What makes arguing with liberals so frustrating #1

[Vidi]

Make inflation illegal did make me laugh.

After all, that would be the government determining what the price of everything should be...

isn't that socialism?

Or does that push all the way into Communism at that point?

 

[Foxfyre]

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....

No, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all who receive entitlements develop an entitlement mentality. Probably most of us know at least one or two folks in which that was not true. As I work with low income families on an ongoing basis, I know quite a few folks in which that is not true.

I also know some who have become comfortable with a subsidized life and are not interested in doing anything different that might cause them to have to give up that subsidized life.

But in the writings of such historians, economists, and social scientists as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker and many others, we find how whole groups, whole communities, whole neighborhoods etc. have seen families decimated, teen pregnancy explode, single parenthood become the norm with all the associated uglies including escalated violence and crime, children born into perpetual poverty, fathers who can't go home lest the family lose their welfare income, whole classes of essentially permanently unemployed.

And according to those writers mentioned, a great deal if not most of this can be directly traced to government programs intended to help the poor and disadvantaged but that have instead made poverty and/or victimhood a way of life.

When government punishes industriousness and success with higher taxes and/or by withdrawing benefits, it inevitably encourages dependency and makes more and more people dependent on government benefits.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

 

[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:


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....

No, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all who receive entitlements develop an entitlement mentality. Probably most of us know at least one or two folks in which that was not true. As I work with low income families on an ongoing basis, I know quite a few folks in which that is not true.

I also know some who have become comfortable with a subsidized life and are not interested in doing anything different that might cause them to have to give up that subsidized life.

But in the writings of such historians, economists, and social scientists as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker and many others, we find how whole groups, whole communities, whole neighborhoods etc. have seen families decimated, teen pregnancy explode, single parenthood become the norm with all the associated uglies including escalated violence and crime, children born into perpetual poverty, fathers who can't go home lest the family lose their welfare income, whole classes of essentially permanently unemployed.

And according to those writers mentioned, a great deal if not most of this can be directly traced to government programs intended to help the poor and disadvantaged but that have instead made poverty and/or victimhood a way of life.

When government punishes industriousness and success with higher taxes and/or by withdrawing benefits, it inevitably encourages dependency and makes more and more people dependent on government benefits.

Oh, there is definiately generational dependency of govt handouts down here, as there is in the US and Europe, I'm sure.

I guess what we are debating is whether leftists/liberals believe in entitlements. I think most do, but only if they are used properly. What I object to, is the fallacy that leftists et al encourage fraud and generational reliance on handouts. No liberals/leftists I know, do.

Would love to hear the alternative. Down here, we had a work for the dole scheme that was doing ok. You collected unemployment but had to do community service to get it...

Of course unions etc didn't like it because they thought it took away jobs, but the govt (at local level) made them do jobs that were not really available anyway - cleaning leaves in parks, cleaning roadways etc...stuff there was no real budget for in the first place. You would be surprised how motivated some of the dole bludgers were to get more interesting and better paying jobs though...

 

[Foxfyre]

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....

No, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all who receive entitlements develop an entitlement mentality. Probably most of us know at least one or two folks in which that was not true. As I work with low income families on an ongoing basis, I know quite a few folks in which that is not true.

I also know some who have become comfortable with a subsidized life and are not interested in doing anything different that might cause them to have to give up that subsidized life.

But in the writings of such historians, economists, and social scientists as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker and many others, we find how whole groups, whole communities, whole neighborhoods etc. have seen families decimated, teen pregnancy explode, single parenthood become the norm with all the associated uglies including escalated violence and crime, children born into perpetual poverty, fathers who can't go home lest the family lose their welfare income, whole classes of essentially permanently unemployed.

And according to those writers mentioned, a great deal if not most of this can be directly traced to government programs intended to help the poor and disadvantaged but that have instead made poverty and/or victimhood a way of life.

When government punishes industriousness and success with higher taxes and/or by withdrawing benefits, it inevitably encourages dependency and makes more and more people dependent on government benefits.

Oh, there is definiately generational dependency of govt handouts down here, as there is in the US and Europe, I'm sure.

I guess what we are debating is whether leftists/liberals believe in entitlements. I think most do, but only if they are used properly. What I object to, is the fallacy that leftists et al encourage fraud and generational reliance on handouts. No liberals/leftists I know, do.

Would love to hear the alternative. Down here, we had a work for the dole scheme that was doing ok. You collected unemployment but had to do community service to get it...

Of course unions etc didn't like it because they thought it took away jobs, but the govt (at local level) made them do jobs that were not really available anyway - cleaning leaves in parks, cleaning roadways etc...stuff there was no real budget for in the first place. You would be surprised how motivated some of the dole bludgers were to get more interesting and better paying jobs though...

But you see you say that you assumed that I was suggesting that leftists/liberals encourage fraud and generational reliance on handouts. I didn't say that. I did say that the entitlements themselves do that. There is a difference between those two things.

Probably we could all come closer together to find workable solutions that don't hurt people and/or discourage industriousness and productivity if we just got to a point where we focused on the problems instead of accusing, blaming, insulting each other. But that does require focusing on the problems/issues themselves instead of on each other. Which has been the point I've been trying to make all along and because it was so difficult to get to that point, it was frustrating.

Your post here is so atypical of most leftwing (and quite a bit of rightwing) message board nonsense we get that it surprised me. Coherant. Well thought out. Articulate. And focused on a different perspective. I appreciated it. (And you also made me admit that a leftist can do that too, dammit. )

 

[Vidi]

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.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

Do you know the term "cost externalization"?

It's an amazing little trick corporations use to increase their profits. It's all based on making someone else pay for their own costs, thereby increasing their profits.

Its a beautiful scam.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cost_externalizing

Take WalMart for example. ( and they are only one of hundreds of examples )They pay low wages, offer high cost health care they know their employees can't afford and when those employees need health care, the tax payer picks up the tab. Cost externalization.

And all that money saved gets put into the pockets of the Walton family, who now control more wealth than the bottom 30% of the country.

Did they get this wealth through hard work and sacrifice?

Nope. That was their Dad. They got it the old fashioned way. It was handed to them.

And what do they do with that wealth?

Led by Sam Walton's only daughter, Alice, the family spent $3.2 million on lobbying, conservative causes and candidates for last year's federal elections. That's more than double what it spent in the previous two elections combined, public documents show.

Dear old Sam earned his money. His daughter Alice and others inherited it and there's absolutely nothing wrong with that. The issue arises when they use that money to buy influence in politics so they can exploit the system and have our tax dollars, which would be better spent replacing our crumbling bridges, researching new medicines, increasing our law enforcement, fire protection, invested in our schools, gearing up our military or any of a hundred other things that would make our country stronger.

So what sort of addressing?

How about we go after the corrupt politicians and their handlers? Both Republican and Democrat. - and if anyone thinks their side is the only one playing true, you're delusional.

REAL campaign finance reform, strictly enforced.

Outlaw organizations like ALEC. - Multinational corporations, owned by foreign nationals, should not be writing US law.

End the Bush Tax cuts. On EVERYONE, not just the rich. You want a strong country? Well, that takes CASH. ( and don't worry about the Chinese debt. In 15 years, we will start paying that back in wheat, when they can no longer produce rice. Long story. Look it up. )

All we hear from our politicians is how they're going to fix everything...and it's not going to cost us a dime. Anyone that tells you that IS LYING! They just want power. The truth is both Republican and Democrat politicians have sold out our country. ( See Phil and Wendy Gramm for a real eye opener. )

So you have a choice. Keep up with he rhetoric, the finger pointing, blaming teachers and unions, illegals and black people.

Or you can turn on the people who are stealing your hard earned money and using it to destroy the future of our country.

Obama is going to win the next election. It's a done deal. Not because he will win the vote, but because he is what they need to push us along their path. In 2016, a republican candidate will win again and he will push us further down that path.

What's the destination? Look at Greece and Italy. Brought down by bankers and now run by bankers. Globalization means that multinationals are worldwide powers, stronger than any government. But to solidify their power, they have to keep us in debt.

Don't fool yourself into believing its not happening. They aren't even hiding it anymore. They don't need to. They are "too big to fail".

 

[Vidi]

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....

No, it would be a logical fallacy to assume that all who receive entitlements develop an entitlement mentality. Probably most of us know at least one or two folks in which that was not true. As I work with low income families on an ongoing basis, I know quite a few folks in which that is not true.

I also know some who have become comfortable with a subsidized life and are not interested in doing anything different that might cause them to have to give up that subsidized life.

But in the writings of such historians, economists, and social scientists as Shelby Steele, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Starr Parker and many others, we find how whole groups, whole communities, whole neighborhoods etc. have seen families decimated, teen pregnancy explode, single parenthood become the norm with all the associated uglies including escalated violence and crime, children born into perpetual poverty, fathers who can't go home lest the family lose their welfare income, whole classes of essentially permanently unemployed.

And according to those writers mentioned, a great deal if not most of this can be directly traced to government programs intended to help the poor and disadvantaged but that have instead made poverty and/or victimhood a way of life.

When government punishes industriousness and success with higher taxes and/or by withdrawing benefits, it inevitably encourages dependency and makes more and more people dependent on government benefits.

Oh, there is definiately generational dependency of govt handouts down here, as there is in the US and Europe, I'm sure.

I guess what we are debating is whether leftists/liberals believe in entitlements. I think most do, but only if they are used properly. What I object to, is the fallacy that leftists et al encourage fraud and generational reliance on handouts. No liberals/leftists I know, do.

Would love to hear the alternative. Down here, we had a work for the dole scheme that was doing ok. You collected unemployment but had to do community service to get it...

Of course unions etc didn't like it because they thought it took away jobs, but the govt (at local level) made them do jobs that were not really available anyway - cleaning leaves in parks, cleaning roadways etc...stuff there was no real budget for in the first place. You would be surprised how motivated some of the dole bludgers were to get more interesting and better paying jobs though...

The best welfare is a job

 

[JoeB131]

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.

So, I'm wondering, how is making a bunch of worker folks poorer going to help the economy?

Why is it that every "Conservative" solution always involves letting rich people screw over working people just a little bit more? It wasn't always this way. Republicans used to get that working folks were the backbone of America, when Nixon used to boast of Pat's simple clothe coat.

It's almost a tragedy that someone is so diseased in the brain he thinks this is a good list, but let's look at a couple of them.

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

Free trade has been a fucking disaster for the American economy. We are bleeding 500 billion a year. Could you imagine what our economy would be like if we kept 500 billion within our economy rather than sending it to foreign countries?

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

How does cutting the pay of ANYONE create new jobs? Quite the contrary, less pay means they have less money to buy stuff. Which means less jobs making stuff and serving stuff and selling stuff.

 

[JoeB131]

Fox still didn't answer my reponse to her question... I guess she really didn't want an answer.

 

[Toro]

Yup. During that same program segment this morning, it was ponted out that the markup for taxing the rich as the President is proposing amounts to something like 47 billion dollars in treasury revenues over the next 11 years. That averages out to a little over 4 billion dollars a year which is a huge amount of money to you and me, but is viewed as mere pocket change to those in Washington who want to spend it.

Meanwhile that 4 billion in revenues is point 4 percent of that 1 trillion dollar deficit IF the additional taxes on the rich do not force more of them to shelter their assets off shore or otherwise change behavior that reduces income received from the rest of the economy. And history informs us that the wrong kind of tax on the wealthy WILL reduce the income received from the rest of the economy.

But as President Obama once said not all that long ago. It isn't an issue of revenues. It is an issue of fairness. It isn't fair that some have more wealth than others.

Just as most liberals do not want to discuss the cost in dollars and negatives of all those entitlements but would rather focus on the righteousness of helping the less fortunate and/or the "greed and selfishness and hard heartedness" of those who believe a balanced budget that would require rolling back all or most of those entitlements would help the poor far more than will all the entitlements combined.

And a huge chunk, if not all of all those trillion dollar deficits we have accrued and/or that are projected will be in entitlements and other government giveaways to special interests.

It is frustrating not to be able to have that debate because most liberals simply won't engage in it.

And they won't engage in it because they are all innately dishonest scumbags.

I don't buy that KG. I don't think most liberals do intend to be dishonest. I think many, probably most are well intended and really do believe progressivism/liberalism/leftism is the more humane and best system there is. But there is also something in the water they drink maybe that makes them incapable of actually challenging that or looking at it too closely lest they have to admit that the emperor has no clothes.

Conservatives usually don't have that problem. Most conservatives can look at something, admit it didn't work or hasn't worked or isn't working and move on to something different. Most liberals don't seem to have that ability but just keep pushing for the same failed policies that have succeeded only in pushing us into greater and greater dependency on and therefore servitude to big government.

It's not a conservative / liberal thing. It's an ideological thing. Liberals would make the same argument that conservatives keep trying failed policies, ie tax cuts raise revenues, but can't understand that their policies fail.

It's a problem of ideologues, not where you are ideologically.

 

[Syphon]

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.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

 

[Foxfyre]

And all this becomes part of the entitlement mentality.

For purposes of this illustration, I ask you and Jillian and JoeB and anybody else to focus on one specific principle, not red states or blue states, not a political party, not various entitles, not personalities. not economic classes.

The principle is as I have presented it:

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 say I already answered it and you ignored it...

But let's try again.


I think the democrats who think that we should all go on welfare is a bad idea. so is the liberal/socialist notion that the world owes you a living.

But so is the Republican/Plutocrat who think that we should all be happy working for a pittance so a few rich assholes can own polo ponies, and that those who cheat people out of fair compensation for a days work are somehow "virtuous".

The problem is, which I think you fail to understand is your kind of "Conservatism" is making their kind of "Liberalism" inevitable.

When I grew up, my Dad worked a Union job. He made a good wage, was able to raise five kids, own a two-flat in Chicago and a fishing cabin in Wisconsin. My mom was able to stay at home and work part time. Now, keep in mind, this was back in the 1960-70's (although things got really dicy in the late 1970's both because his health declined do to his exposre to Asbestos that some Corporate Asshole told him was totally safe to work with, and because the Carter economy). In short, not because he had an entitlement mentality, but because a union got him a fair wage.

Somewhere along the line, we lost that. So every recession become an excuse to cut working people's pay. Let's put in At-Will employment and right to work and offshoring and all the other things that Toro thinks are wonderful... and the few union dudes who are left, we're going to vilify as the problem.

And that's kind of the problem. You whine about entitlements, but the fact is, when you cheat the people who want to work at every turn, use every excuse to let people go, you make them have the kind of government dependence you are hear whining about. When you are getting more out of government than you are getting out of busting your ass for someone for 40 hours a week, eventually, you just want more government.

You take away a good paying Union Job at a place like AmPad and replace it with a shitty no-benefits, minimum wage job at Staples (and seriously, this is what Mitt Romney considers his great accomplishment in life), that person is going to want food stamps to put food on the table and section 8 housing to put a roof over his head and MedicAid to see a doctor when his kids get sick.

Sorry Joe, the thread is moving pretty fast, but I didn't see this as an answer to my question. You were not addressing the issue of whether entitlements are or are not mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

You again gave me the litany of the evil Republican, the evil boss, and your opinion of why there are entitlements. These all can be related to the issue of entitlements but are separate topics. You did touch on a concept that you don't agree with Democrats/socialists/leftists who think everybody should go on welfare or the world owes us a living. Again this can be related to entitlements but is a different thing.

You took a shot a me that I was 'whining about entitlements.'

You did not address, either agree or disagree, with the specific statement that entitlements themselves are mostly destructive, counter productive, create long term dependencies, and generally do far more harm than good.

And again this brings us back to the topic of the thread which is why arguing with liberals is so frustrating.

In the way I look at it as a conservative, as entitlements have been the means government uses to solve many of the problems that you, Jillian, and others have expressed, I think we need to look at those entitlements to see if they are actually providing solutions or whether they are doing more harm than good,. Until we agree on the answer to that, we will likely not look for the best solutions to those problems.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Only according to your subjective, and thus meaningless, standard of living.
All you've done here is indicate how removed you are from the real world.

 

[Syphon]

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Only according to your subjective, and thus meaningless, standard of living.
All you've done here is indicate how removed you are from the real world.

oh yes.... because you have obviously proven yourself to be the all knowing all seeing deity of the world.

so youre in agreement that people should just happy that company's give them job and accept whatever pay they offer?

so whats your definition of a living wage exactly??

 

[koshergrl]

Ok, I can agree that welfare and these types of financial support server no one (including the recipients)

HOWEVER

Logically one cannot be against welfare for destitute families while at the same time bailing out large corporations. If the goal is self-dependence, it must apply to corporations as much as it does people.

No, it doesn't.

A corporation isn't a person.

They don't have the same rights, they are not entitled to the same consideration.

 

[M14 Shooter]

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Only according to your subjective, and thus meaningless, standard of living.
All you've done here is indicate how removed you are from the real world.

oh yes.... because you have obviously proven yourself to be the all knowing all seeing deity of the world.

I'm sorry that the truth hurts - but I cannot change the fact that it is the truth.
That YOU would not enjoy the life you might live making $10/hr in no way means that people cannot live on $10/hr.
Get it? Nah, probably not.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

 

[Syphon]

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Exploitation of the blue-collar working man by multinational corporations". You mean, by giving them jobs so they can make a living? THAT "exploitation"?

And exactly what sort of "addressing" did you want?

(This, of course, is all aside from my laughter at your "doesn't matter how big government is, as long as it's 'effective'" schtick.)

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

Correct. I-pads and cable TV need not apply.

 

[koshergrl]

just because a company gives a man a job, does not mean that company pays a living wage.

you can work for McDonalds and make minimum wage, thats not exactly a living wage
you can work for walmart and make $10 an hour, thats not exactly a living wage

Define "living".

Living to me means paying the rent, the heat, and food. That's a living wage, because those are the things you need to live.

where can you do that on $10 an hr?

$10 x 40 x 4.3 = $1720
Rent: $750
Heat/electric: $100
Food (for a family of 3): $450

That's $1300. You have $420 to use for incidentals.