User Tag List

First 12202122232432 Last

Results 211 to 220 of 375

  1. #211
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Risen View Post
    You know the topic is old when even the trolls with opposite viewpoints wont touch it anymore...
    Trust me, I'm a lot more stubborn than the trolls, always have been.

  2. #212
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Thank you Jeffster and cogdecree.

    The Republicans may have expanded social programs:
    Their time of government happened to be the economic low.
    Some religious organizations do good work.

    So you should not give money to schools and children. I understand this is what you say.
    It is impossible to learn with an empty stomach. When do you not learn, you do not get anywhere.
    The only way to survive is to stop going to school and sell drugs. You end in prison.
    This is what happens.
    Feed the poor children, give money to schools, and the money comes back to society.


    Why the Republicans do not understand basic economy?
    It beats me.
    Money goes around. It is the idea of money.
    It does not stay in one place!

  3. #213
    half mystic, half skeksis jenocyde's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w8
    Socionics
    ENTp
    Posts
    6,387

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Thank you Jeffster and cogdecree.

    The Republicans may have expanded social programs:
    Their time of government happened to be the economic low.
    Some religious organizations do good work.

    So you should not give money to schools and children. I understand this is what you say.
    It is impossible to learn with an empty stomach. When do you not learn, you do not get anywhere.
    The only way to survive is to stop going to school and sell drugs. You end in prison.
    This is what happens.
    Feed the poor children, give money to schools, and the money comes back to society.


    Why the Republicans do not understand basic economy?
    It beats me.
    Money goes around. It is the idea of money.
    It does not stay in one place!
    I am not a republican, and I understand economics quite well. Yes, we must protect and educate our future generations. But we also must have provisions where parents take responsibility for raising their own children. I could give countless examples of children born just for the paycheck.

    Here in Brooklyn, women call it "dropping bombs". It's very common. Once a child is school age, the checks are lower but then they get free babysitting all day via public education, while they rush to have another baby. This is not an extreme example, it's very common where I come from. The woman who lives above me in my gorgeous brownstone has 6 children under the age of 10, all by different (unnamed) fathers. I struggle to pay my rent, while she lives better than me and hasn't worked one day in the past decade. She also has a car, which is a luxury out here.

    We all are hopefully working toward a better society. All of us here have the same goals, just different methods of getting there. My personal belief is that we shouldn't pull the rug out from anyone, but we must encourage and educate people to stand on their own two feet. Responsible family planning is the first step. Rewarding irresponsibility is what got us here in the first place, and that also cycles through generations.

  4. #214
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Thank you Jeffster and cogdecree.

    The Republicans may have expanded social programs:
    Their time of government happened to be the economic low.
    Some religious organizations do good work.

    So you should not give money to schools and children. I understand this is what you say.
    It is impossible to learn with an empty stomach. When do you not learn, you do not get anywhere.
    The only way to survive is to stop going to school and sell drugs. You end in prison.
    This is what happens.
    Feed the poor children, give money to schools, and the money comes back to society.


    Why the Republicans do not understand basic economy?
    It beats me.
    Money goes around. It is the idea of money.
    It does not stay in one place!

    It IS possible to give money to schools and children through other channels besides the government, you know. Conservatives, in general, donate more of their income than do liberals.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  5. #215
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    Thank you Jeffster and cogdecree.

    The Republicans may have expanded social programs:
    Their time of government happened to be the economic low.
    Some religious organizations do good work.

    So you should not give money to schools and children. I understand this is what you say.
    It is impossible to learn with an empty stomach. When do you not learn, you do not get anywhere.
    The only way to survive is to stop going to school and sell drugs. You end in prison.
    This is what happens.
    Feed the poor children, give money to schools, and the money comes back to society.


    Why the Republicans do not understand basic economy?
    It beats me.
    Money goes around. It is the idea of money.
    It does not stay in one place!
    the facts are right in front of you. look at California. if what you are talking about was as simple as that: CA would have the best education in the union, CA would have tons of social mobility etc etc

    newsflash: California is still in the shitter. throwing money at problems irrespective of the incentive system that money creates DOESNT WORK. This isnt an opinion, its a fact.

    itís all a matter of incentive. In the marketplace, if you do something that works, you get rewarded with money, and the consequence is that you do more stuff that works. Conversely, if you do something that doesnít work, you lose money, and you have an incentive to stop doing that thing that loses you money. Simple enough, eh?

    With welfare, though, incentive works the other way around. The welfare you receive isnít about your effort, itís about your lack of effort, so your incentive is to do what is rewarded, which is to be dysfunctional. Therefore, you keep doing what gets rewarded. In addition, receiving welfare is often a matter of being in a favored group, like drug addicts, for example. Once again, once you have boarded the welfare gravy train, how much incentive is there to get off of it? With me so far? This explains why welfare is expanding, rather than contracting, and why it is producing more dysfunctional behavior, rather than less.

    Now, we need to care for those who truly canít make it in todayís society, through no fault of their own. The percentage of the population that really canít make it is fairly small, I imagine, and undoubtedly stays pretty constant over time. No need for eternally expanding programs for this purpose. However, subsidizing those who simply want to avoid the consequences of their actions is plain wrong. We all suffer.

  6. #216
    Senior Member ptgatsby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    4,474

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I probably should have made that "last quarter-century." I would that the United States (outside of the Reconstruction Era South) was pretty libertarian from about 1870 to WWI. Not coincidentally, it was one of the greatest periods of growth and accomplishment in our nation's history (and we actually welcomed immigrants then, too).
    Interesting time period to choose, given how many recessions were during this period... and even if you do take the libertarian POV that the long depression wasn't a depression because industry increased, did you adjust to other countries? Regression on political factors? Doesn't seem like there is much of a connection... while not surprisingly the US did want immigrants, and they were industrializing (with European capital for railroads, no less...) And beyond that, real GDP per capita has actually risen faster in the 20th century - post the great depression, when intervention increased - than during the 19th.

    But even if none of that mattered, this period is the start of government interference... including a series of coinage acts - which was a major problem, as it directly caused contractions. I wouldn't call it very libertarian, really.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    It IS possible to give money to schools and children through other channels besides the government, you know. Conservatives, in general, donate more of their income than do liberals.
    Religion is the primary predictor of aid, and is normally locked into their personal religion regardless of efficiency of aid. (Not disagreement - it's true, conservatives donate notably more. But some context to it.)

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    Here in Brooklyn, women call it "dropping bombs". It's very common. Once a child is school age, the checks are lower but then they get free babysitting all day via public education, while they rush to have another baby. This is not an extreme example, it's very common where I come from. The woman who lives above me in my gorgeous brownstone has 6 children under the age of 10, all by different (unnamed) fathers. I struggle to pay my rent, while she lives better than me and hasn't worked one day in the past decade. She also has a car, which is a luxury out here.
    I spent some time reading the social services that NY provides, and while it is actually pretty high for the US, it doesn't seem like this is possible... Do you know the mechanics of how they get their money?

    Quote Originally Posted by OneWithSoul View Post
    People are republicans because they'd rather see the sucess of big business', see forced labor, and like it when the small guy looses. People are republicans because they don't care about their child's education, and never worry about healthcare. They like money and power...and war!
    That's really not it, though. Keep in mind that republicans are not small government. Never have been - democrats are, relatively, small government.

    The primary divide is about the moral crusade (the "feeling") between helping/servicing/independence and a whole mix of other traits. Both sides are reduced down to opposing viewpoints... and they are, essentially, identical.

    Republicans want their independence/security/etc. no matter what the cost is. And democrats want their enlightened society/progress/etc. no matter what the cost. Unfortunately, when both sides don't care about the cost, or have any tangible way of arguing rationally (another price of having only two parties...) you end up with a good mix of useless items. Mostly because politicians love power... the US is also notable because it doesn't operate under normal constraints other countries do - being the reserve currency, world leader in military power. So it's systems can afford to be highly inefficient - in both directions (ie: military and social nets in the US are... inefficient. They are made up with lots of money rather than efficiency.)

    But neither are looking to harm others. They just have different triggers and ideologies. And it's very polarized - a lot of people believe what you said, for example. But you did forget that republicans eat babies too!

  7. #217
    Oberon
    Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wildcat View Post
    So you should not give money to schools and children. I understand this is what you say.
    Look, cat... be real. This is an absurdly reductionist point of view. Surely you must understand that this conclusion of yours is neither fair nor accurate.

    Conservatives are all in favor of children, and of education. They will freely give money to benefit children and fund their education. They merely reject the notion that doing this through bureaucratic channels is the best (let alone the only) way to do so.

  8. #218
    Senior Member cogdecree's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    MBTI
    ISTJ
    Enneagram
    165
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ptgatsby View Post
    Interesting time period to choose, given how many recessions were during this period... and even if you do take the libertarian POV that the long depression wasn't a depression because industry increased, did you adjust to other countries? Regression on political factors? Doesn't seem like there is much of a connection... while not surprisingly the US did want immigrants, and they were industrializing (with European capital for railroads, no less...) And beyond that, real GDP per capita has actually risen faster in the 20th century - post the great depression, when intervention increased - than during the 19th.

    But even if none of that mattered, this period is the start of government interference... including a series of coinage acts - which was a major problem, as it directly caused contractions. I wouldn't call it very libertarian, really.



    Religion is the primary predictor of aid, and is normally locked into their personal religion regardless of efficiency of aid. (Not disagreement - it's true, conservatives donate notably more. But some context to it.)



    I spent some time reading the social services that NY provides, and while it is actually pretty high for the US, it doesn't seem like this is possible... Do you know the mechanics of how they get their money?



    That's really not it, though. Keep in mind that republicans are not small government. Never have been - democrats are, relatively, small government.

    The primary divide is about the moral crusade (the "feeling") between helping/servicing/independence and a whole mix of other traits. Both sides are reduced down to opposing viewpoints... and they are, essentially, identical.

    Republicans want their independence/security/etc. no matter what the cost is. And democrats want their enlightened society/progress/etc. no matter what the cost. Unfortunately, when both sides don't care about the cost, or have any tangible way of arguing rationally (another price of having only two parties...) you end up with a good mix of useless items. Mostly because politicians love power... the US is also notable because it doesn't operate under normal constraints other countries do - being the reserve currency, world leader in military power. So it's systems can afford to be highly inefficient - in both directions (ie: military and social nets in the US are... inefficient. They are made up with lots of money rather than efficiency.)

    But neither are looking to harm others. They just have different triggers and ideologies. And it's very polarized - a lot of people believe what you said, for example. But you did forget that republicans eat babies too!

    1p) Deficit spending is what increased gains in the US not government involvement. In reality the new deal was hurting America, WW2 and the selling of weapons is what got America out of the depression (combined with deficit spending). And the Great Depression wasn't felt till after 1930 (crashed in 29), our range we were discussing was 1870-1930. All other depressions were minor hiccups.

    4p) Deficit spending. Also in your rebuttal, the basic concept of how it works and how it is exploited is correct, perhaps you should explain what we are missing.

    5p) Where have they been hiding, in California there isn't a democrat that would even admit to that, and if you ask them big government is the solution to everyone's problems.

    Social regulations that the people want to enforce isn't bigger government, if 70% of people in town "A" want to make a law that requires people to never wear hats, thatís not government intervention, that societal standards.

    The main and original and a required part of the social contract which creates government was protection. This is the basic form of government libertarians want, add a little more regulations and you get the republicans, add more and got the democrats.

    Perhaps you should explain to me how democrats are for smaller government.

    6p) I still don't get how we are identical, you can argue multiple sides but how is it the same? Is communism and capitalism on the same coin during the Cold War? I also would like an explanation of how this works (not on my lame analogy but about the ideologies within the us)

    7p) I call complete shenanigans here, we are also debating what is cost effective, we (both sides) do care about the cost. I can't tell if this is supposed to be a golden mean argument or what.

    I'd also like a definition of enlightened society/progress, and how each can't place or think that on themselves.

    8p) I like the paragraph 8 though, made me laugh anyways.

  9. #219
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jenocyde View Post
    I am not a republican, and I understand economics quite well. Yes, we must protect and educate our future generations. But we also must have provisions where parents take responsibility for raising their own children. I could give countless examples of children born just for the paycheck.

    Here in Brooklyn, women call it "dropping bombs". It's very common. Once a child is school age, the checks are lower but then they get free babysitting all day via public education, while they rush to have another baby. This is not an extreme example, it's very common where I come from. The woman who lives above me in my gorgeous brownstone has 6 children under the age of 10, all by different (unnamed) fathers. I struggle to pay my rent, while she lives better than me and hasn't worked one day in the past decade. She also has a car, which is a luxury out here.

    We all are hopefully working toward a better society. All of us here have the same goals, just different methods of getting there. My personal belief is that we shouldn't pull the rug out from anyone, but we must encourage and educate people to stand on their own two feet. Responsible family planning is the first step. Rewarding irresponsibility is what got us here in the first place, and that also cycles through generations.
    It is good a mother of six small children does not need to work. This is how she can attend to her children's needs and they can grow up in a loving atmosphere.
    They do not need to live in the street. They go to school and end up as responsible adults.
    I say splended. This is the road we must go. Brooklyn is a good neighbourhood.

    Brooklyn used to be different. My auntie Jenny lived there all her adult life. She had fourteen or sixteen rooms. She lived all by herself in the house she owned. She never married, never worked.
    She played poker and lived to be ninety. She had never lost a game.

    My mother inherited her. How stupid can one get? Do never give money to the rich.

    She could have given the money to pay a bright slum kid's college education.
    But that would have made her a bleeding heart in the mind of the Republican opinion.
    My mother would have called her by that name, I am sure. The rich have no shame.

  10. #220
    Senior Member wildcat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,619

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by oberon View Post
    Look, cat... be real. This is an absurdly reductionist point of view. Surely you must understand that this conclusion of yours is neither fair nor accurate.

    Conservatives are all in favor of children, and of education. They will freely give money to benefit children and fund their education. They merely reject the notion that doing this through bureaucratic channels is the best (let alone the only) way to do so.
    This is what I proposed to jenocyde above.

    Give the money to those who need it. Well spoken, Oberon.
    I cancel my reduction.

Similar Threads

  1. Why are you here?
    By rhinosaur in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 05-19-2011, 06:08 AM
  2. Religion... why?
    By wyrdsister in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 175
    Last Post: 01-28-2010, 04:31 PM
  3. Why I am here
    By HilbertSpace in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-25-2007, 01:18 AM
  4. Why?
    By SolitaryWalker in forum Welcomes and Introductions
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 06:55 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO