Why exactly are you unwilling to pay for other people's medical care?

[Arianrhod]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Presumptuous Straw-man.

You mean you didn't know about the Waltons? Not surprising.

 

[dblack]

... I think it's far better we use those dollars for healthcare for the poor than blow up hospitals killing women and children.

Oh I totally agree with that. Dismantling the welfare state is low on my list of priorities. But it IS part of the problem, especially in the way it encourages people to accept corporatist government.

I don't think it's possible to dismantle the welfare state, not when half the country is receiving benefits. I think at the root of the problem is globalization and that's not going away.

Better trained workers abroad, increased foreign worker productivity, and increased investments abroad, a more stable international climate, and international free trade has put US workers in direct competition with foreign workers who command much lower wages and benefits. This means less jobs at lower pay, particularly for low skilled workers. This trend began years ago and it's not likely to reverse until foreign workers wages and benefits approach that of US workers.

Cutting benefits for the unemployed and low income workers will only drive more people into the workplace pushing wages lower. The result would be more poverty and more demand for government assistance.

The answer is of course creating more jobs for low skilled workers and increasing the productive of the American worker so he is better able to compete with workers abroad.

That last bit is exactly what I'm talking about when I say that the welfare state encourages people to accept corporatist government.

We can dismantle the welfare state, and the warfare state - and pretty much any other corrosive institution of government - if we decide it's worth doing.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by globalism. In my view it's nationalism that's feeding our move to corporatism, not globalism. The view that each country is in competition with the rest tempts us to view our people as resources to apply toward that goal, rather than individuals with rights to protect.

By globalism, I mean the barriers between countries, trade, travel restrictions, language, and cultures are slowly disappearing. Thus, a Chinese worker making two dollars an hour produces goods or services sold in the US displacing the US worker being paid $10/hr. In Pakistan, workers making $3/hr who speak English are displacing call center workers making $15/hr. This started years years ago and has increased in 21st century and I suspect it will continue.

The US worker is only able to compete with workers from abroad because of better training, technology, and a shorter distance between the worker and end user of the product. The problem is that these gaps are closing. The foreign worker is becoming better educated relative to the US worker, the same technologies being used in the US are becoming available throughout the world and the cost of transportation is going down. What all this means is the American worker has got to become more productive or his job is going to disappear and add to the number on welfare programs.

I think it's possible, that various social welfare benefits could be reduced, however I don't see anyway to abolish the social welfare system. There are too many voters that are receiving benefits and too many voters believe the programs are needed. One out of every 3 families has at least one family member receiving some form social welfare.

I'm more interested in the debate over whether it's a good idea at not. Do appreciate the dangers of granting government more power over our economic fate?

 

[LOki]

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Every human society, even atheism, has some form of the Golden Rule...except the Internet.

Even Asimov's Robot Laws cover moral behavior...for non-human intelligent life.

But the Mighty Keyboard Warriors don't need no stinkin' morality...until they come up against a problem they can't handle themselves, like the S.C. legislators who vetoed aid to states hit by Hurricane Sandy, but have tears in their eyes and their hands out after the flooding.

Morality or hypocrisy. Can any of you "not me, go fuck yourself" types tell me there's a third choice?

Compassion comes from the willingness of the giver not a mandate by the taker.

So, again, you're willing to give to the Waltons and their peers who get billion-dollar tax breaks, and to the Waltons' employees because their masters underpay them.

Presumptuous Straw-man.

You mean you didn't know about the Waltons? Not surprising.

No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.

What's not surprising is that you just make shit up.

 

[Arianrhod]

No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.

You don't have to present an argument. You just have to keep doing what you're doing without ever questioning it - chipping in to compensate for the $6 billion a year that they don't pay. And paying for the SNAP benefits their employees get because the Waltons are the only employer in the area and they pay minimum wage.

Double penetration...into your income. But you're fine with that.

 

[LOki]

No. I know about the Waltons. I've presented no argument or assertion regarding my willingness to give the Waltons ANYTHING.

You don't have to present an argument.

Of course not... you'll just make one up for me.

It will be entirely unconnected to any actual point or argument I've presented, it will be baseless in fact, and very comfortable for you to beat upon... like a man made of straw!

You just have to keep doing what you're doing without ever questioning it - chipping in to compensate for the $6 billion a year that they don't pay. And paying for the SNAP benefits their employees get because the Waltons are the only employer in the area and they pay minimum wage.

Double penetration...into your income. But you're fine with that.

See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.

 

[Arianrhod]

See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.

You're not defending it. You're doing it. You are paying more taxes so the Waltons can pay less. And you don't care. That's a position.

 

[LOki]

See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.

You're not defending it. You're doing it. You are paying more taxes so the Waltons can pay less. And you don't care. That's a position.

See? Baseless in fact. A straw-man.

 

[Arianrhod]

See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.

You're not defending it. You're doing it. You are paying more taxes so the Waltons can pay less. And you don't care. That's a position.

See? Baseless in fact. A straw-man.

Only if you lied when you said you knew about the Waltons.

 

[LOki]

See what I mean? Not one bit of this any position I've defended.

You're not defending it. You're doing it. You are paying more taxes so the Waltons can pay less. And you don't care. That's a position.

See? Baseless in fact. A straw-man.

Only if you lied when you said you knew about the Waltons.

Also baseless in fact.

You're just a fancy fairy tale spinner, Princess.

 

[Arianrhod]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

 

[LOki]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

Not in contention, Princess.

 

[Arianrhod]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

 

[LOki]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

 

[Arianrhod]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

 

[LOki]

Also baseless in fact.

In Post 363 you said:

No. I know about the Waltons.

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

 

[Arianrhod]

In Post 363 you said:

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses. Which one is your favorite?

 

[LOki]

Not in contention.

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses. Which one is your favorite?

Right now, you're my favorite princess, Princess.

 

[Arianrhod]

Different Waltons, then:

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses. Which one is your favorite?

Right now, you're my favorite princess, Princess.

So all of your posts in this thread have been flirtations? Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.

 

[LOki]

Meaningless.

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses. Which one is your favorite?

Right now, you're my favorite princess, Princess.

So all of your posts in this thread have been flirtations?

Presumptuous.

Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.

I would wager you're also a tremendous waste space too.

 

[Arianrhod]

On the contrary, this conversation has helped me to learn a great deal about you.

Presumes facts not on evidence.

Here's what your posts in this thread have revealed:

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

…Princess…

You’ve answered the question in the OP, then taken us on an interesting little sidebar that has clearly run its course, and you seem to have an overriding obsession with princesses. Which one is your favorite?

Right now, you're my favorite princess, Princess.

So all of your posts in this thread have been flirtations?

Presumptuous.

So I'm not your favorite? Make up your mind.

Then you've just wasted a great deal of time.

I would wager you're also a tremendous waste space too.

Yet you said I was your favorite. Make up your mind.