Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Interesting Thought

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
Author
impulse! View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested - Repeat Offender

Joined: 05 September 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1715
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2008 at 5:50am
Originally posted by White o Light White o Light wrote:

Originally posted by impulse! impulse! wrote:


Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

Originally posted by impulse! impulse! wrote:

Any government funding for those
who "can't" something. I.E. Can't afford health insurance, can't afford
drug treatment etc. Needs to be cut from our our government spending. 


You say you believe in taxes - but what do you think taxes are for?


They exist SPECIFICALLY to provide government funding those those
who "can't" something.


Public schools exist because most people cannot afford private
schools.  Public police exists because most people cannot afford personal
security guards.  Public roads exist because most people cannot afford to
build their own.


Each of those things exist in private form - there are private schools,
police, and roads.  Yet we have decided that it is for the betterment of
society to have this type of welfare, where we provide this benefit "for
free" to all, regardless of the amount of taxes they pay.


The very purpose of taxation is to redistribute wealth.  That's what
taxes do.  You may disagree with some particular application, but to
bluntly say that we should subsidize "stuff" that people cannot afford
tells me that you do not understand taxes as well as you think.


You say you are not on any government assistance, when you obviously
are - we all are. 

You make a valid argument, but I don't
believe in some area's that we have government aid for. Is that such a big
deal to say? Yes I believe in that, but at the same time this should be
different?I do have to ask, if communism worked key word IF; would you
live in a communism society? Where, all wealth is given out "equally" and
no one was richer than another. Wouldn't everyones lives be fine and
dandy? If you haven't read the book <span style="font-style: italic;">The
Giver, </span>i suggest reading it,<span style="font-style: italic;">
</span>it totally sold me on communism.....


If a book written on a middle school level sold you on anything... gg.


Opps, forgot to "insert" sarcasm.
Back to Top
.357 Magnum View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested and IP banned

Joined: 23 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 3336
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote .357 Magnum Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2008 at 10:49am
Originally posted by Predatorr Predatorr wrote:

I think it makes a valid point even if it is a forward.


Truth, I've seen first hand examples of this crap. Friends parents were bunch of drunk/stoned idiots living off welfare. Now you can't even get through the living room because of the giant pool table they spent their check on.


Edited by .357 Magnum - 24 August 2008 at 12:28pm
Back to Top
JohnnyHopper View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
I.O.U. a punch

Joined: 15 June 2002
Location: North Chuck SC
Status: Offline
Points: 4664
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote JohnnyHopper Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2008 at 11:30am
Originally posted by .357 Magnum .357 Magnum wrote:


Originally posted by Predatorr Predatorr wrote:

I think it makes a valid point even if it is a forward.
Truth, I've seen first hand examples of this crap. Friends parents were punch of drunk/stoned idiots living off welfare. Now you can't even get through the living room because of the giant pool table they spent their check on.


Never you mine wut I gots in muh livin' roooom! How did you git by the 12 dogs on the porch?


All you bleeding hearts are completely full of it. Taxes were never supposed to be about doing good work, punishing success or taking care of the less fortunate. It is not a chicken or egg problem. The welfare/great society/ help your fellow man crap agravated the very problem they were supposed to fix. It is even arguable that it proloned the great depression. There was not a huge slutty population of useless baby makers until there were programs to feed and house them. Just how insane do you have to be to actually believe that without these handouts that the poor in this country would starve? The poor are overwelmingly obese in this country! How do you explain being fat and freaking "poor"? Boo frickin' hoo, I don't got no new car and I made some real poor life choices. Now gimmie my ebt/wic/section8/rent assist and mow my lawn. The programs don't create the problems but they do breed more problems. Rational people can succed when there is no guard rail or safety net. The problem is you don't have to even worry, try or stress yourself out if big momma is always going to give you a big hug and some cheese.





Edited by JohnnyHopper - 24 August 2008 at 9:45pm
My shoes of peace have steel toes.
Back to Top
Snipa69 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Soulectomy complete in 3...2...1...

Joined: 26 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 5423
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Snipa69 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2008 at 9:21pm

I always laugh at what Johnny brings to the table, but there are only minor things I dissagree with. The explanation for the poor to be obese is because McDonalds makes everything on the menu cheap so that the poor think they are spending less on food by taking themselves there to feed. In actuality, they spend MORE than they would in a month at Mcy-d's than if they were to go to the grociery store and buy the necessary fixins' for a home cooked meal.

They have the mindset that after speding $20 bucks to feed their whole family a "meal" at a fast food joint, that they saved money. In actuality they will end up spending way more money because it is really more expensive to sustain a family that way. If you sing up for a free membership to a Safeway you get discounts on food products. using that discount and spending the same $20 at the Safeway will last you a week or more whereas you would otherwise dump it all in one place at one time for one family "meal" at a fast food resteraunt. They don't understand this type of math and want to see fast results and that's what the image is when buying meals at McDonalds.

Those who are poor and fat that also have jobs work these jobs to the point where they are too tired to cook a meal at home from scratch because of the 16 hour work days at $4 an hour just to support a family so again, it's off to Wendys or McDonalds for dinner so they don't have to continue working.

Do I support these types of mindsets? Not at all. Raising a family is hard work and there is no time clock that you can punch when you feel like you have done enough work for your family. Punching out at 5 at your regular job is fine, but you still have to work to keep up a family and if you aren't 100% dedicated then you aren't a great candidate for further breeding.

The bottom line is, these problems have existed in government spending for decades. Voting is probably your best bet.

Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 24 August 2008 at 10:22pm

Forget McDonalds - go to the grocery store.  Healthy and lean food is drastically more expensive than unhealthy and fattening food.

With $20 in food stamps you can get three stalks of asparagus, or 12,000 calories worth of junk.

In this country, at this time, it is pretty hard to be poor and NOT fat.

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 1:24am
Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

In this country, at this time, it is pretty hard to be poor and NOT fat.



Then we should just decrease the allowance they get until they are no longer fat.
Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 10:19am
Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

In this country, at this time, it is pretty hard to be poor and NOT fat.



Then we should just decrease the allowance they get until they are no longer fat.

This goes back to my initial post - what program exactly are we talking about?  Are we indeed talking about any program at all?

You don't have to be on welfare to be too poor to buy healthy food.  Millions of hard-working Americans are too poor to be healthy.

And if we are talking state/federal assistance - which kind?  If it is TANF, for instance, are you prepared to let children starve rather than eat junk food?

 

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
Mack View Drop Down
Moderator Group
Moderator Group
Avatar
Has no impulse! control

Joined: 13 January 2004
Location: 2nd Circle
Status: Offline
Points: 9815
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Mack Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 10:25am
Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:

Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

In this country, at this time, it is pretty hard to be poor and NOT fat.



Then we should just decrease the allowance they get until they are no longer fat.

This goes back to my initial post - what program exactly are we talking about?  Are we indeed talking about any program at all?

You don't have to be on welfare to be too poor to buy healthy food.  Millions of hard-working Americans are too poor to be healthy.

And if we are talking state/federal assistance - which kind?  If it is TANF, for instance, are you prepared to let children starve rather than eat junk food?



We'd be doing them a favor; obesity and junk food are both bad for them.

Edited:  To add a serious comment.

Originally posted by impulse! impulse! wrote:

Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:

Originally posted by impulse! impulse! wrote:

Any government funding for thosewho "can't" something.

You say you believe in taxes - but what do you think taxes are for?They exist SPECIFICALLY to provide government funding those those who "can't" something.

You make a valid argument, but I don't
believe in some area's that we have government aid for.


Despite switching the wording from "taxes" to "aid" impulse makes a valid point.  Taxes exist to provide resources for society that the society is unwilling to provide themselves.  Roads and schools are an excellent example of this.  If they weren't government funded (through taxes) then the only roads/schools would be privately owned and the corporations which owned them would probably charge a pretty penny for attendance/usage.  Individual's would be unable to compete because they couldn't afford to.  (By compete, I mean start their own schools or build their own roads.)  Roads and schools are a good thing because they serve the betterment of society by promoting education and commerce.  Aid on the other hand does not provide as identifiable a benefit to society as roads and schools.  It provides a more specific benefit to certain specific members of society and in many cases promotes only the breeding of another generation of hand-out grubbing couch potatoes.

Second Edit:  A side effect of this is the ever-increasing mass of the population who votes based on "what's good for me."  Of course, everyone does this to some extent (probably greater than any of us want to admit), but the difference here is that such social programs can be used to develop a "politics of need" that locks the poor into a cycle of having to vote for certain candidates to further the subsistence programs they depend upon.  In return these candidates expand these programs and those who use them become even more dependent.


Edited by Mack - 25 August 2008 at 10:43am
Back to Top
jmac3 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Official Box Hoister

Joined: 28 June 2004
Status: Offline
Points: 9201
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote jmac3 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 10:41am
I haven't posted in this thread, but Mack pretty much said my thoughts.

I don't know why roads and schools even came into the conversation. I guess to define whatever "welfare" is, but ok.

I am also going to stay out of this because I am biased as hell. My sister/cousin got on Masshealth just for being drug addicts, where as I applied for freecare(which lasts for like 1 year) because I couldn't afford insurance and they told me I made 600% above poverty level. I only made $10 an hour and less than 40 hours a week.


Edited by jmac3 - 25 August 2008 at 10:42am
Que pasa?


Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 10:59am

Originally posted by Mack Mack wrote:


Roads and schools are a good thing because they serve the betterment of society by promoting education and commerce.  Aid on the other hand does not provide as identifiable a benefit to society as roads and schools.  It provides a more specific benefit to certain specific members of society and in many cases promotes only the breeding of another generation of hand-out grubbing couch potatoes.

That depends on the aid, now doesn't it.

Pell grants and Stafford loans, for instance, allow people to educate themselves (and thereby providing a benefit to that specific individual), and presumably benefits society in the same way as public schools. 

It isn't always easy to separate private and public benefit.

The interstate network benefit us all, but it does so mostly by benefiting private trucking companies.  Tax deductions for mortgage interest benefits the (relatively) wealthy directly, but benefits us all by encouraging home ownership and stability.

TANF is there to protect the children to make sure that we don't have starving children, which society deems a bad thing.  This is the same logic that leads to the dependant exclusion on your income tax return (which unlike TANF does not come with a 5-year limit), to ease the financial burden on families with children.  Everybody in this country with a child is eligible for a form of direct personal government welfare as a result.

Again, what do we mean by "welfare?"

Quote Second Edit:  A side effect of this is the ever-increasing mass of the population who votes based on "what's good for me."  Of course, everyone does this to some extent (probably greater than any of us want to admit), but the difference here is that such social programs can be used to develop a "politics of need" that locks the poor into a cycle of having to vote for certain candidates to further the subsistence programs they depend upon.  In return these candidates expand these programs and those who use them become even more dependent.

This is a giant unfounded myth.  Not only is it unfounded, but it goes contrary to observed fact.  Poor people in this country are significantly less likely to vote at all than wealthy people, and the more poor, the less likely they are to vote.  There is no "wefare voting bloc."



Edited by Akhmed - 25 August 2008 at 1:00pm
"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 12:12pm
Originally posted by Akhmed Akhmed wrote:


This is a giant unfounded myth.  Not only is it unfounded, but it goes contrary to observed fact.  Poor people in this country are significantly less likely to vote at all than wealthy people, and the more poor, the less likely they are to vote.  There is no "wefare voting block."



source?
Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 12:41pm

Originally posted by adrenalinejunky adrenalinejunky wrote:



source?

This falls into the category of "stuff I have read in many place many times," so I have no particular single source leading me to my understanding of this phenomenon.

Wikipedia does have some discussion of this, however, as do various demographics sites on the web: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout#Socio-economic_fa ctors

 

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 12:52pm
wikipedia claims 43% turnout of lower income with an over 60 percent in 1988

my own personal research actually indicates that it has in deed dropped off a bit since then, i couldn't find estimates newer then 96, but we'll call it 30 percent, probably a lowball

36/301 million americans are living below the poverty line

though its hard to figure how many of each of those groups are eligible voters, if we assume an even percentage are, that puts the poor people who vote at 7 percent of the total voting population

now i'd say 7 percent is still a pretty good block of the population. especially considering that Bush had 2.4 percent more of the popular vote then Kerry in 04, and .5 percent less of the popular vote than gore in 2000.
Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 1:06pm

Seven percent is a good voting bloc - but not when it is outweighed by bigger blocs.

Mack's claim is that this "welfare voting bloc" gets its power from the self-interest of voters.  Welfare recipients vote for more welfare.  However, by that same logic, non-welfare recipients should be voting against welfare.  Certainly a survey of this forum yields high resistance to welfare programs.

And since the non-welfare voting bloc is much bigger than the welfare group, more likely to vote than the welfare group, richer than the welfare group, and more likely to donate to campaign coffers than the welfare group, it would be rather counterproductive for an aspiring politician to cater to the welfare bloc.

And, of course, this theory is based in the unfounded claim that welfare recipients do indeed vote as a bloc rooted in this single issue.

The various forms of welfare exist not because the beneficiaries support it, but because millions of non-welfare Americans support it.



Edited by Akhmed - 25 August 2008 at 1:08pm
"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
adrenalinejunky View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

strike 1 11/24/08 language

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4771
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote adrenalinejunky Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 1:15pm
thats true, but, if i were to bet, i would say that most of the non-welfare block put other issues higher on thier agenda when picking a canidate to vote for.

or they just vote along party lines.

but that is entirely speculation.
Back to Top
Akhmed View Drop Down
Member
Member

(Akhmed is not his real name)

Joined: 13 May 2008
Location: Iraq
Status: Offline
Points: 272
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Akhmed Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 1:19pm

I would tend to agree - welfare is presumably a more important issue to the people who use food stamps than to those who do not.

But in today's political climate there seems to be a strong general sentiment against welfare programs (this thread being a good example), and it would seem very unwise for any politician to make "more welfare" a big part of his platform.

That's no way to get big political donations.

"Virtue is more to be feared than vice, because its excesses are not subject to the regulation of conscience. "
Most awesome site EVAR!
Back to Top
heliumman77 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote heliumman77 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 5:29pm
Well no matter how screwed up it is a government is put in place to provide for the people what they can't provide for themselves. 
Back to Top
White o Light View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Guested. blatant pornographic post

Joined: 12 June 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 2772
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote White o Light Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 5:36pm
Originally posted by heliumman77 heliumman77 wrote:

Well no matter how screwed up it is a government
is put in place to provide for the people what they can't provide for
themselves. 


Governments are for governing, not necessarily providing.
Back to Top
heliumman77 View Drop Down
Member
Member
Avatar

Joined: 30 July 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 0
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote heliumman77 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 5:39pm
Originally posted by White o Light White o Light wrote:

Originally posted by heliumman77 heliumman77 wrote:

Well no matter how screwed up it is a government
is put in place to provide for the people what they can't provide for
themselves. 


Governments are for governing, not necessarily providing.


That's the definition we learned in Global and that was on tests I'm not saying that's what it does but that's what it is supposed too do.
Back to Top
impulse! View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar
Guested - Repeat Offender

Joined: 05 September 2005
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 1715
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse! Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 25 August 2008 at 5:40pm
Originally posted by heliumman77 heliumman77 wrote:

Well no matter how screwed up it is a government is put in place to provide for the people what they can't provide for themselves. 


Go to Canada.
Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <1234>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.184 seconds.