Can anyone tell me about Politics....

[blackhawk]

Politics is where people who are not anywhere near as smart as they think they are try to convince a lot other people they are actually as smart as they think they are.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Good point. To a leftist, government is all about getting free stuff.

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

Okay, it’s not like any progressive wants all of that for themselves. That’s what you don’t get. I don’t qualify for food stamps and I am perfectly okay with that. I do, however, think it should go to those who actually need it. Not sure where this free phone narrative came from but whatever. Obviously single working moms need public assisted daycare out of necessity. It’s meant to benefit the kid above all anyway. Free tuition really is a no brainer. It’s how people pursue better careers without being troubled with debt. It’s not like getting a degree is a walk in the park anyway. Also, if more people go to college, it benefits society in general.

So even though I support these programs that are technically “free shit”, the concept of them is no different from you or anyone accepting “free” police assistance, fire assistance, kids going to public school, or snow plowing public roads. Of course we both know all of these programs are paid for by tax revenue which essentially means you live in a socialist country whether you like it or not.

There are places government is needed and places where government is not. Police, fire, road maintenance, benefits all taxpayers either directly or indirectly. Free college and daycare does not. It only benefits the individual.

Also our Constitution allows cities, counties and states to run their own governments. So if they want to provide police, fire and city services, the federal government has no business in that.

If working moms can't take care of their children, then they should have never had children in the first place. Government taking care of individuals children is promoting irresponsibility and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.

Food stamps? How many links would you like me to provide where Republican states instituted requirements to get food stamps, and people dropped out of the program? Food stamps is vote buying less than necessity.

Again, it’s about the kid. I don’t see how that is hard to understand. Sure the mom shouldn’t have had the kid, but are we supposed to basically say “fuck you” to that kid and not do what is needed for them because the mom fucked up. It also doesn’t make any goddamn sense for a woman to be more incentivized to have kids knowing she would get public daycare out of it.

Requirements like what? Drug testing? Statistically that policy doesn’t make any sense because there is no correlation between drug use and SNAP. The program sure as Hell isnt vote buying because very few people even qualify for it. You do know that right?

Well take Maine for instance. They instituted a policy for food stamp recipients with no dependents to participate in one of three things: Have a job where you work at least 20 hours a week; volunteer at least 20 hours a month, or be enrolled in a vocational program so you are getting training for work.

Most of those hungry people decided to go without food. Imagine that!

I believe that any person not able to take care of their children should have them removed by the government. Too often people have kids knowing taxpayers will foot the bill. If we take those kids and put them up for adoption, you'd see how fast that activity would be reduced.

 

[Billy000]

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

Okay, it’s not like any progressive wants all of that for themselves. That’s what you don’t get. I don’t qualify for food stamps and I am perfectly okay with that. I do, however, think it should go to those who actually need it. Not sure where this free phone narrative came from but whatever. Obviously single working moms need public assisted daycare out of necessity. It’s meant to benefit the kid above all anyway. Free tuition really is a no brainer. It’s how people pursue better careers without being troubled with debt. It’s not like getting a degree is a walk in the park anyway. Also, if more people go to college, it benefits society in general.

So even though I support these programs that are technically “free shit”, the concept of them is no different from you or anyone accepting “free” police assistance, fire assistance, kids going to public school, or snow plowing public roads. Of course we both know all of these programs are paid for by tax revenue which essentially means you live in a socialist country whether you like it or not.

There are places government is needed and places where government is not. Police, fire, road maintenance, benefits all taxpayers either directly or indirectly. Free college and daycare does not. It only benefits the individual.

Also our Constitution allows cities, counties and states to run their own governments. So if they want to provide police, fire and city services, the federal government has no business in that.

If working moms can't take care of their children, then they should have never had children in the first place. Government taking care of individuals children is promoting irresponsibility and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.

Food stamps? How many links would you like me to provide where Republican states instituted requirements to get food stamps, and people dropped out of the program? Food stamps is vote buying less than necessity.

Again, it’s about the kid. I don’t see how that is hard to understand. Sure the mom shouldn’t have had the kid, but are we supposed to basically say “fuck you” to that kid and not do what is needed for them because the mom fucked up. It also doesn’t make any goddamn sense for a woman to be more incentivized to have kids knowing she would get public daycare out of it.

Requirements like what? Drug testing? Statistically that policy doesn’t make any sense because there is no correlation between drug use and SNAP. The program sure as Hell isnt vote buying because very few people even qualify for it. You do know that right?

Well take Maine for instance. They instituted a policy for food stamp recipients with no dependents to participate in one of three things: Have a job where you work at least 20 hours a week; volunteer at least 20 hours a month, or be enrolled in a vocational program so you are getting training for work.

Most of those hungry people decided to go without food. Imagine that!

I believe that any person not able to take care of their children should have them removed by the government. Too often people have kids knowing taxpayers will foot the bill. If we take those kids and put them up for adoption, you'd see how fast that activity would be reduced.

Okay, most able-bodied people on food stamps have a job in the first place so i highly doubt people skirted this. If you are unemployed and not a dependent, going on food stamps instead of having a job doesn’t make any economic sense.

Lol wow could you be more fascist? Now you do realize that if the government did this, that kid would still need to be taken care of right? That would end up being an overall much higher cost to tax payers because that kid would need food, housing and someone paid to take care of them. More importantly, the kid’s quality of life is more at risk if they aren’t raised by their biological parents. You should also consider the circumstances of why this single mom can’t support a kid. Did she get laid off? Did she become ill? Did kid’s father abruptly leave? Are you actually suggesting such a mother should be punished by having her kids taken away? That’s batshit crazy. Have some basic empathy dude.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

That's the problem, we can't opt for none. It was here yesterday, it's here today, and will be here tomorrow.

There's a way around it all. Crypto Currency, for example, is completely untraceable. It's banned in Russia, and yet they have a massive Crypto market. Things such as putting a Taxi Meter in your car and never signing a W2(?) would prevent you from paying taxes on your gas or pay.

I believe it was an article about Switzerland that got my attention. They had a vote on UI which failed, but I liked the theory behind it.

What they found is that by having UI for everybody and eliminating all government programs, it would actually save the country money. In American dollars, it was something like 18 or 20K a year. And then I got to thinking about it.

How many social problems would something like that solve? I say at least 80% of them.

Meanwhile, not having a Government would solve so much more. Most problems people face are caused by the Government in the first place. Competition would be at an all-time high, and prices would be at an all-time low. No theft required, amazingly.

Take healthcare for instance. Currently we have a real problem with healthcare because of the expense. If we instituted UI, everybody would be able to afford it. Okay, but what if you have insurance for your job? Well how about college for your kids; anther huge expense. If you are working and got UI, you could easily afford college for your children, because they would be adults by the time they went to college, and be part of the UI program as well.

Government caused that problem in the first place by limiting competition, creating pseudo-monopolies, as they do with practically every industry. Basically, what you're saying is that the Government could cut programs(Which is hilarious given its history), and then the Government can attempt to solve a program caused by Government. I'm not in favor of the Government doing anything at all whatsoever. My solution is that people trade around the Government until is collapses, counter-economics is the most reliable way to do that.

HUD is a real problem and here's why: Our government thinks that if you mix lowlifes into middle-class and sometimes upper-middle-class communities, you can turn lowlifes into productive citizens. It doesn't work that way and never will. All you really do is destroy once nice and safe communities. If lower income people got this UI, they would not be able to afford homes in those areas and have children (another problem). They would have to make a choice between the two.

Pretty sure viability of financial decisions isn't a concern for them, given they are 'poor' in the first place. Of course, eliminating Government would solve that problem, since people would be forced to live within their means or starve to death.(Then again, people would be making more money, so it's highly likely that someone would help them out.)

The way our welfare system currently works, you are penalized for trying to get out of them. If you make over X amount of money, they deduct that from your food stamps, HUD subsidy, and even your child care vouchers. With UI, nobody would get penalized, and it would do the exact opposite of what it's doing today which is discouraging people to work.

The Government's goal is to keep people reliant on the Government, not to actually solve problems, not that it's capable of doing so anyway. The Government wants to discourage people to work so that it can expand its power and further the existence of Government. Reg Stats | Regulatory Studies Center | The George Washington University

That's all it has ever done.

You're also going along with the premise that they're here to work for your or anyone else's, benefit, when that is demonstrably false.
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Warren v. District of Columbia - Wikipedia Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia DeShaney v. Winnebago County - Wikipedia Maksim Gelman stabbing spree - Wikipedia

They do not, have not, and will not ever work in our interests.

I could go on and on, but I think you get the point. And you would find very few instances where UI would not be a better system than we currently have. In short, it would solve a lot of problems many of us have, save the country money, and promote responsibility instead of promoting irresponsibility as we are today.

I don't want to save the country money, I want them to stop stealing from people, murdering people, assaulting people, and kidnapping people. To do that, they must be starved of funds and collapse. Besides, your idea relies on them doing something that would be productive for us, when that's not even something they would briefly consider, let alone actually do.

 

[Flopper]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

The most important thing to know about politics is candidates win elections not political theory.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The philosophy of America's founders was that individuals must have rights protected FROM government and that government should be limited so that said individual can be free, productive and prosperous.

Hilarious self serving pablum. As though the individuals who were slaves' rights were protected from government, rather than being denied by government. The usual conservative American hypocrisy.

So you will use past injustice 'which has been remedied by the system itself' to say that all Americans should be at the mercy of the government with no protections? Being denied by the government at one time is no excuse to turn the government loose on everyone in the here and now.

 

[DustyInfinity]

The government tries to 'fix' a problem, causing the price of that problem to at least triple. Happens with EVERYTHING it fixes. It eventually causes increased poverty, except for our dear leaders who get a cut off the top to have many houses and nice cars.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

Okay, it’s not like any progressive wants all of that for themselves. That’s what you don’t get. I don’t qualify for food stamps and I am perfectly okay with that. I do, however, think it should go to those who actually need it. Not sure where this free phone narrative came from but whatever. Obviously single working moms need public assisted daycare out of necessity. It’s meant to benefit the kid above all anyway. Free tuition really is a no brainer. It’s how people pursue better careers without being troubled with debt. It’s not like getting a degree is a walk in the park anyway. Also, if more people go to college, it benefits society in general.

So even though I support these programs that are technically “free shit”, the concept of them is no different from you or anyone accepting “free” police assistance, fire assistance, kids going to public school, or snow plowing public roads. Of course we both know all of these programs are paid for by tax revenue which essentially means you live in a socialist country whether you like it or not.

There are places government is needed and places where government is not. Police, fire, road maintenance, benefits all taxpayers either directly or indirectly. Free college and daycare does not. It only benefits the individual.

Also our Constitution allows cities, counties and states to run their own governments. So if they want to provide police, fire and city services, the federal government has no business in that.

If working moms can't take care of their children, then they should have never had children in the first place. Government taking care of individuals children is promoting irresponsibility and burdening the taxpayer at the same time.

Food stamps? How many links would you like me to provide where Republican states instituted requirements to get food stamps, and people dropped out of the program? Food stamps is vote buying less than necessity.

Again, it’s about the kid. I don’t see how that is hard to understand. Sure the mom shouldn’t have had the kid, but are we supposed to basically say “fuck you” to that kid and not do what is needed for them because the mom fucked up. It also doesn’t make any goddamn sense for a woman to be more incentivized to have kids knowing she would get public daycare out of it.

Requirements like what? Drug testing? Statistically that policy doesn’t make any sense because there is no correlation between drug use and SNAP. The program sure as Hell isnt vote buying because very few people even qualify for it. You do know that right?

Well take Maine for instance. They instituted a policy for food stamp recipients with no dependents to participate in one of three things: Have a job where you work at least 20 hours a week; volunteer at least 20 hours a month, or be enrolled in a vocational program so you are getting training for work.

Most of those hungry people decided to go without food. Imagine that!

I believe that any person not able to take care of their children should have them removed by the government. Too often people have kids knowing taxpayers will foot the bill. If we take those kids and put them up for adoption, you'd see how fast that activity would be reduced.

Okay, most able-bodied people on food stamps have a job in the first place so i highly doubt people skirted this. If you are unemployed and not a dependent, going on food stamps instead of having a job doesn’t make any economic sense.

Lol wow could you be more fascist? Now you do realize that if the government did this, that kid would still need to be taken care of right? That would end up being an overall much higher cost to tax payers because that kid would need food, housing and someone paid to take care of them. More importantly, the kid’s quality of life is more at risk if they aren’t raised by their biological parents. You should also consider the circumstances of why this single mom can’t support a kid. Did she get laid off? Did she become ill? Did kid’s father abruptly leave? Are you actually suggesting such a mother should be punished by having her kids taken away? That’s batshit crazy. Have some basic empathy dude.

Yes, because women having kids for the specific purpose of staying on the dole has worked out so well.

Do you really think you can fix a problem by pandering to it?

You have to start somewhere. If it were up to me, nobody applying for welfare would receive a dime until they were fixed first. That includes males as well as females. No more having kids while on welfare. That's where I would start.

The point is, you have to take away the incentive of being irresponsible and getting rewarded if you are. If you really care about kids, you'd want to stop future kids from being born into poverty by a welfare queen. As for food stamps, yes, many of them are working, but only enough hours to stay on the program. Trust me, some of our customers use temp services. When they ask the temps if they could work extra hours, most of them refuse. Why? Because it's like working for free to them since any additional income gets deducted from their stipend.

 

[Crepitus]

Good point. To a leftist, government is all about getting free stuff.

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

I think I recall one or two continuing to push for UBI. Was it Andrew Yang?

Yeah, though, pretty much the entire "leftist" platform is stealing more property from people and giving it to others. Hilariously, the Economic Calculation Problem means that they're giving out less than they stole.

Well that's one issue I think needs some serious consideration IF UBI replaces all social programs. I think I could be more willing to accept that.

Why settle for some theft/extortion when you can opt for none? The Mafia can't steal from you if you work around it.

Wake up kid! Taxes are not theft or extortion and the government is not the mafia!

Making hyperbolic comparisons like this just makes you look silly.

 

[Crepitus]

i dont want free stuff...i want to live free!

Then move somewhere with no government.

Good point. To a leftist, government is all about getting free stuff.

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

Okay, it’s not like any progressive wants all of that for themselves. That’s what you don’t get. I don’t qualify for food stamps and I am perfectly okay with that. I do, however, think it should go to those who actually need it. Not sure where this free phone narrative came from but whatever. Obviously single working moms need public assisted daycare out of necessity. It’s meant to benefit the kid above all anyway. Free tuition really is a no brainer. It’s how people pursue better careers without being troubled with debt. It’s not like getting a degree is a walk in the park anyway. Also, if more people go to college, it benefits society in general.

So even though I support these programs that are technically “free shit”, the concept of them is no different from you or anyone accepting “free” police assistance, fire assistance, kids going to public school, or snow plowing public roads. Of course we both know all of these programs are paid for by tax revenue which essentially means you live in a socialist country whether you like it or not.

Thank you!

I don't qualify for any federal assistance, hell I don't even get an Obamacare subsidy, but there are many people out there who need the help and it's our responsibility to take care of our less fortunate citizens. That's what having a society is all about.

 

[Crepitus]

Free college and daycare does not.

I beg to differ. A more educated and available work force is a huge benefit to America.

 

[dblack]

Free college and daycare does not.

I beg to differ. A more educated and available work force is a huge benefit to America.

Educated how? By whom? Who gets to decide how you are educated?

 

[OldLady]

MY TRIBE GOOD
OTHER TRIBE BAD

Ah....the fence-sitter precinct checks in.

.

As 'book' has become a topic here, let me recommend one that speaks of you, at lest those unwilling to inform themselves enough to hold a valid viewpoint.

Dante Alighieri, the man who created the Italian language, and the great works like ‘The Divine Comedy’…”considered to be the preeminent work in Italian literature[1] and one of the greatest works of world literature.”

See what he said about equivocators like you….


These folks pretend they are above the fray, too noble to be one side or the other. In fact, they are both too lazy to be informed, and too cowardly to take a side and try to defend it.

Both sides the same? Not on the important topics of the sanctity of human life, or of private property, or individual rights vs the collective. And what do these equivalency gnomes deserve? That brings us to Dante Alighieri.




In The Inferno, Dante puts the equivocators right where they belong: at the mouth of Hell.

“They reach a gate in the evening (which famously warns "Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch'intrate" = "... Abandon all hope, you who enter here")—it marks the entry into "the city of woe". Outside the gate, Fore-Hell is populated with Neutrals and Waverers who would not commit to God and are condemned to spend their afterlife futilely chasing a meaningless banner.” Dante Inferno Summary


“This idea of a marginal place--inside the gate of hell but before the river Acheron--for souls neither good enough for heaven nor evil enough for hell proper is a product of Dante's imagination, pure and simple. Possible theological justification for Dante's invention may be found in Apocalypse (Revelation) 3:16: "But because thou art lukewarm and neither cold nor hot, I will begin to vomit thee out of my mouth." Included among these cowardly souls--also known as fence-sitters, wafflers, opportunists, and neutrals--are the angels who refused to choose between God and Lucifer. What does this original idea say about Dante's view of human behavior and its relation to the afterlife? What might Dante's conception of this region imply about hell proper and its eternal inhabitants?” Dante's Inferno - Gate of Hell - Canto 3



Fence-sitter???? Couldn’t have said it better myself.

It's almost too easy to strike a nerve around here.
.

How's the view of the First Circle, Mac?

 

[Flopper]

I'm willing to learn about politics basic theory. I'm going to study it. Can you explain what is the politics...

If you're serious, begin by learning about "government and politics" Your local community college probably has some good basic courses. If you're looking for free education, try Kahn Academy. They offer free online education in a number of areas and aren't strongly biased. It's essential that you understand how government and our political system works before you commit to defending any political ideology. Most of all, stay away from any conservative or liberal web sites until you really understand the basics, otherwise you will end up as biased and unreceptive to new ideas as most members on this forum.
AP®︎ US Government and Politics | Arts and humanities | Khan Academy

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

I think I recall one or two continuing to push for UBI. Was it Andrew Yang?

Yeah, though, pretty much the entire "leftist" platform is stealing more property from people and giving it to others. Hilariously, the Economic Calculation Problem means that they're giving out less than they stole.

Well that's one issue I think needs some serious consideration IF UBI replaces all social programs. I think I could be more willing to accept that.

Why settle for some theft/extortion when you can opt for none? The Mafia can't steal from you if you work around it.

Wake up kid! Taxes are not theft or extortion and the government is not the mafia!

Making hyperbolic comparisons like this just makes you look silly.

Except it's not hyperbolic at all. The Government tells you how to live your life and sends hirelings after you if you don't follow their opinions written on paper.

They steal your property, and will send Road Pirates after you if you refuse. It's literally theft.

Saying that it isn't theft is inherently inconsistent, it means the Government can use force to take your property, but others can't. It's Special Pleading.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Free college and daycare does not.

I beg to differ. A more educated and available work force is a huge benefit to America.

Yes it is, but it's primarily an investment.

An investment is when you spend money hoping to get that money back plus a profit. That's what an advanced education is. The federal government should not be funding investments be it college or stocks.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Then move somewhere with no government.

Good point. To a leftist, government is all about getting free stuff.

Why do you people entertain that bullshit narrative? What free shit?

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

Okay, it’s not like any progressive wants all of that for themselves. That’s what you don’t get. I don’t qualify for food stamps and I am perfectly okay with that. I do, however, think it should go to those who actually need it. Not sure where this free phone narrative came from but whatever. Obviously single working moms need public assisted daycare out of necessity. It’s meant to benefit the kid above all anyway. Free tuition really is a no brainer. It’s how people pursue better careers without being troubled with debt. It’s not like getting a degree is a walk in the park anyway. Also, if more people go to college, it benefits society in general.

So even though I support these programs that are technically “free shit”, the concept of them is no different from you or anyone accepting “free” police assistance, fire assistance, kids going to public school, or snow plowing public roads. Of course we both know all of these programs are paid for by tax revenue which essentially means you live in a socialist country whether you like it or not.

Thank you!

I don't qualify for any federal assistance, hell I don't even get an Obamacare subsidy, but there are many people out there who need the help and it's our responsibility to take care of our less fortunate citizens. That's what having a society is all about.

No, that's what charities are all about. Forced charities are not charity at all. Forced charities are theft.

 

[Crepitus]

What free shit? Free healthcare coverage, free food, free housing, free daycare centers, free cell phones, and now the Democrat runners for President want even more free shit like free college and free healthcare for every single American and illegal in this country.

I think I recall one or two continuing to push for UBI. Was it Andrew Yang?

Yeah, though, pretty much the entire "leftist" platform is stealing more property from people and giving it to others. Hilariously, the Economic Calculation Problem means that they're giving out less than they stole.

Well that's one issue I think needs some serious consideration IF UBI replaces all social programs. I think I could be more willing to accept that.

Why settle for some theft/extortion when you can opt for none? The Mafia can't steal from you if you work around it.

Wake up kid! Taxes are not theft or extortion and the government is not the mafia!

Making hyperbolic comparisons like this just makes you look silly.

Except it's not hyperbolic at all. The Government tells you how to live your life and sends hirelings after you if you don't follow their opinions written on paper.

They steal your property, and will send Road Pirates after you if you refuse. It's literally theft.

Saying that it isn't theft is inherently inconsistent, it means the Government can use force to take your property, but others can't. It's Special Pleading.

Oh no, there's no hyperbole there!

<Sarcasm>

 

[Crepitus]

Free college and daycare does not.

I beg to differ. A more educated and available work force is a huge benefit to America.

Yes it is, but it's primarily an investment.

An investment is when you spend money hoping to get that money back plus a profit. That's what an advanced education is. The federal government should not be funding investments be it college or stocks.

Educated successful folks pay more taxes. It's an investment for the government.

 

[dblack]

I think I recall one or two continuing to push for UBI. Was it Andrew Yang?

Yeah, though, pretty much the entire "leftist" platform is stealing more property from people and giving it to others. Hilariously, the Economic Calculation Problem means that they're giving out less than they stole.

Well that's one issue I think needs some serious consideration IF UBI replaces all social programs. I think I could be more willing to accept that.

Why settle for some theft/extortion when you can opt for none? The Mafia can't steal from you if you work around it.

Wake up kid! Taxes are not theft or extortion and the government is not the mafia!

Making hyperbolic comparisons like this just makes you look silly.

Except it's not hyperbolic at all. The Government tells you how to live your life and sends hirelings after you if you don't follow their opinions written on paper.

They steal your property, and will send Road Pirates after you if you refuse. It's literally theft.

Saying that it isn't theft is inherently inconsistent, it means the Government can use force to take your property, but others can't. It's Special Pleading.

Oh no, there's no hyperbole there!

Where's the hyperbole?