Capitalism Guarantees Rising Inequality

[gnarlylove]

"My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment "

Care to back that claim up of ~500 billion? The numbers I gave were for 2006. No doubt it has changed but we also know 40 billion food stamps was cut (12 billion already, another 26 billion around the corner); unemployment benefits were not renewed in 2014. So spending is being cut as you know.

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal spending on means-tested programs other than health care will fall substantially as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) as the economy recovers (see graph) — and fall below its 1972-2011 average."

What happens when the government gives money for keeping people from abject circumstances? They spend the money on services, food, and growing the economy. The money ends up going to corporations in large portion and sales tax reaps another major chunk.

When corporations and the rich are given around 100 billion of welfare in 2012, they don't use it to grow the economy. They let the money sit in off-shore bank accounts, they speculate on currencies driving down growth in the relevant countries. In short, they don't use their welfare to benefit anyone but themselves.

So in point of fact corporations are being handed free money whereas the poor are being handed the ability to buy groceries for 3 weeks out of 4 every month (average food stamp payout). Is this your idea of a healthy society?

Regarding your compassion, I said only a misanthrope would be concerned about how compassionate they are in comparison with someone else. This is not a competition so please stop your spirited campaign. I am not so childish as to compare us. I am trying to get you to think in a more principled way about these matters. Then you said something principled:

""the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country."

That is very silly way to approach compassion yet you take it to be the most obvious. Well ask yourself, what is the most obvious way to be compassionate? Sending 83 cents to an African impersonally every day? It's a lot harder to ensure your welfare is actually contributing to the welfare of a human being in another area. Why do you think it makes sense to first offer help to those you will never see? The most sensible ethic is to start with those closest to you and exhibit compassion (latin meaning to "suffer with"). You can only express legitimate compassion with whom you are in direct contact--suffering with them.

This is not an attack on your personal shortcomings as you seem to think. This is a critique of your principles. You can be a fine and loving person but have false principles.


"If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity"

Good thing because I am not making this claim. I believe people are responsible for their actions and we must also consider what events shaped them that were not in their control. Case by case basis. We cannot generalize "all poor Americans deserve it." Having been homeless many months I lived among fellow homeless and got to know them and what happens day to day. It's much harder to declare these people deserve homelessness when you learn how each became that way. In fact, almost none deserve it and have tried to do what's right according to their meager means.

"Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that. "

Yeah, tell that to the cities like Detroit who lost the outsourced job and gained all those jobs back. Tell that to the families in Youngstown who had their jobs outsourced and are working in minimum wage jobs, which are around 80% of those created each quarter. As long as you don't ask what a job is and assume all jobs are the same then I guess 1.7 jobs for every job lost is good but then again you need to neglect whether it pays sufficient wages to support a family.

 

[gnarlylove]

Dude, I'm rich, so you're FOS. Sorry man. I'm a rich business owner who lives in a wealthy area. The government favors people who want control. That includes some wealthy, some corporations. It also includes special interests like teachers and other unions, environmentalists, liberal womens and minority groups. They all lobby and buy government.

The government doesn't act in my interest, but that is because i believe in freedom. Liberty. I don't want favors from government. But your contention it's just for the wealthy is crap. And as a liberal, you want bigger government, which shows that your belief it's for the wealthy is a lie. If you really believed that, you'd be a small government libertarian like me. And for the same reason, to limit government power.

Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?

I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.

I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions. I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do. Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. All citizens benefit from those things equally. There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.

When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology. The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty. Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?

Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.

Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?

 

[bripat9643]

"She (Ayn Rand) headed for Hollywood, where she set out to write stories that expressed her philosophy—a body of thought she said was the polar opposite of communism.

"She announced that the world was divided between a small minority of Supermen who are productive and 'the naked, twisted, mindless figure of the human Incompetent' who, like the Leninists, try to feed off them.

"He is 'mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned.'

"It is evil to show kindness to these 'lice': The 'only virtue' is 'selfishness.'"

Two biographies of Ayn Rand.

Ayn Rand never said those words, moron. Those are her critics paraphrasing what she said. In other words, it's total bullshit, just like every other thing you have ever posted.

She wrote those words at an early point in her career:

"The first edition of We the Living contained language which has been interpreted as advocating ruthless elitism: "What are your masses but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?"[104]

"Robert Mayhew cautions, 'We should not conclude too quickly that these passages are strong evidence of an earlier Nietzschean phase in Ayn Rand’s development, because such language can be strictly metaphorical (even if the result of an early interest in Nietzsche)'[106]"

Ayn Rand

That sentence is spoken by Kira the heroine to Andrei the villain to describe his attitude towards humanity, which he claims to care about. It's an attack on collectivism, dolt.

 

[bripat9643]

Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?

I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.

I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions. I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do. Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. All citizens benefit from those things equally. There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.

When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology. The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty. Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?

Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.

Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?

You have a right not to be killed by other humans. I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail. How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert? Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.

 

[gnarlylove]

You have a right not to be killed by other humans. I have no idea what a "right to exist" would entail. How can you have a right to food and water if you are stranded in the middle of the Sahara desert? Rights are inalienable, which means they can't be separated from your person.

That's a start (the right to not be killed). But the right to not be killed is not the right to not be tortured. Do you grant that humans should not torture other humans in the same manner that one has the right to not be killed?

People naturally can only exist around sources of food and water among other stabilities. So your example of the desert is not all that relevant.

The right to exist, if you think about it, is natural. People born in nature are obviously born where food and water is supplied otherwise the mother would have perished without giving birth. Only in the formation of complex society, especially modern society, did the right to exist perish. That's because once you allow people to privately own and control water and land (agriculture) then you undermine the basis for access, the natural state of persons to exist.

I can't imagine anyone keeping the purpose of society in mind could disagree with such a virtue or right. Society exists for the betterment of all, not a few or some or only most. It should exist for all humans (within society) since all human beings in society have the capacity to learn, love, think, feel, smile etc. it's only a matter of allowing their flourishing or withering by allowing access to sustenance (which is not denied in nature but through human action). Since they are denied sustenance through ownership of land and water, they are actively denied life. And if you think about who controls land and water, it is largely a game of profit, not a matter of human flourishing. But is this how we want society to operate?

So should society reflect the interests of the wealthy or the common good of society?

 

[dnsmith35]

"My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment "

Care to back that claim up of ~500 billion? The numbers I gave were for 2006. No doubt it has changed but we also know 40 billion food stamps was cut (12 billion already, another 26 billion around the corner); unemployment benefits were not renewed in 2014. So spending is being cut as you know.

"The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that federal spending on means-tested programs other than health care will fall substantially as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) as the economy recovers (see graph) — and fall below its 1972-2011 average."

What happens when the government gives money for keeping people from abject circumstances? They spend the money on services, food, and growing the economy. The money ends up going to corporations in large portion and sales tax reaps another major chunk.

When corporations and the rich are given around 100 billion of welfare in 2012, they don't use it to grow the economy. They let the money sit in off-shore bank accounts, they speculate on currencies driving down growth in the relevant countries. In short, they don't use their welfare to benefit anyone but themselves.

So in point of fact corporations are being handed free money whereas the poor are being handed the ability to buy groceries for 3 weeks out of 4 every month (average food stamp payout). Is this your idea of a healthy society?

Regarding your compassion, I said only a misanthrope would be concerned about how compassionate they are in comparison with someone else.

LMAO! In fact it takes a misanthrope to be more concerned with giving to persons who have a roof over their heads and food to eat to add to their dignity rather than to a poor man and his family starving to death in India, or Bangladesh. No, it is not a competition, it is the compassion of giving to the most needy first, to include not crying and wailing about a few off shored jobs.

This is not a competition so please stop your spirited campaign. I am not so childish as to compare us. I am trying to get you to think in a more principled way about these matters.

In fact I AM THINKING IN THE MOST PRINCIPLED MANNER. A liberal or humanist who values one live over another because of geography is no true liberal, and not a humanist at all.

Then you said something principled:

""the poorest people on this earth deserve our aid before we start to improve the life style of the "relatively poor" in any other country."

That is very silly way to approach compassion yet you take it to be the most obvious.

It is in fact the most compassionate way to give aid and it is obvious that it is the correct way to approach the subject.

Well ask yourself, what is the most obvious way to be compassionate? Sending 83 cents to an African impersonally every day? It's a lot harder to ensure your welfare is actually contributing to the welfare of a human being in another area.

I do agree with you on one point, it is ridiculous to send 83 cents to anyone. I send more like $1,000 a month and that counts. Are they faceless? No, I have been at the "orphanage"/school, (really not an orphanage as some children do have parents who are living in abject poverty like you have likely never seen) and I see the good they do. The kids may be different over the years but I see their pictures and I read their letters.

Why do you think it makes sense to first offer help to those you will never see?

First, I do occasionally see them, but even when I don't, I understand their life if they don't get the help.

The most sensible ethic is to start with those closest to you and exhibit compassion (latin meaning to "suffer with").

Wrong answer, the ONLY sensible ethic is to give to the person who needs the help the most, even if you don't ever see them or get to take credit in their eyes.

You can only express legitimate compassion with whom you are in direct contact--suffering with them.

That is probably the most idiotic thing anyone has ever said to me. You should be ashamed.

This is not an attack on your personal shortcomings as you seem to think. This is a critique of your principles. You can be a fine and loving person but have false principles.

Wow, another idiotic thing to say. You get less reasonable the more you say.

"If you choose to believe that people should not be held responsible for their actions you are a lost cause to humanity"

Still true!

Good thing because I am not making this claim. I believe people are responsible for their actions and we must also consider what events shaped them that were not in their control. Case by case basis. We cannot generalize "all poor Americans deserve it."

I agree, not all poor Americans deserve it.

Having been homeless many months I lived among fellow homeless and got to know them and what happens day to day. It's much harder to declare these people deserve homelessness when you learn how each became that way.

No one deserves homelessness. But the homeless man with no food or homeless shelter has priority as a human than one who can go to a "soup kitchen" occasionally.

In fact, almost none deserve it and have tried to do what's right according to their meager means.

I do agree with that.

"Some people who sound like you wail and cry about us off shoring some labor intensive jobs which in the US at minimum wage makes the output uncompetitive, even though studies show that between 1 and 1.7 jobs are created in the US with minimal wage loss for every job outsourced. I cannot abide the phony liberals who wail about that. "

Yeah, tell that to the cities like Detroit who lost the outsourced job and gained all those jobs back.

I am not being specific about any one person or group. What I know is, over all for every job lost off shoring the US creates between 1 and 1.7 new jobs in the US. Tell that to the families in Youngstown who had their jobs outsourced and are working in minimum wage jobs, which are around 80% of those created each quarter. As long as you don't ask what a job is and assume all jobs are the same then I guess 1.7 jobs for every job lost is good but then again you need to neglect whether it pays sufficient wages to support a family.[/quote]According to other economic studies, the gross loss in wage per worker losing his job and another job created (across the spectrum) is only 3% if the job is in the same industry and 7% if in a different industry. So do you believe a union worker making $60,000 a year loses one job and gets one only $58,000 on a new job than creating a new middle class in India greater than our own population? Sorry Gnarley, I damned sure don't.

BTW, I am sorry Gnarley, I made a drastic mistake. I UNDERESTIMATED THE EXPENDITURES. Here is the FULL story. But first, outsourcing jobs did not cost over all job loss in the US. Some people lost jobs but over all between 1 and 1.7 jobs were created for every job sent overseas. STUDY: Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says. Offshoring creates as many U.S. jobs as it kills, study says

BTW, why did you leave out the $275 billion of Medicaid? Oh, and I forgot about the almost $30 Billion the federal government came up with to extend unemployment beyond the normal period covered by employee/er in 2012. That is in and of itself equals $305,000,000,000. See how easy the totals add up?

Now to correct my egregious mistake:

Federal Safety Net Programs and Their Cost in Billions
The following programs target low-income individuals and families
2012 2011
Negative Income tax- Earned income tax credit (EITC) and child tax credit $ 77 $ 78
Cash is paid to working families who pay no income tax.
SNAP - Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program 81 78
Formally food stamp program. Debit cards are distributed to the poor to buy food.
Housing Assistance - HUD housing programs 48 51
Includes rent vouchers, public housing and community development programs.
SSI - Supplemental Security Income 48 53
Cash is paid to disabled, blind or seniors over 65 years of age.
Pell Grants 35 38
Grants are made to students to help pay for college tuition, room and board.
TANF - Temporary Assistance for Needy Families 16 17
Cash is paid to support low-income families and move them from welfare to work.
Child Nutrition 18 17
School lunch, breakfast and after school food programs.
Head Start - Preschool programs 10 11
Job Training - Various programs & employment support for adults, youth and seniors. 6 7
WIC - Women, Infants and Children 7 7 High protein food for pregnant women and children up to five years old.
Child Care - Child care and after school programs 5 6
LIHEAP - Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program 4 4
Aid for heating or cooling a residential dwelling.
Lifeline (Obama Phone) - Phone subsidy including cell phones 2 2
Total costs from 13 Welfare Programs 357 369
Medicaid Costs - health care for low-income Americans 251 275
Total Federal Welfare costs 2011-$ 607 Billion 2012-$ 644 Billion

State and local governments spent an additional $222 billion on antipoverty programs in 2012; $75 billion on welfare programs and $147 billion on Medicaid. Including state and local expenditures we spent $829 billion fighting poverty in 2012. http://http://federalsafetynet.com/safety-net-programs.html

First let me remind you of what I said so there is no argument later on, ""My lord, do you believe that? The government spends almost $500 billion a year on various safety net programs to include food stamps, Medicaid, direct aid, extension of unemployment." Have you got that clear in your head? I was off by 329 billion. Sorry for my error.

To recap, if all the so called aid to business essential to our national security is added up, there is no way they get even near what we spend on the needy. But that is not the issue, the needy have urgent need for what we give them....here in the US and in other countries. Like I said before, a liberal with borders is not a true liberal and is no humanist at all. He is more concerned with the elitist union workers in Detroit or Youngstown, Ohio (You forgot the tire workers in Akron) that the truly poor people of the 3rd world. That is why I make my $$$s really count helping the maximum people I can; those who need it the most. Your excuses are....just excuses for not having real compassion for the most poor of the poor. You ask why, even if I will never meet them. The simple answer is, BECAUSE I CARE!

 

[georgephillip]

In fact, I question the validity of most of your comments or links. The fact of the matter is, education must be the same for all regardless of race or culture because that is the education needed to succeed no matter the career.

In so far as drug use issues, whether they are violent crimes or not is irrelevant. People who break the law are being irresponsible. Criminality is an undesirable personality trait no matter what the race is, so stuff that up your excremental orifice.

In so far as Jim Crow, having observed many successful blacks with parallel careers to myself, there was nothing which kept them back to include race or culture.

Your accusations of anti-black issues with the military is decades old and no longer true, at least not since I have been aware in 1961.

As to blacks being statistically more likely to go to prison reflects on the likely criminality. Being poor or culturally different is no excuse for criminality. Dropping out of school is also not an acceptable excuse for failure. Those issues are self responsibility issues, not racial issues.

The fact that we have had racist issues over our history, and in accordance with what successful blacks like Bill Cosby, have said, it really does not apply today. So when you talk about institutional or personal racism, be aware that I am aware of reality as it is today, and will never be concerned with past issues.

To recap, all racist and cultural excuses are bullshit today. The individual needs the ambition, motivation, and ability, all of which are not excuses in this day and age and so long as blacks or other culturally different people whine and cry that our education system is not tailored to their culture, also miss the reality of the situation that minorities must adapt to the world in which they live. Your left wing extremism is bullshit.

I am 78 and have lived with the old Jim Crow issues and know for a fact that things are no longer what you and your left wing citations say. Especially this one which says, "The bystander effect, or bystander apathy, is a social psychological phenomenon that refers to cases in which individuals do not offer any means of help to a victim when other people are present. The probability of help is inversely related to the number of bystanders. In other words, the greater the number of bystanders, the less likely it is that any one of them will help. Several variables help to explain why the bystander effect occurs. These variables include: ambiguity, cohesiveness and diffusion of responsibility. Bystander effect - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia As a Ed.S graduate Psychologist, I understand all of the so called issues, and tell you they are little more than left wing extremist propaganda.

As a liberal, who respects all races and cultures, good public education, universal medical care, welfare for the truly needy, and respect for all humanity NO MATTER WHERE THEY LIVE. I challenge you to be as truly liberal as I instead of being a left wing extremist.

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

 

[bedowin62]

planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice

i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one

 

[georgephillip]

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

 

[georgephillip]

planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice

i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one

I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.

 

[bedowin62]

planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice

i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one

I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.

it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
you're a coward pure and simple

 

[georgephillip]

planes leave hourly for the non-capitalist country of your choice

i bet not one of the left-wing losers here will be on one

I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.

it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
you're a coward pure and simple

Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.

 

[bripat9643]

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You may remind him, social programs do not make Marxism. I wonder if some people realize that TVA charges for the power? One purpose of it was to employ jobless people during the construction? Many people in those areas did not have power even available to buy before the TVA. That the push to Electric Coops (pushed very hard by my father in Louisiana during the thirties) was to make electricity available to rural folks, not to give it to them free.

In your opinion, was FDR doing the moral thing when he taxed the rich to fund the TVA?

No.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

 

[bripat9643]

More African Americans are under the control of the criminal justice system today than were enslaved in 1850. Today's felons experience discrimination in housing, education, employment, and voting rights which is perfectly legal and just as socially acceptable as segregation was fifty years ago. And since many more people of color than whites are currently made felons by a system of mass incarceration, racial discrimination exists today just as it did under slavery and Jim Crow.

Your centrist bull shit about living in a color blind society society today, backed up with anecdotes of "successful" Black entertainers, would be comical if rich Blacks weren't profiting from four decades of income redistribution in favor of the richest 1% of citizens just as rich whites are.

Black criminality is due to situation at least as much as character.
The situations that a majority of Blacks find themselves in today are not of their own making.
Their principal situation is one of caste, and it's entirely the product of self-absorbed elites who preach ambition, motivation, and self-responsibility to those they know lack the fundamental opportunity to acquire any of those valuable character traits.

To recap: your centrist tripe in behalf of the status quo remind me of American apologetics
a century ago; your defense of rising inequality of opportunity today makes as much sense as those supporting racial segregation did then.

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

Poverty is not against the law. However, stealing is.

 

[freedombecki]

Your entire post is nothing but left wing extremist bullshit. I do not believe in the status quo. If I did, I would not be preaching self responsibility. There can be no other reasonable response to that crap other than you need to get out to the real world and look at the reasons for minority failures, which go way beyond the claim they are being held back by Whitey. It is time we stop the drop out from school BY LAW and it is time that the people who do are the ones failing, not their racial brethren who do graduate and have more successful lives. It works in other countries, many of which have racist pasts also. So long as we use racism as an excuse, this problem will never go away. Now take your head out of your excremental orifice and join the world. Now, read my signature line. That is what I believe and that is how I live.

When you come up for air, tell me what, if anything, you agree with in the following?

"Personally, my vision is for a grassroots, bottom-up human rights movement that
is committed to ending mass incarceration entirely (which means more than just
going back to 1970s rates of incarceration; it means a fundamental shift from a
punitive model to a restorative model of justice -- one that does not criminalize
people for public health problems like drug addiction, nor does it criminalize
poverty.)"

http://www.endnewjimcrow.org/CENJC_Study_Guide__LW__.pdf

How much do those prison industries add to our GDP?
$1 billion? $2 billion? LOL!

It's hard to find information on prison costs, but with more 3 strikes your out laws, there are more aging prisoners that cost more than average pri do:

After all, a third of all inmates are older than 50, and many are so debilitated that the state spends north of $100,000 per inmate to care for them. Discussion at USAToday

A report by the organization, "The Price of Prisons," states that the cost of incarcerating one inmate in Fiscal 2010 was $31,307 per year. "In states like Connecticut, Washington state, New York, it's anywhere from $50,000 to $60,000," he said.

Yes - $60,000 a year. That's a teacher's salary, or a firefighter's. Our epidemic of incarceration costs us taxpayers $63.4 billion a year.
CBS Discussion of Incarceration Costs in 2012

At least 2 articles I found that were not quoted from, one claims a 300% rise in the last 6 years for Canada, and another claims as much in the last 3 years in the US.

 

[bedowin62]

I bet you're too stupid to know that has nothing to do with capitalism guaranteeing rising economic inequality.

it has everything to do with it. you got a beef against capitalism but not the courage of your convictions
you're a coward pure and simple

Only devout chicken shits confuse running with courage.

only a coward is against something; but wont have the courage of his convictions

according to you capitalism isnt "fixable" it is inherently bad and will always "gaurantee inequality"

but i bet you wont leave for the non-capitalist country of your liking

you arent even as credible as the people who advocate for a European-type of Socialist Democracy

you're simply an idiot

 

[gnarlylove]

dnsmith

From the outset of our conversation I made it clear what my aim was. But shaming me seems to be your main aim. You are accomplished in feeling superior, that much is evident. Just like you, those who sling mud are indeed the victors. No matter the topic, those who expressly smear opposition win the conversation. Since I don't care to do the same, by standards of verbal mud slinging, I loose.

If you could put aside the need for winning and self-flattery then this would have been worthwhile. Instead, you will forever remain like most if not all Americans: trained to view themselves as the center of the world, truth and everything good. Any opposition, like mine, is pure evil, extremism and shameful.

It takes about 3 seconds of thinking to realize you and I both are human beings and human beings naturally wish to preserve what is good. There is a lot of common ground we can agree on and good in the world. There is also a lot that needs to be rectified. This much is obvious and agreeable. But it takes a lifetime of indoctrination to bury this obvious fact of reality and feel justified in dismissing any and all opposition as extremist idiocy (only because it doesn't fall within your narrow parameter understanding).

In my academic training and personal life, criticism is essential to developing a proper view of the self, others and the world. It's clear your life has been spent avoiding criticism and demonizing it by magnifying your pre-conceived notions to drown out valid criticisms.

Please don't waste our time replying to me anymore.

 

[kaz]

What is it you think you said?

It wasn't complicated, but since you didn't grasp it the first time, why would my saying it again help rather than your going back and reading it and comprehending it this time? There is no way a rational person who speaks the English language and has reading comprehension could think I said what you thought I said. I did not say electricity = Communism, in fact I said it's not.

What were you trying to communicate when you wrote: "So if I want electricity, I need to agree to Marxism. LOL, sure I do...?"

Were you trying to imply those residents of Tennessee, Virginia, North Carolina, and Kentucky who received electricity from the TVA were embracing Marxism?

Do you approve of FDR taxing the rich of his day to pay for the TVA, or is that beyond your pay grade?

You are a poster child against government schools. You even quoted the right lines and still don't understand what it means. Amazing, simply amazing. I would sue your parents and your school system, they have failed you.

 

[kaz]

Definitely appreciate and respect your honest reply. Socio-economic status helps determine what is thinkable and what is not.

But I'd ask you do you think money should determine how people think? Or should empirical reality should determine that?

I believe there should be a common ground on which all people can interact but if you grant money with such power (to radically determine your beliefs) than science and most empirical investigation becomes an exercise for the wealthy, not humanity.

So should the world reflect wealth or humans?

The matter of achieving freedom is a question about conditions. People cannot be free who lack essentials like water. And if your standard of freedom stays abreast of the wealth generated here in America, then people who lack electric and transportation are far less free than those with easy access. So should some people be less free while others accumulate all the freedom (the freedom from prosecution).

But personally I'm an anarchist. No government authority should exist without justifying it's existence and I doubt much of the government can be justified. But we don't live in that world and the one we do often abuses low income just because they are poor--this is no justification. So I think we need to protect the rights of all because once you allow some to be abused openly, than it's a slippery slope to abusing someone you care about because of some failure or flaw they allegedly have. Allowing people to survive, be treated fairly...now this is real freedom.

I'm not sure why you're asking a libertarian those questions. I want government limited to only those functions which only government can do. Primarily the police, military, civil and criminal courts, roads, management of limited resources and recognition of property rights. All citizens benefit from those things equally. There is no wealth envy or redistribution, no buying schemes.

When you say things like should the world reflect wealth or humans, I have no idea what that means in the context of my ideology. The government should be limited to maximize liberty because government is the greatest threat and infringer of our liberty. Can you rephrase the question in that context so it makes sense to me regarding what I think?

Basically, I had two points but freedom is one I'll stick to. I understand you aim for freedom.

Does that mean you aim for freedom for all persons regardless of wealth (excluding those incarcerated naturally)?

Obviously, as I said, I want government to be limited to those functions that only government can do, and I said a list of things that has nothing to do with wealth. I don't understand what you're looking for.

Does freedom mean all persons should have the right to exist? If so, is water and food also human rights since without it we cannot live?

Again, I don't understand what you're looking for. Do people have the "right" to have those things provided for them by other? No. Do they have the "right" to seek those things out without being artificially impeded by others? Yes. I don't get your implication.