they want and have any opportunity, and wants them to be able to pay their taxes as well. His contract says when he leaves the company, he gets a certain amount. The media calls it a golden parachute. He gives half of it to the government right away, and then a portion to his church, some to politicians who make his life easier, some to charity, some tin trust for his kids to take care of them later. Whatever happens, it's no one's business but his. Instead of telling him he makes too much, the government ought to be taking less and allowing him to buy businesses, or buy stuff that keeps businesses open. Because when the government takes his money, it pays for $600 claw hammers and a survey to determine how alcohol affects Chilean prostitutes. Maybe in his mind, if he doesn't get paid $70m to run his company, someone else will get paid $70m to run it into the ground. And in his mind, managing that copany means providing good-paying jobs for people he's been proud of for a long time.
I realize that all sounds rosy. I am aware it's hypothetical. There are people like this guy, just like there are, in fact, evil people who should be shot for the money they steal from families who don't know better. The main point is, as long as no one breaks a law, no one has the right to tell them they make or keep or spend too much. The opposite is the only god approach: create a climate where anyone can make a good living. Not everyone can be the guy above, but then not everyone can handle his work and stress load and succeed. ANd, we can make it such that there's plenty of money to go around.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
The conclusion of the book Mind of a Millionaire suggests that successful people overwhelmingly have one personality trait: integrity.Not that I don't agree with the rest of your post; you and I seem very close in attitude when it comes to fiscal views, as opposed to social ones. One thing, though: the author of Mind of a Millionaire is himself a millionaire. For him to tout his own integrity would seem self-congratulatory, rather than honest. Also, if I understood it correctly, the main distinguishing trait was seeing opportunities vs. problems, which has little to do with inegrity (as witnessed by Trump, Madoff, Stewart, Spears, Lohan, et al., ad nauseum).
I will be honest here, my knowledge of the book comes from excerpts, and from an appraisal by Dave Ramsey. I suppose I should say that integrity is a trait found among millionaires, and not advertise it as the single most re-occuring. I believe the salient point is intact, but I welcome correction on the fine details. : }
And, hey, everyone vote for me in RPG Superstar. This year, they have got to like my item. I am tired of being on the sidelines. It's time to COMPETE! : }
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Just wanted Bugley and Freehold to know that I am still in your corner. Been reading this thread with interest and (often) laughter. I find it most humorous how some folks try to justify selfishness with intellectual-sounding excuses. "How dare someone tell me I have to spend my money on the unwashed masses!" and all that stuff. Hilarious. And sad at the same time. To think there are still people that feel that way in this day and age is, put simply, mind-boggling. I'd comment more, but I tend to get them even more riled up than the average Liberal poster. So I'll keep reading and raising my fist every time the Left gets a good jab in!
There's a point chucky, if you look, yuo'll miss it.
I can give my money to any 'unwashed masses' to anyone I want. I do in fact. As was posted earlier, conservatives give their money more than liberals do.
However, Bugleyman apparently feels that he should take Paris Hilton's money and give it to someone more deserving, but I shouldn't take his money and give it to someone.
Okay, I can't speak for other conservatives, but as there has been a lot of talk about liberal and conservative these days I would like to post something that I wrote just about two years ago that expresses what I, as a conservative believe. It's called the Articles of Conservatism, intended to be in the vein of the Articles of Confederation.
I) We believe that America is the greatest country in the World, because of the efforts of its people.
II) We believe that everyone is capable of great things.
III) We believe that the best solution for anyone’s problems are the ones they come up with themselves. Americans are smarter than government when it comes to their own individual needs.
IV) We believe that everyone is responsible for his or her own actions.
V) We believe that the greatest asset America has is freedom and it should be exported at every opportunity.
VI) We believe that government’s role is to create a climate where everyone can achieve their greatness and then get out of their way. As Thoreau said “That government is best that governs least.”
VII) We believe that the Constitution is an inspired document and the best source of knowledge about government.
VII) We believe in the rule of law and in the existence of right and wrong.
IX) We believe that taxes serve as a roadblock to economic growth and that lower taxes result in more money for the government.
X) We believe that all people have the right to worship or not worship God as they choose. Government should not dictate how or where a person may worship. A person should not demand that government or private individuals change the way that they act to accommodate that person’s beliefs.
XI) We believe that a person should be judged on their own merits and not on biological factors like gender or race that they have no control over. This applies to both good and bad judgements.
XII) We believe that everyone has the right to think for themselves and to rethink their beliefs when confronted with contrary evidence....
you forgot to mention the 1978 Steelers were the best football team ever, but I added that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Could one of you please muzzle your dog? He's undermining the progress that has been made in elevating the discourse.Re: Scouts and public sites.
I've an idea.
Given that people have said the scouts will be disadvantaged by the revocation of their agreements with city/state governments (Which it can be assumed the governments entered expecting some benefit that justified the cost).
Given that bugly believes that the Government should take money from those who didn't 'earn' it (as determined by some unrevealed formulae).
And given that Bugly fears the tyrany of the majority...
I propose we take bugly's money and give it to the newly disadvantaged scout groups. surely he wouldn't have a problem with that.
*Sigh*
Do imagine that this post was clever? Do you actually believe that deliberately misrepresenting people is somehow useful or insightful? Was the thread becoming too civil for you?
Or are you really just more interested in stirring s&*& up?
So you concede you don't feel the government should take your money and give it to someone else.
Thank you.
now explain why it should take someone else's money instead.
just as I thought. Bugley is happy with the government taking someone else's money, but not his.
His inability to reply without resorting to insults seems to have touched a nerve.
i'm sorry, I thought I was talking with adults.
Oblivious self-congratulatory flagellation.
Sorry Matthew, I'm not biting.
Several of us on this thread have many pages trying to get past exchanges like:
"You're a robber! Stop stealing our hard-earned money."
"You're nothing but a exploitive capitalist pig!"
Yet, for some reason, you seem determined to take us back there. And in so doing, all you've accomplished is to ensure I'm no longer listening.
It's too bad you couldn't let mommy and daddy talk. :(
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Yup,
Just as I thought. He's only for taking someone else's money.
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.
Bugleyman solution: Better to punish those who didn't break the rules, to make sure we get those who did. That I left some money for my children is equivalent to having 'cheating or exploiting others'.
of course he's not replied to this
|
|
Just wanted Bugley and Freehold to know that I am still in your corner. Been reading this thread with interest and (often) laughter. I find it most humorous how some folks try to justify selfishness with intellectual-sounding excuses. "How dare someone tell me I have to spend my money on the unwashed masses!" and all that stuff. Hilarious. And sad at the same time. To think there are still people that feel that way in this day and age is, put simply, mind-boggling. I'd comment more, but I tend to get them even more riled up than the average Liberal poster. So I'll keep reading and raising my fist every time the Left gets a good jab in!There's a point chucky, if you look, yuo'll miss it.
I can give my money to any 'unwashed masses' to anyone I want. I do in fact. As was posted earlier, conservatives give their money more than liberals do.
However, Bugleyman apparently feels that he should take Paris Hilton's money and give it to someone more deserving, but I shouldn't take his money and give it to someone.
Well, we pay taxes in this country. It's a fact. Now I know we all want to have a say in how that money is spent. I think a government has a responsibility to take care of it's citizens, including pulling them out of the gutter, feeding and clothing them when they can't do it themselves. You probably don't. I feel the way I do, because I care about my fellow humans, whether they are lazy or not, whether they legitimately need the help or not. It matters not to me that I worked hard to get that money; part of it is going to the government anyway. So why shouldn't it be used for a humane purpose?
See I find the thought of ANY human dying of starvation or exposure repugnant. Do you? Is there really any decent argument against doing the right thing? Because that is what it is. It's called doing the right thing. It's supposed to make you feel good to know that your tax dollars may have saved a life. Let karma take care of the rest. If they don't deserve the help; karma will reward them in kind.
Maybe I am too political, too far to the Left to see the logic of making people take care of themselves even at the cost of perhaps losing some of them. But hey, at least none of your money was wasted on those Welfare cheaters, right? Is that the crux of things from the Conservative perspective?
Funny you should use those figures; I have a $5,000/month job. I'm also divorced, and $800/month wouldn't pay my child support. You're right about the disincentive to take a very low-paying job when on unemployment. In many cases, the resulting damage to employment history results in *lower* earnings over time.
Unable to get a job period, or unable to get a job that covers their living costs? If you have bills based on a $5,000/month job, you probably can't survive on a $800/month job. Unforunately the system is set up people not to get crappy jobs while still looking for a good job in those cases, because it is not financially feasible. It would be nice if we could come up with a system where people could get a crappy job and still get some of the benefits of unemployment thus making the choice feasible.
Yeah, if someone earned $800/month and got a check for $4500/month for unemployment (for a time), while they were still looking for a better job. that would be more money than the unemployment alone, but less money that the system has to give directly. Win-win. Now to make it work.
My only problem with that is that picking up trash makes it hard to be out looking for a job. Maybe 20->24 hours a week in "volunteer" labor?
At the very least, we should look at people that could work, but that are on the government money as being force to "volunteer" to do odd jobs. Pick up trash on the high way. Shovel sidewalks. Whatever. If you are getting government money, you should be providing a service to the public.
No doubt, I wouldn't suggest a 40 hour week "volunteer" job, but certainly some time, maybe as few as 10 hours a week. Just to show they were contributing back. Frankly, that is all I ask for myself. You want some help, you got to be willing to do your share to help.
Just wanted Bugley and Freehold to know that I am still in your corner. Been reading this thread with interest and (often) laughter. I find it most humorous how some folks try to justify selfishness with intellectual-sounding excuses. "How dare someone tell me I have to spend my money on the unwashed masses!" and all that stuff. Hilarious. And sad at the same time. To think there are still people that feel that way in this day and age is, put simply, mind-boggling. I'd comment more, but I tend to get them even more riled up than the average Liberal poster. So I'll keep reading and raising my fist every time the Left gets a good jab in!There's a point chucky, if you look, yuo'll miss it.
I can give my money to any 'unwashed masses' to anyone I want. I do in fact. As was posted earlier, conservatives give their money more than liberals do.
However, Bugleyman apparently feels that he should take Paris Hilton's money and give it to someone more deserving, but I shouldn't take his money and give it to someone.
Well, we pay taxes in this country. It's a fact. Now I know we all want to have a say in how that money is spent. I think a government has a responsibility to take care of it's citizens, including pulling them out of the gutter, feeding and clothing them when they can't do it themselves. You probably don't. I feel the way I do, because I care about my fellow humans, whether they are lazy or not, whether they legitimately need the help or not. It matters not to me that I worked hard to get that money; part of it is going to the government anyway. So why shouldn't it be used for a humane purpose?
See I find the thought of ANY human dying of starvation or exposure repugnant. Do you? Is there really any decent argument against doing the right thing? Because that is what it is. It's called doing the right thing. It's supposed to make you feel good to know that your tax dollars may have saved a life. Let karma take care of...
Friend, our gov't should only have three duties max.
1. Defense of our borders and interests abroad.
2. Give us a currency we all can use in recognizable units and measures.
3. Step the hell out of people's way.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Well, we pay taxes in this country. It's a fact. Now I know we all want to have a say in how that money is spent. I think a government has a responsibility to take care of it's citizens, including pulling them out of the gutter, feeding and clothing them when they can't do it themselves. You probably don't. I feel the way I do, because I care about my fellow humans, whether they are lazy or not, whether they legitimately need the help or not. It matters not to me that I worked hard to get that money; part of it is going to the government anyway. So why shouldn't it be used for a humane purpose?
See I find the thought of ANY human dying of starvation or exposure repugnant. Do you? Is there really any decent argument against doing the right thing? Because that is what it is. It's called doing the right thing. It's supposed to make you feel good to know that your tax dollars may have saved a life. Let karma take care of the rest. If they don't deserve the help; karma will reward them in kind.
Maybe I am too political, too far to the Left to see the logic of making people take care of themselves even at the cost of perhaps losing some of them. But hey, at least none of your money was wasted on those Welfare cheaters, right? Is that the crux of things from the Conservative perspective?
Sorry, I had to stop laughing before I could reply.
Did you read *any of this thread* So if someone is sitting at home doing nothing but play WoW, you're for feeding them, clothing them and paying their internet bill?
Now I know who I'm sending my mortgage to. You'll pay it right? After all, you find the thought of me dying of exposure 'repugnant'.
Or maybe you missed the part where I said I give money as I choose? If the government got out of the business of 'helping people' (read some Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell about the 'help') And taking 'my' labour to 'help' I'd be better able to take care of others, as I see fit.
As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
I can't tell if you're serious or not... You think the whole world would implode if the US withdrew its troops from around the world? Pray tell why that would happen.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
And who are these other predators you are keeping at bay?
Also, please clarify which "world peace" it is that the US is upholding.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
That's something I've been wondering since the Soviet Union imploded. Doesn't Europe have a collective population and GNP that is greater than the US'? And two of their countries have nukes. So why can't they handle and pay for their own defense? Let's save some money by pulling our troops out.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
I can't tell if you're serious or not... You think the whole world would implode if the US withdrew its troops from around the world? Pray tell why that would happen.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
And who are these other predators you are keeping at bay?
Also, please clarify which "world peace" it is that the US is upholding.
What is awesome to me is the fact that this dude has such a tour de force of a post, pointing to the obvious fact that our world is ruled by force, and he's using Valeros's face as an avatar.
Bravo.
|
|
Sorry, I had to stop laughing before I could reply.
Did you read *any of this thread* So if someone is sitting at home doing nothing but play WoW, you're for feeding them, clothing them and paying their internet bill?
Now I know who I'm sending my mortgage to. You'll pay it right? After all, you find the thought of me dying of exposure 'repugnant'.
Or maybe you missed the part where I said I give money as I choose? If the government got out of the business of 'helping people' (read some Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell about the 'help') And taking 'my' labour to 'help' I'd be better able to take care of others, as I see fit.
Keep laughing dude. And please send me your mortgage bill. I won't pay it, but I will shred it before I throw it away. Maybe if you could be in foreclosure and in financial hardship; you'd get the point. It's easy to be cavalier about helping folks when you are sitting pretty financially. It doesn't take much for your fortunes to change and suddenly, you are the one that needs help.
Now should you be denied government help because your neighbor plays WOW and still suckles the government teat? You can't have it both ways. Sure, some undeserving folks are going to reap the benefits, but that is a small price to pay for doing the right thing.
And yes, I've read the whole thread.
But I wouldn't want to see even an unabashed Conservative like yourself die of exposure.
Hell, you can even use my tax dollars to help Garydee if he falls on hard times. Now that's commitment!
First, fiscal conservatism seems inexorably bound to social conservatism, at least in the modern United States. Do you agree? If so, Is that acceptable to you? How do you propose it be addressed?
Strongly disagree, in my own case. I'm fiscally more conservative than almost anyone I know -- and I live in Texas. I'm not an anarchist; I understand, as houstonderek does, the lessons of the days of the robber barons: that complete laissez-faire leads to monopoly and the collapse of the very free market we're trying to uphold. But when it comes to balanced budgets, zero debt, pay-as-you go, and cutting programs, I doubt anyone here is more conservative than I am.
And yet I'm a screaming liberal, socially-speaking. I have no problem with gays who want to get married. I don't need "Christian values" crammed down my throat; my own moral compass actually works. I'd like pot legalized, if only for the revenue. Etc. To me, people need to stay the hell out of each other's personal lives a lot more.
So what am I? If people like Barr and Ron Paul are Libertarians, I sure ain't one.
So, no, it's not acceptable to me that, in order to get a balanced budget, I have to give more tax dollars to "faith-based initiatives." It's absurd that so-called "fiscal conservatives" would calculate a deficit excluding war spending, as if that money grew on a tree because of the end use. But there's nothing I can do about any of that.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
That's something I've been wondering since the Soviet Union imploded. Doesn't Europe have a collective population and GNP that is greater than the US'? And two of their countries have nukes. So why can't they handle and pay for their own defense? Let's save some money by pulling our troops out.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
I seem to recall there was some talk about moving our bases to Poland in the last administration, but there was fear of what it would do to the local economies in Germany.
Note: could only find this in a quick search that states the opposite.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Sorry, I had to stop laughing before I could reply.
Did you read *any of this thread* So if someone is sitting at home doing nothing but play WoW, you're for feeding them, clothing them and paying their internet bill?
Now I know who I'm sending my mortgage to. You'll pay it right? After all, you find the thought of me dying of exposure 'repugnant'.
Or maybe you missed the part where I said I give money as I choose? If the government got out of the business of 'helping people' (read some Walter Williams or Thomas Sowell about the 'help') And taking 'my' labour to 'help' I'd be better able to take care of others, as I see fit.
Keep laughing dude. And please send me your mortgage bill. I won't pay it, but I will shred it before I throw it away. Maybe if you could be in foreclosure and in financial hardship; you'd get the point. It's easy to be cavalier about helping folks when you are sitting pretty financially. It doesn't take much for your fortunes to change and suddenly, you are the one that needs help.
Now should you be denied government help because your neighbor plays WOW and still suckles the government teat? You can't have it both ways. Sure, some undeserving folks are going to reap the benefits, but that is a small price to pay for doing the right thing.
And yes, I've read the whole thread.
But I wouldn't want to see even an unabashed Conservative like yourself die of exposure.
Hell, you can even use my tax dollars to help Garydee if he falls on hard times. Now that's commitment!
And if I need help, I have friends, family and faith.
You're making my point for me. You choose not to help me. All I want is the same.
Edit: You might want to read what I and others have said, rather than argue against cartoon characters
Obviously we disagree.
(some prehistoric right-wing stuff)
Which means that if I have a chance, I'm not paying for you or Rush Limbaugh's health care.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
...is that the crux of things from the conservative perspective?
Now I know why you're a liberal! You've been misinformed!
Let's begin with perspective: I am as conservative a person as you're likely to find here on these boards. I am a fiscal conservative, and I am a social conservative. If there were such a thing as the religious right, I'd be a card-carrying member.
Now, as conservaitve as I am, I have never once adovcated just letting people starve to death in the streets. The problems is that when politicians try t solve problems, they often advocate some stop-gap that doesn't consider its effect on anything else. They have a bill, but not a plan.
The purpose of conservatism is to return to an atmosphere where the opportunity exists to get paid what you're worth and do what you love. Lowering what is confiscated form you makes you wealthier, which means you need help less. Some people who don't have jobs are only not getting them because they can survive just fine on their wife's part-time job, low personal standards and being enrolled in Medicaid. take away Medicaid for people who can take care of themselves and they will. We built government dependence in this country over time by graduating taxes, fomenting race and class hate, and steadily taking more of poeple's stuff from them until the poorest people rely on the govrnment and/or criminal behavior for what they have, and the wealthiest poeple move their money out of our economy to avoid further pillaging. We alowed the political class to withhold our money instead of letting us pay it when it was due. In doing so, we caused the act of collecting taxes to cost more (lost in the bureaucratic void), and we caused people to forget how much oney they are really making and losing, so they don't think they can hold the government accountable for it. Even worse, it used to be you got your pay, paid your bills, and put something away to make interest. The money you had to pay the government earned money all year and then went to hell. Now, insurance, food, your business wardrobe,etc is harder to afford because you have less on you. One tight pay period breeds another until the whole system weighs down on the middle class. It isn't rich people keeping the middle class down, it's a deceptive and confiscatory government wasting your time and money while you struggle to get ahead.
No one says there aren't people who truly can't get help. And, as conservative as I am, I am all for a small safety net for folks in that position. But by keeping money in the private economy, you force poeple to work for a living and the definition of what a person just can't do changes considerably. Before 1994, we were paying poor people to have kids they couldn't afford. If you campaigned agaisnt the idiocy, you were accused of wanting to benefit rich people and leave poor people haning, which couldn't be futher from the truth.
Just like healthcare: I believe by lowering the costs of the health services industry, we'll lower the cost of services and premiums at the retail level, which will result in more coverage. People not being able to acheive coverage wont' be solved by the government doing it for them. It will be solved by creating a climate where the business itself is less expensive, and the costs passed on to consumers (defensive medicine, taxes, pharma red tape) are reduced. Then some neat things will happen: more money will be avilable for research, hastening discovery and lowering costs of those new treatments; insurance companies will lower premiums and restrictions for high-risk policies; people will make different decisions in happier lives (like drug addiction, pregnancies no one will write a government check for, etc); and corporation will be able to look at their benefits packeages with a smile instead of a sense of pending doom.
I encourage everyone to read the Fair Tax Book. You might not agree with it, but the content and tone of the book will communicate that the current system is broken for everyone. And it might anger you to know whow we got where we are and why.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
Which means that if I have a chance, I'm not paying for you or Rush Limbaugh's health care.Obviously we disagree.
(some prehistoric right-wing stuff)
Intersting point about Rush. By paying cash for his last hospital stay, he paid less than most insurance would have paid. But there was no hassle, the money went right to the hospital's bank, and everyone was happy.
An important point is that neither myself nor Rush Limbaugh want anyone to pay for our health care. We want an economy where it isn't up to the government to do everything - which it does badly without exception.
|
RPG Superstar 2013
|
So, no, it's not acceptable to me that, in order to get a balanced budget, I have to give more tax dollars to "faith-based initiatives." It's absurd that so-called "fiscal conservatives" would calculate a deficit excluding war spending, as if that money grew on a tree because of the end use. But there's nothing I can do about any of that.
This might surprise you, but it's more common than you are probbaly led to beieve. Most Christians don't want any government moeny spent on faith-based initiatives. We want the economy to be free and the government to budget the military and infrastructure and get out of almost everything else. Now, I would like to see (after a large number of changes to the current system) money given to churches that also act as half-way houses or other charitable endeavors. Not because of their faith, but because they can command a troop ov volunteers and work for those who can't help themselves. But I'd make that help very limited. And again, the point isn't for the churches to get moeny, it's to use that resuorce to help people who need helping, especially given the money you'd save on labor costs for such things.
<SNIP>
So, no, it's not acceptable to me that, in order to get a balanced budget, I have to give more tax dollars to "faith-based initiatives." It's absurd that so-called "fiscal conservatives" would calculate a deficit excluding war spending, as if that money grew on a tree because of the end use. But there's nothing I can do about any of that.
And which party are you voting for to get that balanced budget, Kirth? I hope it isn't the Republicans. Sure, they give balancing the budget good lip service, but according to the CBO they're no better at it than the Democrats.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.As far as how valuable the U.S. is, who do you think keeps the world peace? The U.N.? We're the only thing that keeps the predators at bay. If America disappeared, how long do you think Europe could stand on it's own?I never said that other countries are not free, valuable or anything else, I simply asked how the US was freer, more valuable etc. than the rest of the world.
I can't tell if you're serious or not... You think the whole world would implode if the US withdrew its troops from around the world? Pray tell why that would happen.
And which barbaric horde is it that the US is holding at bay from invading Europe?
And who are these other predators you are keeping at bay?
Also, please clarify which "world peace" it is that the US is upholding.
Seriously? No, I don't think they would. Maybe you have intel that that's what they're secretly plotting behind our backs?
The world has come a long way since WWII, even if the actual years may seem short. Just like what you see slowly happening in Iran probably couldn't have happened 20 years ago, neither would something similar to WWII happen again in Europe.Besides, speaking of make-believe superpowers of the future doesn't add to the discussion.
So I take it that the barbaric horde the US is holding at bay from overrunning Europe is a toss-up between the Russians and the Chinese, correct?
I could give you several reasons why none of them (or any other nation you would come up with) would do it, but let me give you just one, one that should be familiar to Americans (even if I don't particularly care for it):
MAD
Now, about the world peace and the other predators the US are keeping at bay? You skipped that part.
Yup,
Just as I thought. He's only for taking someone else's money.
Fact: Some people who are wealthy didn't earn their wealth, and instead simply got lucky, cheated, and/or exploited others.Bugleyman solution: Better to punish those who didn't break the rules, to make sure we get those who did. That I left some money for my children is equivalent to having 'cheating or exploiting others'.
of course he's not replied to this
No Matthew, I'm not for taking anyone's money. I do support taxation. Since I pay taxes every year (and make no mistake; I do *pay*) I'm already putting my money where my mouth is. Equating taxation with robbery is a deliberate oversimplification of my position.
But I've already explained this multiple times, which means you're baiting me. I'm asking you to stop.
While reading through I thought I should drop in something about the following:
Uhm, believing in the divinity of Christ is a requirement to be a Christian, so yes, you are a Deist. Sorry to break it to you like this.
I believe that I must be missing something that you saw.
Here is a link to some deist definitions.
Here are a few of them:
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED it
2. the form of theological rationalism that believes in God on the basis of REASON WITHOUT REFERENCE TO REVELATION
3. The religious philosophy and movement that became prominent in England, France, and the United States in the 17th and 18th centuries that rejects supernatural events (prophecy, miracles) and divine revelation prominent in organized religion, along with holy books and revealed religions that assert the existence of such things.
4. One who admits the possibility of the existence of a God or gods, but CLAIMS TO KNOW NOTHING OF EITHER AND DENIES REVELATION
What I am trying to figure out is how you are equating this with Arian Christianity.
Do, they believe God abandoned the world after its creation? (1.)
Is the belief in God on the basis of reason RATHER than revelation a strict tenant of Arian Christianity? (2.)
Is Arian Christianity a religious movement that became prominent in the 17th and 18th centuries and rejects supernatural events, divine revelation, and holy books? (3.)
Does an Arian Christian admit the POSSIBILITY of a God or gods but claim to know nothing of the previous as well as denying revelations, all as defining parts of his faith? (4.)
@ Paul Watson
So, basically I am looking for an answer to my confusion here. Since you claim to know better than Garydee himself whether or not he is a deist I am going to assume (for the sake of discussion) that you are familiar with the definition of both a deist and that of an Arian Christian. I ask that you demonstrate to me, preferably with links, how the conclusion that they are the same has been reached.
Note: This is not intended as a snarky post. I wish to know the answer but could not find it on my own. So, I am being blunt but open-mindedly awaiting a response. However, I will concede that I am currently skeptical.
@ Garydee
Sorry about leaving you out of an asked response but since you claimed to not be a deist and PW claimed you were I figured that he could better explain his conclusion than you. But, feel free to respond if you would care to.
AWAITING AN ANSWER
TTfBtE
And which party are you voting for to get that balanced budget, Kirth? I hope it isn't the Republicans. Sure, they give balancing the budget good lip service, but according to the CBO they're no better at it than the Democrats.
Neither party currently offers anything that even vaguely resembles fiscal conservatism. So with that -- my most important criterion -- off the table, all I have left to vote on are social issues.
How do you know it is really cold?
*just light hearted jesting, carry on*
And which party are you voting for to get that balanced budget, Kirth? I hope it isn't the Republicans. Sure, they give balancing the budget good lip service, but according to the CBO they're no better at it than the Democrats.Neither party currently offers anything that even vaguely resembles fiscal conservatism. So with that -- my most important criterion -- off the table, all I have left to vote on are social issues.
Ditto, which is why I vote Democrat. I just found it curious you mentioned the possibility of voting for a balanced budget.
1. a person who believes that God created the universe and then ABANDONED it
You're grossly misrepresenting their position by your choice of words and emphasis, possibly in an effort to demonize them. A far better defintion would be:
1. a person who believes that God created the best of all possible universes and then left it to run according to His divinely-mandated natural laws.
The idea is that God doesn't need to intervene with miracles, because He did the job right the first time.
Seriously, you don't think the Russians and Chinese wouldn't start carving up the world if given a chance? On top of that, who knows what future superpower will threaten the western world. Europeans such as yourself still try to live in your ivory towers, ignoring all the lessons that WWII tried to teach you. More than likely we'll probably have to go in and save you again, either from yourselves or an invading force.
I really can't make more of this than: China and Russia bad, United States good. To me, it is a prime example of binary, us/them thinking. How does one become so afraid of everyone else?
I just don't get it.