User Tag List

First 7891011 Last

Results 81 to 90 of 172

  1. #81
    Senior Member Tiltyred's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    468 sx/sp
    Socionics
    EII None
    Posts
    4,383

    Default

    Let them die, and decrease the surplus population.

  2. #82
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Let them die, and decrease the surplus population.
    Here's the error with Malthusian thinking, not every member of the population consumers the same or places the same demands upon society so you can kill off hundreds, thousands or more of the poor and it'll not amount to a reduction in population impact, not like knocking off a single mega-richy will.

  3. #83
    Analytical Dreamer Coriolis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    5w6 sp/sx
    Posts
    17,581

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Why?
    Because laziness is no greater a crime than theft, rape, murder, drug dealing, or whatever else tends to land people in prison.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tiltyred View Post
    Let them die, and decrease the surplus population.
    Bah, humbug!
    I've been called a criminal, a terrorist, and a threat to the known universe. But everything you were told is a lie. The truth is, they've taken our freedom, our home, and our future. The time has come for all humanity to take a stand...

  4. #84
    ^He pronks, too! Magic Poriferan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    MBTI
    Yin
    Enneagram
    One sx/sp
    Posts
    13,910

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    This is a fantastic argument if your only goal is to expand entitlements regardless of economic circumstances.

    The growth of SNAP over the last decade is ridiculous even when considering the effects of the downturn.
    So what's the total? It appears to me that it averages out at $78,437,060,000 annually. That's hardly crushing the government budget, is it?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    At what point do the right's of middle class Americans to take home a percentage of their pay reflective of the amount of work they put in outweigh the needs of the poor to be catered to from cradle to grave?
    Apparently some point well beyond where we're at now, given how little that total annual cost above is. Considering that the defense department's budget isn't far off from 10 times that amount, I'm not sure why you aren't weeping for the middle class's plight in that regard.

    And I imagine it was strategic to only mention the middle class, and not the rich. If we talk about the rich, then I'm not so sure their pay always reflect the amount of work they put in or the amount they contribute to society.

    And I have to wonder how many people actually stay on welfare from "the cradle to the grave". Probably another boogey man of yours.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Our government should not be obliged to help those unwilling to help themselves.
    That's an old cliché from people of your political wing, and here's the problem. A lot of people are incapable of helping themselves within your excessively narrow definition of self-help.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    The way our entitlement system currently works, people are better off not working and taking expanded benefits than they would if they tried to lift themselves out of poverty with a job.
    As usual, you suggest that you have not the slightest clue what it is like to be poor. In some circumstances a certain level of income which is lower than the amount received from welfare will disqualify someone from receiving welfare. However, that amount is still terrible low, and anyone that would be satisfied with welfare probably wouldn't be satisfied with that level of income either, and will try harder.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Does that make any sense to you?

    Does the abuse of the system bother you?
    Does poverty, inequality, and corporate greed bother you?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Do you want everyone's taxes to go to those unwilling to take even the smallest steps in supporting themselves?
    Your problem is assuming that welfare goes to people who fit that description in any significant quantity.

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    Do you not recognize how desperately we need entitlement reform?
    Actually, if you control price increases on medical services, you destroy all projected deficit. So, not really.
    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    How?

    Should we subsidize the laziness of the poor?
    If a person tries to get a job but the market hasn't made anything available for them, they are not lazy. And there are many different reasons a job may not be available. And if a person gets a job but it's only minimum wage without benefits, that doesn't mean they're lazy either.

    There are reasons for being jobless other than being lazy, and there are benefits to aiding the poor that could outweigh the cost of some (probably not a lot) of that money being absorbed by people who are lazy.
    Go to sleep, iguana.


    _________________________________
    INTP. Type 1>6>5. sx/sp.
    Live and let live will just amount to might makes right

  5. #85
    Senior Member prplchknz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    MBTI
    yupp
    Posts
    29,780

    Default

    my mom got food snaps when she was pregnant with my brother, she got off them in a year when her and my dad we're finally making enough money to feed the family. I think in actuality poor are lazy is a myth yes some are lazy, but for the most part people will get assistance when they're young but once established or able to get established will get off.
    In no likes experiment.

    that is all

    i dunno what else to say so

  6. #86
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Coriolis View Post
    Because laziness is no greater a crime than theft, rape, murder, drug dealing, or whatever else tends to land people in prison.
    We pay taxes to keep criminals locked up because the Nation's interest in keeping the dangerous off the streets is compelling. You can bring up the point of non violent drug offenders and I'll agree that our drug policies are ridiculous.

    But my main point is that the expense is worth keeping violent criminals off our streets. Their actions force us to pay the $22k a year.

    There is no such impetus where those unwilling to work among the poor are concerned.

  7. #87
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We pay taxes to keep criminals locked up because the Nation's interest in keeping the dangerous off the streets is compelling. You can bring up the point of non violent drug offenders and I'll agree that our drug policies are ridiculous.

    But my main point is that the expense is worth keeping violent criminals off our streets. Their actions force us to pay the $22k a year.

    There is no such impetus where those unwilling to work among the poor are concerned.
    I think that sort of penny pinching is the sign of a country which has lost confidence and is in decline of some shape or form, most wealthy, prospering countries people could care less about that sort of thing, its not an issue in China like I said, and it wasnt an issue in the US in the past, like when FDR was prepared to employ whoever wanted a job on the government tab.

    Before long that's going to have an impact on business confidence, who wants to invest in a country which cant afford to cover its costs? Costs it could handle rightly until relatively recently.

    Wall St. had everyone thinking Greed was good for a while and up to a point it maybe is a stimulus to the economy but beyond a certain point its crippling to the economy.

  8. #88
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DiscoBiscuit View Post
    We pay taxes to keep criminals locked up because the Nation's interest in keeping the dangerous off the streets is compelling. You can bring up the point of non violent drug offenders and I'll agree that our drug policies are ridiculous.

    But my main point is that the expense is worth keeping violent criminals off our streets. Their actions force us to pay the $22k a year.

    There is no such impetus where those unwilling to work among the poor are concerned.
    I think that sort of penny pinching is the sign of a country which has lost confidence and is in decline of some shape or form, most wealthy, prospering countries people could care less about that sort of thing, its not an issue in China like I said, and it wasnt an issue in the US in the past, like when FDR was prepared to employ whoever wanted a job on the government tab.

    Before long that's going to have an impact on business confidence, who wants to invest in a country which cant afford to cover its costs? Costs it could handle rightly until relatively recently.

    Wall St. had everyone thinking Greed was good for a while and up to a point it maybe is a stimulus to the economy but beyond a certain point its crippling to the economy.

  9. #89
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Magic Poriferan View Post
    So what's the total? It appears to me that it averages out at $78,437,060,000 annually. That's hardly crushing the government budget, is it?
    The program grew from 2.8 million enrollees in '69 to 17.1 million in '00.

    Between '00 and '08 it grew to 28.2 million.

    From '09 to '12 it went from 28.2 million to 46.6 million

    In four years the program grew by 18.4 million participants.


    Apparently some point well beyond where we're at now, given how little that total annual cost above is. Considering that the defense department's budget isn't far off from 10 times that amount, I'm not sure why you aren't weeping for the middle class's plight in that regard.
    We are obligated (by treaty) to subsidize the security needs of much of the rest of the world. We also benefit economically from a world that is stabilized by the projection of US power overseas. What tangible benefit does the country see from paying to feed those too lazy to feed themselves.

    Except disincentivizing work that is.

    It's available from the cradle to the grave, I'm not assuming everyone using the program stays on it that long.

    That's an old cliché from people of your political wing, and here's the problem. A lot of people are incapable of helping themselves within your excessively narrow definition of self-help.
    I'm only talking about those too lazy to look for a job.

    They are capable of helping themselves, they just choose not too, and should be treated as such.

    The rest of your answer falsely assumes that I only mean those who actually have a job. Looking for a job should be enough.

    The enrollees in the SNAP program have not declined even as the recession has receded. Every one has had to sacrifice something.

    We have higher tax rates on the wealthy. Something you continually fail to acknowledge. The payroll tax holiday was ended striking the middle class.

    But even though the recession is receding, we have still seen absolutely zero reduction in the entitlement programs created to combat the down turn.

    Everyone else has had to share in the burden. With the cuts already occurring everywhere else, it's time for entitlement reform.

    It will be fun to watch the ACA continue to unravel under its own convoluted weight.

    See you in '14.

  10. #90
    Tempbanned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Enneagram
    8w9
    Posts
    14,031

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I think that sort of penny pinching is the sign of a country which has lost confidence and is in decline of some shape or form, most wealthy, prospering countries people could care less about that sort of thing, its not an issue in China like I said, and it wasnt an issue in the US in the past, like when FDR was prepared to employ whoever wanted a job on the government tab.

    Before long that's going to have an impact on business confidence, who wants to invest in a country which cant afford to cover its costs? Costs it could handle rightly until relatively recently.

    Wall St. had everyone thinking Greed was good for a while and up to a point it maybe is a stimulus to the economy but beyond a certain point its crippling to the economy.
    It's as if you think I'm arguing for the abolition of the social safety net.

Similar Threads

  1. how to get super spicy food in Thai restaurants?
    By UnitOfPopulation in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 04-25-2016, 06:22 AM
  2. How did you get the politics you did
    By Zergling in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-21-2016, 06:06 PM
  3. More Americans Added to Food Stamps Than Find Jobs
    By Zarathustra in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 09-22-2012, 10:27 PM
  4. USA States With High Unemployment Outsourcing Food Stamp Services
    By heart in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-17-2010, 07:23 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