Kurt Vonnegut on "Equality"

[Dubya]

1. Do you have any idea how many nasty emails I've received from asphalt for claiming that you're "dumber than asphalt'????


Seems even asphalt doesn't want be be seen in the same sentence with you.


2. Actually, smart of you to try to change the subject from your über-insane:

"The Great Society had nothing to do with redistribution of wealth."


3. And this classic: " It's stupid to claim the only possible way to make a poor person not poor is to take wealth away from somebody else."
Did you really say that?

Of course the government takes from one to give to whosoever they deem 'poor.'
Where else does government get money?
Earn it???


4. Speaking of poor, the definition is 'no home, no heat, no food.'
Do you know of any such?

Or...are you one of those simpletons who blandly accept whomsoever the government assigns that title?
Of course you are.

That's pretty much the description of 'the reliable Democrat voter.'



I'd bet anything that you are the product of government schooling.
True?

You obviously don't know what the definition of wealth is and Donald Trump is the only person I've heard talk about taxing wealth.

It's also bullshit to claim a $1 trillion in costs going to the poor. Do just the poor get Medicare?

1. "News that the poverty rate has risen to 15.1
percent of Americans, the highest level in nearly
a decade, has set off a predictable round of calls
for increased government spending on social
welfare programs. Yet this year the federal
government will spend more than $668 billion on at
least 126 different programs to fight poverty.
And that does not even begin to count welfare
spending by state and local governments, which
adds $284 billion to that figure. In total, the
United States spends nearly $1 trillion every
year to fight poverty. That amounts to $20,610
for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per
poor family of three.


2. In fact, since
President Obama took office, federal welfare
spending has increased by 41 percent, more
than $193 billion per year. Despite this government largess, more than 46 million Americans continue to live in poverty. Despite nearly $15
trillion in total welfare spending since Lyndon
Johnson declared war on poverty in 1964, the
poverty rate is perilously close to where we began more than 40 years ago.


3. Throwing money at the problem has neither
reduced poverty nor made the poor self-sufficient



4. On January 8, 1964, President Lyndon B.
Johnson delivered a State of the Union address to Congress in which he declared an
“unconditional war on poverty in America.”
At the time, the poverty rate in America was
around 19 percent and falling rapidly. This
year, it is reported that the poverty rate is expected to be roughly 15.1 percent and climbing.



5. Between then and now, the federal government spent roughly $12 trillion fighting
poverty, and state and local governments
added another $3 trillion. Yet the poverty
rate never fell below 10.5 percent and is now
at the highest level in nearly a decade.

Scribd



Do you realize that the problem continues due to you and the
other asphalt-ees?

The poverty rate is caused by Republicans. Figure it out!

 

[Article 15]

I will.

But to think that Vonnegut was expressing the same sort of critique as say Ayn Rand about equality or conservatives in general..is really misunderstanding Vonnegut.

He was an extreme critic of the uber wealthy and big corporations. You see that in "Player Piano".

Oh, of course. The OP is a drooling moron and completely wrong.

But that's par for the course for her.

My, oh, my....you must have shaken with the fear of losing your Liberal creds.


Perhaps one day you'll be strong enough to think for yourself.

I think for myself just fine, thank you. And I've read plenty of Vonnegut which is why I got a kick out of your OP. It's pants on head retarded and filled with your typical disingenuous bullshit.

But like I said to Sallow, par for the course for you.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

 

[NYcarbineer]

1. The primary purpose of the so-called 'welfare state' is to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

2. Conservative economic policy desires to dismantle the 'welfare state'.

3. Therefore, conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Any disputes?

 

[Uncensored2008]

My, oh, my....you must have shaken with the fear of losing your Liberal creds.


Perhaps one day you'll be strong enough to think for yourself.

He's butt-hurt that Vonnegut wrote disparagingly of the foundation he bases his life on.

Thus, he lashes out.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think we need a clarification here.

There are folks with no home, no heat, no food.

They are the poor.


What percentage of the more than 46 million that the government identifies as poor fall into that definition?

It's just a guess, but I'd go with .000001% or so.

Most who do are substance abusers or mentally ill. You know, people like Right Winger and JakeStarkey...

 

[Uncensored2008]

1. The primary purpose of the so-called 'welfare state' is to narrow the gap between rich and poor.

So you admit then, that leftists have been lying from the start? That the claim of a "safety net" is a complete lie and the intent has always been one of social engineering?

2. Conservative economic policy desires to dismantle the 'welfare state'.

3. Therefore, conservatives want to widen the gap between rich and poor.

Any disputes?

I dispute that you are even sentient.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think we need a clarification here.

There are folks with no home, no heat, no food.

They are the poor.


What percentage of the more than 46 million that the government identifies as poor fall into that definition?

It's just a guess, but I'd go with .000001% or so.

Most who do are substance abusers or mentally ill. You know, people like Right Winger and JakeStarkey...

Even if we accept the substance abusers or mentally ill, and any other folks who fall withing the parameters we've discussed, the numbers are eminently able to be handled by private charity.

The state need not be involved.


"Last year Americans gave $300 billion to charity. To put this into perspective, that is almost twice what we spent on consumer electronics equipment—equipment including cell phones, iPods and DVD players. Americans gave three times as much to charity last year as we spent on gambling and ten times as much as we spent on professional sports. America is by far the most charitable country in the world. There is no other country that comes close."
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2010&month=01

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, of course. The OP is a drooling moron and completely wrong.

But that's par for the course for her.

My, oh, my....you must have shaken with the fear of losing your Liberal creds.


Perhaps one day you'll be strong enough to think for yourself.

I think for myself just fine, thank you. And I've read plenty of Vonnegut which is why I got a kick out of your OP. It's pants on head retarded and filled with your typical disingenuous bullshit.

But like I said to Sallow, par for the course for you.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

Then it should be easy for you to show the errors in the OP...

Any?


Aside from your 'expert opinion.'

 

[PoliticalChic]

Oh, of course. The OP is a drooling moron and completely wrong.

But that's par for the course for her.

My, oh, my....you must have shaken with the fear of losing your Liberal creds.


Perhaps one day you'll be strong enough to think for yourself.

I think for myself just fine, thank you. And I've read plenty of Vonnegut which is why I got a kick out of your OP. It's pants on head retarded and filled with your typical disingenuous bullshit.

But like I said to Sallow, par for the course for you.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

No response?
Just as I thought.


"You don't have an honest bone in your body."
It has become eminently clear that this statement is less about me, as there is no
basis for it in truth, than your attempt to find some way- any way- to criticize my posts, but have neither the ability nor knowledge necessary.

So....some imaginary ad hominem is all you have.

Dismissed.

 

[Article 15]

My, oh, my....you must have shaken with the fear of losing your Liberal creds.


Perhaps one day you'll be strong enough to think for yourself.

I think for myself just fine, thank you. And I've read plenty of Vonnegut which is why I got a kick out of your OP. It's pants on head retarded and filled with your typical disingenuous bullshit.

But like I said to Sallow, par for the course for you.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

No response?
Just as I thought.


"You don't have an honest bone in your body."
It has become eminently clear that this statement is less about me, as there is no
basis for it in truth, than your attempt to find some way- any way- to criticize my posts, but have neither the ability nor knowledge necessary.

So....some imaginary ad hominem is all you have.

Dismissed.

Why would I engage you at all? I have zero respect for you and you aren't an honest poster.

You don't deserve anything beyond a general eff you from me. Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time.

So "eff you".

Ok, now YOU are dismissed, toots.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I think for myself just fine, thank you. And I've read plenty of Vonnegut which is why I got a kick out of your OP. It's pants on head retarded and filled with your typical disingenuous bullshit.

But like I said to Sallow, par for the course for you.

You don't have an honest bone in your body.

No response?
Just as I thought.


"You don't have an honest bone in your body."
It has become eminently clear that this statement is less about me, as there is no
basis for it in truth, than your attempt to find some way- any way- to criticize my posts, but have neither the ability nor knowledge necessary.

So....some imaginary ad hominem is all you have.

Dismissed.

Why would I engage you at all? I have zero respect for you and you aren't an honest poster.

You don't deserve anything beyond a general eff you from me. Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time.

So "eff you".

Ok, now YOU are dismissed, toots.

I never expected you to engage me....

1. You have no basis for claiming that there is any error in the OP.

2. Nor can you point out anything dishonest in my posts.


The conclusion is as I posted: you are prevaricating attacks on me because you would like to take a shot at my posts, but you have no ammunition.

Just making that clear.



" Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time."
So, it appears, is actual thinking.

 

[Article 15]

No response?
Just as I thought.


"You don't have an honest bone in your body."
It has become eminently clear that this statement is less about me, as there is no
basis for it in truth, than your attempt to find some way- any way- to criticize my posts, but have neither the ability nor knowledge necessary.

So....some imaginary ad hominem is all you have.

Dismissed.

Why would I engage you at all? I have zero respect for you and you aren't an honest poster.

You don't deserve anything beyond a general eff you from me. Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time.

So "eff you".

Ok, now YOU are dismissed, toots.

I never expected you to engage me....

1. You have no basis for claiming that there is any error in the OP.

2. Nor can you point out anything dishonest in my posts.


The conclusion is as I posted: you are prevaricating attacks on me because you would like to take a shot at my posts, but you have no ammunition.

Just making that clear.



" Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time."
So, it appears, is actual thinking.

^ Funny shit right there.

This chic ducked my posts on the very first page of this thread and now wants to claim I have no ammunition.

Like I said, you and your dishonest nonsense are a waste of my time.

Eff you.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Why would I engage you at all? I have zero respect for you and you aren't an honest poster.

You don't deserve anything beyond a general eff you from me. Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time.

So "eff you".

Ok, now YOU are dismissed, toots.

I never expected you to engage me....

1. You have no basis for claiming that there is any error in the OP.

2. Nor can you point out anything dishonest in my posts.


The conclusion is as I posted: you are prevaricating attacks on me because you would like to take a shot at my posts, but you have no ammunition.

Just making that clear.



" Anything beyond that is a big fat waste of my time."
So, it appears, is actual thinking.

^ Funny shit right there.

This chic ducked my posts on the very first page of this thread and now wants to claim I have no ammunition.

Like I said, you and your dishonest nonsense are a waste of my time.

Eff you.

Another pithy insightful post.


Keep tryin.'