What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[koshergrl]

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

Okay here's your response from your Post 1004.

Jillian had gone off on a rant about red states getting more federal money than blue states which has absolutely nothing to do with the basic principle which did not distinguish between left or right, red or blue states, or political parties or any other criteria other than the specific issue of entitlements at face value.

As I recall in your other posts you did much the same thing though you took it in different directions. JoeB did the same.

An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis. And I have made the point several times now that one time grants or periodic subsidies are not the same thing.

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

Can we agree on the bolded concept?

No, I disagree with the bolded part. Once again, you are putting simplistic spin on a vexing question.

For example, I have issue with this part: An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis.

Is that an entitlement? I mean the definition? You would have to know who was receiving the 'entitlement' in the first place. Don't get me wrong, there are probably people who meet your definition - who have never worked and are getting something for nothing, but what about a 50 year old who has worked for 30 years and paid taxes, but is say, now on food stamps due to being made redundant because their call centre job was outsourced to India. Are they getting food stamps that others have paid for, or is it them just getting back something that their taxes have paid for over the past 30 years?

An entitlement program guarantees benefits or money to a particular population, not based on what they have earned, but based on who they are.

Regardless of whether or not they have earned or paid into the system, eligibility is determined based on whether or not they belong to a particular group that is guaranteed entitlement program benefits.

SSI is an entitlement program. TANF is an entitlement program. These groups...disabled or destitute families with children, are GUARANTEED something regardless of their contribution to the system.

 

[koshergrl]

If you are entitled to something, it means you don't have to pay for it. That's the easiest way to think of entitlements.

"en·ti·tle·ment (

n-t

t

l-m

nt)
n. 1. The act or process of entitling.
2. The state of being entitled.
3. A government program that guarantees and provides benefits to a particular group: "fights . . . to preserve victories won a generation ago, like the Medicaid entitlement for the poor" (Jason DeParle)."

Entitlement program - definition of Entitlement program by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

[Dr Grump]

An entitlement program guarantees benefits or money to a particular population, not based on what they have earned, but based on who they are.

Regardless of whether or not they have earned or paid into the system, eligibility is determined based on whether or not they belong to a particular group that is guaranteed entitlement program benefits.

SSI is an entitlement program. TANF is an entitlement program. These groups...disabled or destitute families with children, are GUARANTEED something regardless of their contribution to the system.

I know. But FF's all-encompassing statement says that entitlement programmes are bad. But for her premise to be true then everybody under the entitlement programme(s) have to fit into the category you have stated above. They don't. As I said, it is a simplistic supposition, but the answers are far from so.

 

[jillian]

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

As for this part - I don't know of any hard working person - liberal, conservative, libertarian - whatever - that likes any lazy arsed person who doesn't want to contribute to society through their own choice.

Remember, you phrased the question as "I, a conservative", so while in your last post to me you talk about Jillian's points and that "leftist etc" doesn't matter, you are being disingenuous....

as disingenuous as her calling my post a "rant"...

just saying

 

[jillian]

This is why.... .. Sorry jillian... i could not resist!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html

don't make me hurt you.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

they all start when someone greedy decides to game the system and the rest of us are dumb enough to let them do it.

if so why be so afraid to give your best single example of this? what does your fear tell you? Have you had Econ 101 at least, or are you just a lazy liberal who wants to pretend you understand even when you've done no work to really understand?

How about the whole fucking banking fiasco, meathead? The one where they took toxic loans, bundled them with bad loans, sold them off as derivitives to unsuspecting investors.

actually, our greatest economists and greatest newspapers on left and right agree it was caused by liberal government not the banks who were the symptom, not the cause. Too complex when you haven't been to college?

"First consider the once controversial view that the crisis was largely caused by the Fed's holding interest rates too low for too long after the 2001 recession. This view is now so widely held that the editorial pages of both the NY Times and the Wall Street Journal agree on its validity!"...John B. Taylor( arch conservative, author of the Taylor Rule)


" The Federal reserve having done so much to create the problems in which the economy is now mired, having mistakenly thought that even after the housing bubble burst the problems were contained, and having underestimated the severity of the crisis, now wants to make a contribution to preventing the economy from sinking into a Japanese Style malaise....... - "Joseph Stiglitz"

 

[Vidi]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

Im a liberal and I do not oppose a limited government, but I oppose a toothless one.

Interesting. How limited are you willing for government to be? And what would a 'toothless" government look like to you?

People often talk about big or small government. It's the wrong way to frame it, in my opinion. We should be discussing effective government vs ineffective government.

Then where we differ is simply a matter of priorities as opposed to dogmatic nonsense.

I believe the government is there to keep the country in a path that is in line with the Constitution, to defend our borders and to defend the people. From anyone who would take away their constitutionally protected rights.

I see the current biggest threat to those rights as the über rich/multinational corporation and their influence over our system. Therefore, I expect our government to limit their power do that it is in line with that of the people, no more, no less.

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them, but they seem to be willing to allow foreign entities with no allegiance to our country to run amok.

Currently, however, only the Democrats are paying lip service to it. And while the Dems are no where near doing enough to deal with it. They are at least discussing it as a threat to our way of life. So they get my vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

You are wrong. But your opinion is noted...

We have answered the question...several times. The interesting part is that you do not like the answers we have given...

You saying our answers are not being articulated, is again, your opinion...but that's all it is - an opinion.

In fact, I have even answered your question to your specfications too, even though the way it was framed was disingenuous because it your opinion of what I think (entitlement mentality) and what an entitlement is, are wrong..

Okay here's your response from your Post 1004.

Jillian had gone off on a rant about red states getting more federal money than blue states which has absolutely nothing to do with the basic principle which did not distinguish between left or right, red or blue states, or political parties or any other criteria other than the specific issue of entitlements at face value.

As I recall in your other posts you did much the same thing though you took it in different directions. JoeB did the same.

An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis. And I have made the point several times now that one time grants or periodic subsidies are not the same thing.

An entitlement mentality is the perception that one is entitled to receive that government money and an expectation that it will keep coming.

Can we agree on the bolded concept?

No, I disagree with the bolded part. Once again, you are putting simplistic spin on a vexing question.

For example, I have issue with this part: An entitlement is a government program that transfers money from those who earned it and gives it to those who did not earn it on an ongoing basis.

Is that an entitlement? I mean the definition? You would have to know who was receiving the 'entitlement' in the first place. Don't get me wrong, there are probably people who meet your definition - who have never worked and are getting something for nothing, but what about a 50 year old who has worked for 30 years and paid taxes, but is say, now on food stamps due to being made redundant because their call centre job was outsourced to India. Are they getting food stamps that others have paid for, or is it them just getting back something that their taxes have paid for over the past 30 years?

If the money he has paid in was banked by the Treasury and held in reserve for him, it would be his money. Just as social security taxes collected from each of us are our money that we can expect to be repaid when we retire. But since the money was not collected for the purpose of providing him with food stamps, it has to be collected in the form of somebody else's earnings and then given to him. And if the government did not collect enough social security from you over your working life but still keeps the checks going to you after your own contributions have long been exhausted, then that too has to be taken from somebody else's earnings.

The matter of need or right and wrong is NOT the point in defining an entitlement.

But if the law allows money to be taken from Citizen A who legally and ethically earned or acquired it and that money is given on an ongoing basis to Citizen B, who didn't earn it and did nothing to merit it, that is a government entitlement.

The Merriam Webster definition:

ENTITLEMENT
1 - a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2 - : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3 - : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

How do you define an entitlement?

 

[Syphon]

I, as a conservative, say that federal entitlements are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

What say you?

i'd say that's another false premise.

50% of senior citizens lived below the poverty line prior to social security.
medicare/medicaid are also positive.
you can't let people starve, so food stamps are an important supplement.
things like headstart end up paying for themselves
the GI Bill raised the level of college grads from 6% to 20%
VA hospitals take care of people who put their lives on the line for their country

i'm not quite sure what you consider an "entitlement" besides those things,

An entitlement is any ongoing program in which the government takes tax money from one citizen and gives it to another on an on going basis. It must be an ongoing program with an implied permance to it; otherwise it is a grant or subsidy which is a different thing and does not tend to make people dependent on receiving it. The GI bill was not an entitlement for instance. It was a program built into the compensation given to our men and women serving in the military. It was not based on need but on the service rendered. Ditto the VA program.

So you are saying that if the federal government did not administer a food stamp program, people would starve and that justifies the federal government taking tax money to pay for it rather than allowing the states and/or private organizations take care of that? And that Head Start pays for itself? I seem to recall reading lately that it not only does not pay for itself but it is too often largely ineffective.

If there are more effective ways to ensure people don't starve than by a federal food stamp program, would you agree the food stamp program should end?

If there are more effective ways to educate children than through Head Start, would you support choosing that more effective way?

how is medicare and social security and entitlement then if you pay into the system? your definition plainly states that an entitlement it taking from one to give to another.

according to websters dictionary an entitlement is defined as this:
1a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
1b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract
2 : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

so your argument is based on a flawed definition of the word itself.

if food stamps did not exist there would be more people and children who would have food insecurity. and yes more people would go hungry. but i guess youre ok with that as long as you have enough for yourself.
what is your more effective way for the richest nation in the world to feed the least fortunate?

head start is a great program for all. so apparently your against education now, what if you living just above the poverty line or part of the lower middle class and cant afford a private preschool?
Long-Term Benefits of Head Start Study Fact Sheet
The study found evidence of important effects on school success and crime. For females (but not males) at one study site after adjusting for background differences, only about one-fourth as many Head Start participants as nonparticipants (5% versus 19%) failed to obtain a high school or GED diploma, and only one-third as many (5% versus 15%) were arrested for crimes.

but then again you on the right have shown time and time again, youre not big on helping others.

 

[Dr Grump]

If the money he has paid in was banked by the Treasury and held in reserve for him, it would be his money. Just as social security taxes collected from each of us are our money that we can expect to be repaid when we retire. But since the money was not collected for the purpose of providing him with food stamps, it has to be collected in the form of somebody else's earnings and then given to him. And if the government did not collect enough social security from you over your working life but still keeps the checks going to you after your own contributions have long been exhausted, then that too has to be taken from somebody else's earnings.

The matter of need or right and wrong is NOT the point in defining an entitlement.

But if the law allows money to be taken from Citizen A who legally and ethically earned or acquired it and that money is given on an ongoing basis to Citizen B, who didn't earn it and did nothing to merit it, that is a government entitlement.

The Merriam Webster definition:

ENTITLEMENT
1 - a : the state or condition of being entitled : right
b : a right to benefits specified especially by law or contract

2 - : a government program providing benefits to members of a specified group; also : funds supporting or distributed by such a program

3 - : belief that one is deserving of or entitled to certain privileges

How do you define an entitlement?

Your basic premise is that entitlements are bad. I think they are only bad if people rely on them. If your original statement said:

The conservative sees the entitlement mentality as mostly destruction, self perpetuating, and corrupting in both government and for the recipients of the entitlements, especially if that person has no intention of ever working even though they are able bodied - ie, they choose not to work because they are too lazy.

I could buy that. But without that qualification (and this goes back to my initial posts on the subject), then the point is moot. In order for the first part of that sentence to be a truism, then all that get entitlements would have to have your 'entitlement' mentality, when clearly they don't.

Yeah, I think the definition is covered. Definition 1b supports my hypothesis that giving tax breaks to big corporations is an entitlement - they are getting a benefit by a piece of legislation....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them,

Of course as a liberal you are 100% uninformed and so have accepted the latest liberal brainwashing. Here is the Republicans solution


1) Make unions illegal again ( 10 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

 

[syrenn]

This is why.... .. Sorry jillian... i could not resist!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/members/truthmatters.html

don't make me hurt you.

Its true though...

 

[Dr Grump]

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them,

Of course as a liberal you are 100% uninformed and so have accepted the latest liberal brainwashing. Here is the Republicans solution


1) Make unions illegal again ( 10 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Oh, cool. I haven't seen a "I pull information out of my arse" post for a while...

 

[Ravi]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I hope your demodding isn't part of the vast liberal conspiracy.

 

[Dr Grump]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I hope your demodding isn't part of the vast liberal conspiracy.

I would say it was more he wasn't up to it - from what I saw....

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Are they getting food stamps that others have paid for, or is it them just getting back something that their taxes have paid for over the past 30 years?

how could their taxes pay for it when the liberals spent that money long ago and we are $16 trillion in debt. Today food stamps come from ripping off our children and grandchildren!

Also, when Clinton and Newt "ended welfare as we know it" 70% disappeared rather than work for their money. What does that tell you?

When LBJ targeted blacks with liberal entitlements it amounted to a near genocide against them. The men went to jail, kids dropped out of school, and the family was destroyed! Thats liberalism!

 

[Vidi]

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them,

Of course as a liberal you are 100% uninformed and so have accepted the latest liberal brainwashing. Here is the Republicans solution


1) Make unions illegal again ( 10 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

Yeah 5 million jobs paying a nickel a day would be great.

As far as send the illegals home, only TWO Presidents have proposed amnesty for illegals, Reagan and Bush. True Socialists don't want illegals. They work for less than minimum wage.

Only corporate welfare capitalists support illegals. It increases their profit margin.

I'd go through each of your ridiculous points one by one by I'm 15 hours into my 18 hour work day ( six days a week ) and don't have that kind of time.

When you get some of that wisdom and common sense ( and a grasp on history ) let me know.

Go read Howard Zinns A People's History of the United States

Followed immediately by Paul Johnstons A History of the American People.

The two paint very different pictures but together provide a balanced view.

 

[Ravi]

I see this over and over. Conservatives are for limited government. Just because we say we don't want government doing things where government is inept, counterproductive, wasteful or whatever, does not mean that we should shut it down totally.

Yes, we do need roads, bridges, highways, jails, schools, aircraft carriers, GPS satellites, standard weights and measures, courts, etc etc. Saying we don't need subsidies for crummy cars badly built and still with astronomical prices does not mean we don't need highways.

The conservative view is that the government should be a useful servant of the people's needs. However, you give it too much money, power, authority it becomes the worst sort of master.

I hope your demodding isn't part of the vast liberal conspiracy.

I would say it was more he wasn't up to it - from what I saw....

Maybe. It is hard work battling evil liberals.

 

[rightwinger]

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them,

Of course as a liberal you are 100% uninformed and so have accepted the latest liberal brainwashing. Here is the Republicans solution


1) Make unions illegal again ( 10 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

I have read a lot of posts...

But this has to be one of the dumbest of the year

 

[Syphon]

It's is the exploitation of the blue collar working man by the multinational corporations that inform my politics. If the Republicans were to truly address that issue, I would vote for them,

Of course as a liberal you are 100% uninformed and so have accepted the latest liberal brainwashing. Here is the Republicans solution


1) Make unions illegal again ( 10 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

2) make minimum wage illegal ( 5 million new jobs). Democrats oppose

3) end business taxation; especially tax incentives to off-shore jobs ( 5 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

4) make inflation illegal ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose


5) make Federal debt illegal( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

6) send illegal workers home(8 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

7) Pass Balanced Budget Amendment to Constitution( 3 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

8) cut pay of government workers in half( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

9) Make health insurance competition legal( 6 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

10) end needless business regulations ( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

11) restrict Federal spending to 15% of GNP( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

12) support unlimited free trade( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

13) reduced unemployment compensation, welfare, food stamps, medicaid.( 2 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

14) privatize education, social security ( 4 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

15) end payroll taxes ( 1 million new jobs) Democrats oppose

Since Democrats always oppose wisdom and common sense the only serious option is to make them illegal as the Constitution intended.

I have read a lot of posts...

But this has to be one of the dumbest of the year

best one is to make inflation illegal..... bwhahahahahaha

why dont we just get rid of government all together