Why Are Republicans So Relentlessly Cruel to the Poor?

[BlueGin]

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

Reagan's vision from 30 years ago has come to fruition
Bust the unions and force people to bargain individually
That is why job security, wages and benefits have disappeared

Benefits have disappeared? Do tell.

 

[Skull Pilot]

so he was spineless thank you

Republicans mocked the pursuit of terrorism

so? why would that stop BJ Billy from doing something?

oh yeah he was spineless

He didn't stop the GOP a-holes. That's the dupe argument. Unbelievable. Same the last 8 years- plus he was black!! Idiot dupes!

CLinton was black?

you are unfuckinghinged

No Clinton AND Obama's mistake was not being able to beat the a-hole GOP- that's the dupe argument....idiocy....lol

nice try but no

 

[Skull Pilot]

Conservative ideology towards the poor is that poverty should be as painful as possible.

Yes it is, and that's because we instinctively know that people will react to pain; do what it takes to make the pain stop.

Nobody does anything to relieve comfort, and that's why we have the problem with the poor today.

So that's why there's no poverty in Mexico, where very little is done to help the poor?

There is a difference between people that are poor because they have no other option and people who are poor because they decided to be poor.

With the exception of those who have physical or mental disabilities that prevent them from working, you won't find many so-called poor in this country that became impoverished through no fault of their own. In most cases, it was bad decision making and irresponsibility that brought them to poverty. In other cases, it's location that they don't wish to correct by moving to where the jobs are.

You are soooo right!

More often than not, that poverty is due to personal choices....

Just reading a tribute to the recently passed journalist, Jimmy Breslin, I found this particularly grating passage:
"A total urbanite, Jimmy had never learned how to drive—he was raised by a single mother who earned a meager salary as a social worker, and drank to excess. The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
Jimmy Breslin, RIP



WHAT????

"The Breslins couldn’t afford a car."
But...." he was raised by a single mother who .... drank to excess."

I guess that 'drink' was free, huh????




This is the sort of absurdity that guides so many and, so many of our social pretenses.

"couldn't afford a car" ...or would rather have a buzz on much of the time????
It was a choice! A decision by the decision maker in the family.
Just as abortions are the choice between sexual restraint, or the ending of a separate and unique life so as to enjoy that moment of passion.

You do know that alcoholism is an illness dont you ?

Exhibit A in answer to the OP.

addiction isn't a disease it's just a way for addicts to rationalize that it's not their fault they're addicts

 

[rightwinger]

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

"Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever."

Every one due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

What Conservative Republican policies have helped cut college costs, provided low cost training or loans?

Opposition to increasing college loans.

Federal loans to college students is the reason for increased college fees.

That's Economics 101

Now you are talking.......College for the affluent
A Republican ideal

How's that Ringling Bros. and Barnum & Bailey Clown College degree workin' out for you?

More valuable than a degree from Trump University

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Great societies......yes. Great governments.......no.

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

For one, private charities give to help those truly in need. Government on the other hand passes out money to those for the asking.

Long term disaster relief and house fires are two different things. To put it another way, do you really believe that if we ended welfare as we know it today, that charity contributions would be the same or less? Of course not. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Private donations would increase ten fold.

When government wastes money, it's barely reported. If you wish to give to a charity, you can look up exactly where every penny goes on the site Charity Navigator. org. They tell you how much the charity collects, how much they pay out, how much they use for advertising, how much the use for administration, everything. So unlike government, if you believe the charity you had in minds wastes too much money, you simply don't give to that charity.

 

[Skull Pilot]

an age of majority is not doing good thing for children

it provides a framework for personal responsibility.

and being healthy is already cheaper than being unhealthy.

you can't see the difference of things having differing prices in the marketplace and the government taxing things based on an arbitrary right and wrong scale?

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

So, kids should decide what they want to learn, or don't want to learn? Again, another crazy concept from the world of keeping people stupid.

We're going around on circles on this one, there isn't much point in carrying on. I get your point, you think that society is far, far below the individual, that the individual rules supreme and that society shouldn't invest in individuals in order to make society better for everyone.

I don't get it.

Now, the funny thing is, it's the right that will tell people how they have to give up their rights for the good of society. How we have to ban Muslims from coming in because it's for the good of the country, how we should stop people taking drugs for the good of the country. And then they'll turn around and say exactly what you have said. That it's all about the individual. Gets confusing.
Where do you stand on Muslims, drugs etc?

what children learn is up to the parents not you

but you do realize any teen aged kid can learn on his own don't you? It's called the internet.

I learned how to eat well without the internet

Well I'm not the right and I'm not the left so saying the right this the left that is meaningless.

This is all about control and you want to control people's behavior by taxing things you don't think people should eat or drink or smoke or whatever

That is not and never will be acceptable

So, if parents want their kids to learn nothing at all, you think that's fair for the kids? There's a reason they introduced compulsory mass education, and there's a reason why society has progressed so much because of this.

It's basically cruel to deny people a chance to make it in life.

Yes, I realize any teen can learn on their own. I also realize that many teens prefer to play games and watch TV. The reality is you're saying "because it can be done, therefore we don't need to try", what I'm saying is that kids need to be pushed to achieve things because otherwise most just won't. That's reality. You're not living in reality.

No, it's not about control. It's about saying that sometimes pushing people towards something better is a better outcome.

Society controls in a certain way anyway. It's a society, people need to live by certain norms. People also realize that a group of people are far more powerful than individuals. We also know that we can shape our society in a manner we want. You'd say that individuals could do whatever they want, but the reality is we place laws, we tax, we do all sorts of things that change how people do things. To make adjustments to these might be seen as controlling, but without them we're controlling just as much.

Imagine if people didn't have to pay taxes. What would the US be like? Somalia, probably. That's more or less what you're advocating.

Look it's none of your business what parents teach their kids and in fact the parents that do teach their kids do a better job than government schools anyway

and it's not your job and it's certainly none of you business to "push" someone else's kids I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

and don't start with the Somalia shit because there is a very wide gap between legitimate responsibilities of government and using taxes to punish choices you don't like

 

[rightwinger]

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

Reagan's vision from 30 years ago has come to fruition
Bust the unions and force people to bargain individually
That is why job security, wages and benefits have disappeared

Benefits have disappeared? Do tell.

Which benefits have disappeared or been slashed since Reagan?
Pensions, company paid healthcare, educational benefits, paid vacation

 

[Skull Pilot]

Blaming luck for your situation is about the same as blaming some rich guy you never met

This has got to be one THE most stupid fucking things you've ever said.

A few examples. A girl down my street when I was a kid was born into a family of well to do people, but she want's born right. According to you it must be her fucking fault that she came out wrong. She can't really work well, she can't learn well, she does some program in a supermarket for people such as herself to make them feel valued in society and not just be outcasts unwanted. She could never, ever hold down a proper job, it's impossible, she wasn't born right. But again, you think it's her fault.

1/4 of people have mental problems. My family has a history of mental problems, and one person in my family doesn't work, could do the work but struggles being around people and this led to her quitting jobs, going off sick and then unable to get new jobs, because who wants a person with such a medical record, hey? But yeah, according to you it's all her fucking fault.

so now a birth defect is the same as choosing to be fat?

No one chooses to be handicapped or mentally retarded.

But we were talking about people being born unlucky. So why have you suddenly decided to change the topic of conversation to something completely different?

I assume we are talking about people of sound mind and body not the physically handicapped or mentally retarded

and FYI you're the one who brought the physically handicapped and mentally retarded into the conversation not me

and you're the one who started using the term unlucky not me..

I don't believe in luck

Well if you're going to jump into what people are saying, you might not want to make assumptions.

Yes, I know I brought this into the conversation, which is why I was wondering why you were ignoring it.

You don't believe in luck? You don't think someone being born into wealth doesn't start life with a massive head start?

not luck it was the work of the people before him.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

Reagan's vision from 30 years ago has come to fruition
Bust the unions and force people to bargain individually
That is why job security, wages and benefits have disappeared

Benefits have disappeared? Do tell.

Which benefits have disappeared or been slashed since Reagan?
Pensions, company paid healthcare, educational benefits, paid vacation

pensions were not a government thing. They were private and were unsustainable which is why they disappeared

only the government with its unlimited ability to take money from the public can afford to fund pensions

 

[rightwinger]

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

For one, private charities give to help those truly in need. Government on the other hand passes out money to those for the asking.

Long term disaster relief and house fires are two different things. To put it another way, do you really believe that if we ended welfare as we know it today, that charity contributions would be the same or less? Of course not. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Private donations would increase ten fold.

When government wastes money, it's barely reported. If you wish to give to a charity, you can look up exactly where every penny goes on the site Charity Navigator. org. They tell you how much the charity collects, how much they pay out, how much they use for advertising, how much the use for administration, everything. So unlike government, if you believe the charity you had in minds wastes too much money, you simply don't give to that charity.

How does a private charity determine who is "truly in need"
Belonging to the correct religion? Belonging to the correct race?

Assuming more money would go to charity if welfare was eliminated is nothing but trickle down

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

Reagan's vision from 30 years ago has come to fruition
Bust the unions and force people to bargain individually
That is why job security, wages and benefits have disappeared

Reagan had nothing to do with it. Again, the American consumer will not support unions and overpaying jobs. It's just not happening anymore.

Turns out that the American worker doesn't support unions, either.
They served their purpose in an long gone era, and now they are simply an arm of the Leftist Democrat Party.

Yep, people have taken pictures of American cars with UAW bumper stickers in the parking lots of Walmarts. Seems that everybody is looking out for themselves.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Republicans do not hate the poor......but they need them

Can't have middle class outrage against the rich
But the poor make a great scapegoat........the middle class suffers because some poor guy has a cell phone

Let's remember.....the Democrats both create the poor.....and maintain that poverty.


I see that today isn't the day you think before you post.

Republicans have propped up the wealthy since Reagan trickle down

Break the unions, reduce competition, hold back wages
A scared workforce is not in a position to demand more pay

Then, blame the poor because workers are struggling

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

"Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever."

Every one due to Liberal/Democrat policies.

What Conservative Republican policies have helped cut college costs, provided low cost training or loans?

liberal policies haven't cut college costs
the idea that the government guarantees loans ofr students has done nothing but leave us with a trillion dollar debt bomb

 

[frigidweirdo]

But without a great govt, you aren't going to have that great society.

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

The problem is, will people help out of their own accord? No, in the modern society every person becomes an island and ignores the rest. So how do you get people to help others out?

Yes, I agree with dependency. That's why I'm talking about education a lot. The problem is that the right who want people to not be dependent, are not willing to put in the effort to change the country onto the right course. If you leave things as they are at the moment, nothing will change.

Were you talking about getting rid of some of the govt? Seems to me you were talking about getting rid of all of it. If you come out with vague sentences that appear to say what you don't want to say, don't blame me for my response not being to your liking.

Look..........the US spends more per capita on education than any other industrialized country on earth. You can't make people learn that don't want to learn. There is simply no benefit for some people. Get out of school, get an Obama phone, get a HUD house in the suburbs, and life will never be better.

Some people will not help other people out. Nothing you can do about that. That's no reason to have the federal government be a giant charity.

Of course people are less likely to help others out if they are convinced government is taking care of the problem. Why donate to the food bank? Get a SNAP's card. Why help out with medical expenses? That's what we have Medicaid for! With less government, we may be able to build a better society.

Yeah, and if we're going to come out with such cop out arguments, then the US is going to remain like it is. You don't improve by using rubbish excuses for why something shouldn't happen. But again, until the govt changes, the US is screwed.

The problem is people spend their whole time fucking things up to then show that it doesn't work. All the while other countries are doing things properly. Well, the US will see where that gets them in a few decades.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

The problem is the federal government always has the fine print… You know threads attached.

Charities don't?
They have their own beurocracy and overheads to deal with

and the governemnt is the largest single employer in the country so tell me who has more overhead a priavte charity or the fucking government?

 

[rightwinger]

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

Private charities rely on volunteers and donations to raise funds.

They also have highly paid executives who make more than government executives. Those donations do not come free. They hire people to fund raise, they pay for advertising

I volunteer for United Way...I know how they fundraise. The majority of volunteers come from their corporate partners. They do not hire them. They have fundraising campaigns same time every year...volunteers not only donate their time...they also donate all incentives such as silent auction prizes and anything sold to benefit the charity. Corporate partners also give all their employees incentives to donate via payroll deduction i.e...extra PTO days, casual days, VIP parking for a year etc... they also match contributions dollar for dollar.

The CEO of the United Way makes $1.5 million a year. More than any government executive including the President

 

[Skull Pilot]

Not to mention most expensive college costs, training programs and loans ever. Great job. And letting infrastructure go for 35 years now. We may be a banana republic any day now...

A scared, hungry worker is not in a position to negotiate better wages

Republican paradise

"Union membership has plummeted in the U.S., from nearly one-third of workers 50 years ago to one in 10 American workers today."
The incredible decline of American unions, in one animated map


You Bolsheviks want to FORCE the workers of the world into unions when they don't want to be in them?

Reagan's vision from 30 years ago has come to fruition
Bust the unions and force people to bargain individually
That is why job security, wages and benefits have disappeared

We are not all in this together, it does not take a fucking Village, there does not need to be a safe space on every corner for snowflakes. Getting along is way overrated

I got mine....fuck everyone else

A concept the Republican Party was built on

no it's I worked for mine why don't you work for yours instead of wanting other people to pay for it

 

[Skull Pilot]

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

Private charities rely on volunteers and donations to raise funds.

They also have highly paid executives who make more than government executives. Those donations do not come free. They hire people to fund raise, they pay for advertising

I volunteer for United Way...I know how they fundraise. The majority of volunteers come from their corporate partners. They do not hire them. They have fundraising campaigns same time every year...volunteers not only donate their time...they also donate all incentives such as silent auction prizes and anything sold to benefit the charity. Corporate partners also give all their employees incentives to donate via payroll deduction i.e...extra PTO days, casual days, VIP parking for a year etc... they also match contributions dollar for dollar.

The CEO of the United Way makes $1.5 million a year. More than any government executive including the President

so?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

People helping people out works when you have a small community and a family loses their house to a fire. Everyone chips in to help them

What happens when an entire community loses all its jobs? What happens when a hurricane wipes out one third of a state? Passing the hat does not work
Private charities spend a good portion of their resources just on fund raising. Government has a steady flow of revenue with funds budgeted to help the needy
Why don't people become dependent on private charities? Government offers job training, educational benefits, small business loans to help people out of poverty......charities don't

For one, private charities give to help those truly in need. Government on the other hand passes out money to those for the asking.

Long term disaster relief and house fires are two different things. To put it another way, do you really believe that if we ended welfare as we know it today, that charity contributions would be the same or less? Of course not. Americans are the most generous people in the world. Private donations would increase ten fold.

When government wastes money, it's barely reported. If you wish to give to a charity, you can look up exactly where every penny goes on the site Charity Navigator. org. They tell you how much the charity collects, how much they pay out, how much they use for advertising, how much the use for administration, everything. So unlike government, if you believe the charity you had in minds wastes too much money, you simply don't give to that charity.

How does a private charity determine who is "truly in need"
Belonging to the correct religion? Belonging to the correct race?

Assuming more money would go to charity if welfare was eliminated is nothing but trickle down

I don't think race or religion have anything to do with it. But let's take for instance a homeless person. A homeless person is welcome in religious shelters provided they stay sober and don't cause problems. If a drunken homeless person shows up at their door, they will not offer any kind of assistance. Their motto is God helps those who help themselves, and if you're not willing to try and help yourself, you are not worthy of their charity.

Or perhaps a charity that collects food donations. If somebody working for that charity sees a person they helped in the parking lot of a fine restaurant smoking cigars and dressed to kill, they certainly will not offer any more food to such a person.

With government, sign and date "here" and the check will be out in the morning. No if's and's or but's about it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Wrong. The less government you have, the better society you have.

So... Somalia? You think Somalia has a better society?

What makes a better society exactly? Certainly I've been places where govt made society better, and I've been places with less government that weren't better for it.

What makes society better are people helping people out---not government helping people out. When government helps people out, it becomes political and expensive like Commie Care. People become entitled and dependent on government.

Then when you even suggest that we get rid of some of that government, people make idiotic comparisons like to slavery, 14 hour days in sweat shops, and Somalia. To those people, even the slightest reduction in government is the end of the Fn world.

The problem is, will people help out of their own accord? No, in the modern society every person becomes an island and ignores the rest. So how do you get people to help others out?

Yes, I agree with dependency. That's why I'm talking about education a lot. The problem is that the right who want people to not be dependent, are not willing to put in the effort to change the country onto the right course. If you leave things as they are at the moment, nothing will change.

Were you talking about getting rid of some of the govt? Seems to me you were talking about getting rid of all of it. If you come out with vague sentences that appear to say what you don't want to say, don't blame me for my response not being to your liking.

Look..........the US spends more per capita on education than any other industrialized country on earth. You can't make people learn that don't want to learn. There is simply no benefit for some people. Get out of school, get an Obama phone, get a HUD house in the suburbs, and life will never be better.

Some people will not help other people out. Nothing you can do about that. That's no reason to have the federal government be a giant charity.

Of course people are less likely to help others out if they are convinced government is taking care of the problem. Why donate to the food bank? Get a SNAP's card. Why help out with medical expenses? That's what we have Medicaid for! With less government, we may be able to build a better society.

Yeah, and if we're going to come out with such cop out arguments, then the US is going to remain like it is. You don't improve by using rubbish excuses for why something shouldn't happen. But again, until the govt changes, the US is screwed.

The problem is people spend their whole time fucking things up to then show that it doesn't work. All the while other countries are doing things properly. Well, the US will see where that gets them in a few decades.

If your'e talking about more government spending, we already know where that gets us. We are 20 trillion in the hole now.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Uh huh?

I'm not getting your logic.

It's not okay to stop kids from drinking because it's good for them, but it's okay to stop people doing stuff to instill personal responsibility?

So, why not put up sales tax on sugary items to teach people to be more personally responsible for their own bodies then?

Being healthy could be cheaper, but people have to know how to do things, and have things incentivized, and it works, as shown with Mexico and Hungary.

I just don't get why doing something good shouldn't happen, but doing it for the wrong reasons is okay. Your logic is a little twisted in my view.

I never said anything about anything being good for anyone. A legal age of majority is a concept that implies neither good or bad it designates when a member of society is considered responsible for his actions that is all it is

and since when did a drinking age stop under aged kids from drinking?

It's not up to you to "teach" people anything. People will decide what they want to learn and if they don't want to learn what you want them to learn then it's none of your business.

but then again you already agreed that people already know that fruits and vegetables are better for them than a candy bar or a tub of ice cream so you don't have to teach them that.

What you want to do is control other people's behavior to align with what YOU think they should do.

So, kids should decide what they want to learn, or don't want to learn? Again, another crazy concept from the world of keeping people stupid.

We're going around on circles on this one, there isn't much point in carrying on. I get your point, you think that society is far, far below the individual, that the individual rules supreme and that society shouldn't invest in individuals in order to make society better for everyone.

I don't get it.

Now, the funny thing is, it's the right that will tell people how they have to give up their rights for the good of society. How we have to ban Muslims from coming in because it's for the good of the country, how we should stop people taking drugs for the good of the country. And then they'll turn around and say exactly what you have said. That it's all about the individual. Gets confusing.
Where do you stand on Muslims, drugs etc?

what children learn is up to the parents not you

but you do realize any teen aged kid can learn on his own don't you? It's called the internet.

I learned how to eat well without the internet

Well I'm not the right and I'm not the left so saying the right this the left that is meaningless.

This is all about control and you want to control people's behavior by taxing things you don't think people should eat or drink or smoke or whatever

That is not and never will be acceptable

So, if parents want their kids to learn nothing at all, you think that's fair for the kids? There's a reason they introduced compulsory mass education, and there's a reason why society has progressed so much because of this.

It's basically cruel to deny people a chance to make it in life.

Yes, I realize any teen can learn on their own. I also realize that many teens prefer to play games and watch TV. The reality is you're saying "because it can be done, therefore we don't need to try", what I'm saying is that kids need to be pushed to achieve things because otherwise most just won't. That's reality. You're not living in reality.

No, it's not about control. It's about saying that sometimes pushing people towards something better is a better outcome.

Society controls in a certain way anyway. It's a society, people need to live by certain norms. People also realize that a group of people are far more powerful than individuals. We also know that we can shape our society in a manner we want. You'd say that individuals could do whatever they want, but the reality is we place laws, we tax, we do all sorts of things that change how people do things. To make adjustments to these might be seen as controlling, but without them we're controlling just as much.

Imagine if people didn't have to pay taxes. What would the US be like? Somalia, probably. That's more or less what you're advocating.

Look it's none of your business what parents teach their kids and in fact the parents that do teach their kids do a better job than government schools anyway

and it's not your job and it's certainly none of you business to "push" someone else's kids I really don't know what's so hard to understand about that.

and don't start with the Somalia shit because there is a very wide gap between legitimate responsibilities of government and using taxes to punish choices you don't like

That's not the issue. Parents who teach their kids are the ones who care enough to do so. Most people don't have that skill.

The problem is that you just seem to want the US to be full of dumb fuckers who couldn't pick their nose. That you want this for your country is ridiculous. But it's what you want and you seem stubborn enough to keep arguing the same nonsense time and time and time again.

Don't start with Somalia because... because... because it makes your argument look stupid? Yeah, you just keep ignoring the rest of the world and pretend the US is the only place that matters.