Conquer Club

Do I get a point for admitting I was wrong?

Lootifer wrote:Do I get a point for admitting I was wrong?

Haha, there's a difference between having poor wording and actually being wrong about a certain fact in which you (non-personal you, I'm not talking about the Lootifer "you") spend many posts defending that ends up being completely false.

Lootifer wrote:Do I get a point for admitting I was wrong?

Who cares. Lets get back to bashing the stupid whore!

I, for one, think that if we didn't have welfare stupid people like her would die and we wouldn't have to deal with her and her bastard children. Thue. bitch.

DIE! WHY WON'T YOU DIE?!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

There are tails at the end of every distribution that will always be there, ripe for people like Nightscotty to pick up and run with.

Feed her to the wolves, sure, but 9 times out of 10 when you plug a hole, another leak appears somewhere else.

Army of GOD wrote: The most disturbing thing of the video is how the woman is demanding someone else pay, as if it's our fault she has so many kids. I wonder if she has any mental disabilities or if she's just plain fucking stupid.

Matters not one f*ck.
The responsible thing to do would be to save those children from an obviously unfit mother. Remove them from her care, sterilize her.

ViperOverLord wrote:
Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

The solution is that you don't give everyone the privilege of breeding.


But no one wants to talk about that. They just scream Eugenics!!!! and the discussion is over.


JRock

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

You stop caring for their needs (from the government's point of view). When you cut off the addict, they are forced to get better.

Lootifer wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

There are tails at the end of every distribution that will always be there, ripe for people like Nightscotty to pick up and run with.

Feed her to the wolves, sure, but 9 times out of 10 when you plug a hole, another leak appears somewhere else.

so you're saying the woman has a fourth hole?

Night Strike wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

You stop caring for their needs (from the government's point of view). When you cut off the addict, they are forced to get better.

The problem I see is that a significant portion of the country wants and expects welfare. It would seem that government sponsored welfare is now part of our social fabric. How realistic is it to expect whole sale changes?

Lootifer wrote:

ViperOverLord wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:

pimpdave wrote:I like how all these guys are up in arms over this one crazy lady and her dozen kids needing assistance, but would be equally as outraged (if not more) if she had wanted to legally abort those kids before they became mouths to feed.

This bears repeating.

Be that as it may be (or may not be), I'm waiting to hear a solution. How do we avoid producing these people that do nothing and expect to have all their needs cared for. Or should we just accept this pervasive reality?

There are tails at the end of every distribution that will always be there, ripe for people like Nightscotty to pick up and run with.

Feed her to the wolves, sure, but 9 times out of 10 when you plug a hole, another leak appears somewhere else.

You talk of wolf tails and anal plugs, but can you walk the walk if you talk the talk?

rockfist wrote: If we relied on private charity to fund things, there would be some common sense. Like Ok you have three kids that you can't pay for, if you have a fourth you are cut off.

Nobody ever had/is requiring that you read anything by Charles Dickens while you were/are in school, have/are they?

Because if you had the slightest idea what the 19th century was like, you'd not say this drivel.

BigBallinStalin wrote: The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

NOPE!

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

Democracies and Republics, however, provide social services because people don't happen to like seeing their neighbors starve. Traditionally, this included basic medical care because people, above all else, understood that if your neighbor cannot get to the doctor when sick, it is likely they will pass their diseases onto you. We have lost sight of some of that because we have so many vaccines and over the counter preparations to combat symptoms. (many people don't even get that treating symptoms is not the same as treating diseases or that antibiotics don't help colds).

The welfare system in the US is highly oriented toward women with kids because of the sexist assumption, true when the system was initiated, that women just could not go out and get a job. Basically, there were too many war widows out there for neighbors and friends to tend. Add in the results of the Depression, when entire regions of the country were literally overrun and folks realized we needed a universal, national system. Did it wind up targeting minorities heavily? Well, when you have so many people simply not willing to hire blacks or reducing the most educated blacks to only the most menial and dangerous jobs.. sure. AND, let's not forget that, despite all the changes, when you know that no matter how hard you work, the best you can hope for is to get a dangerous steel mill job that will allow you a house in the poorest parts of town only, then many will just give up and decide that "going on the doll" is reasonable. These things become culturally engrained and don't end overnight.... except, to a large extent, they have. They have come a LONG LONG way, just not completely.

BigBallinStalin wrote: It's a smart strategy (for the financially strapped recipient) because they simply don't incur the dispersed costs of their own decisions. The outcome is a higher social cost to all taxpayers.

Businesses benefit from welfare checks. I never realized how true this was until I lived in a community that was fighting tooth and nail to GET a prison as an income builder. One of the reason was the expectation of all the prisoner families moving into the area.

BigBallinStalin wrote: Of course, IF "her kids would receive proper care and a good education," then none of this would matter; however, that's a strong if, and it's assuming that the government can provide an education which the market demands, and that assumes that the demand for labor actually exists, or is high enough to accommodate the influx. Your assumption is based on the nirvana fallacy, i.e. the government is perfect, it's capable of reversing the trends of poverty and providing equal opportunity to everyone.

No, its actually based on what we had in the 60's and well into the 70's... but that had to be destroyed so that all these wonderful "job creators"... aka stockholders, CEOs , etc could get their paychecks. In amongst all the detritis are some genuine enterpreneurs, but the system forces them to depend so heavily on the system of monetary usary that they wind up simply bowing to the stockholders as well. Often, the stockholders are the ones making the real money, not the inventors or scientists or TRUE job creators.

When a CEO can make millions and that it touted out as the dream for all, then is it any wonder that kids decide spending the years and years needed to study science just are not worth it? When you have a culture where years of scientific study are dismissed as "too controversial" or just "garbage" becuase some CEOs and stockholders don't LIKE the results, is it any wonder that so many seem to think anything not explained in a 2 minute advertising blurb is just "not worth the time".

When you have a culture that pretends to celebrate innovation and invention, but that so heavily dismisses all but the most consumer-oriented products, then is it any wonder that inventions into true green solutions, true sustainable industries are languishing here in the US, to be far outstripped by even such countries as China that historically all but disdain real creativity?

BigBallinStalin wrote: The truth is that it isn't perfect and although in the past the returns for such investments (in education and health) were significantly higher, today government spending in well developed countries faces much higher diminishing returns with ever-increasing costs on the taxpayers. In my opinion, the marginal costs of government spending on social welfare have surpassed the marginal benefits decades ago.

And how neatly things have been arranged to convince you that is reality.

BigBallinStalin wrote: In other words, the calls for increased government spending are no longer justified. The US government is over $14 in public debt, and has over $50 trillion in unfunded obligations. That's insane. Furthermore, since the USG incurs an annual budget deficit of about $300 billion per year, it must borrow or print money in order to continue its spending. With consumer debt dangerously high, real economic growth so low, high inflation (roughly 6%) on the rise, decreased US dollar purchasing power (relative to Chinese yuan, Yen, Euro, Swiss Fr., etc.), and with no good means of escaping this dilemma (sorry, but the US can't tax its people enough to prevent these future problems), it's only a matter of time until foreign investors get wise and drop the US dollar and investments in US treasuries.

This is utter and complete BULL. There will always be poor folks, stupid folks and users. HOwever, NEVER , in our country had the culture been so twisted away from the ethics of hard work, education and real innovation. It is the result of this idea that supporting the top will somehow ensure that those at the bottom get their due. It NEVER works out that way, because those who make it to the top are inherently more selfish, more willing to dismiss the needs of others and far more adept at manipulation than others. It is those skills... frankly, the skills that, in a different context, make for a good criminal, that our current system perpetuates.

It IS the system that our country tried to overthrow.. a system of monarches who "earned" their places by birth and status. The only difference is that, for a time, there were more openings for average people to move up. In days old, it was through knighthood and good deeds. Today, it is through scholarship and invention.. but, mind you, just as most Knights died, today, most enterpreneurs and scientific types fail or just barely succeed.

BigBallinStalin wrote: In my opinion people should be outraged at stories in the OP, but they should also be outraged at most of the government spending. Any appeals to the government to remedy these situations is laughable. The train for benefits from government spending has left a long time ago. Now, it's just a matter of watching the magic show of public policy prolonging and exacerbating recessions until the circus tent collapses and smothers everyone inside.

Yes, outraged at WHERE government spending goes and the utter failure to hold those at the top truly and really accountable.

The entire idea that it is "reasonable" to shut down a plant that has gotten ANY taxpayer supprot subsidies... ANY AT ALL, no matter how you call them -- tax deductions, loopholes, tax breaks,e tc.. for those stockholders to insist that profits are not enough and force companies to move overseas in order to keep up.. is disgusting! THAT is why our country is failing. And it will continue fail as long as folks are more worried about regulating who sleeps with whom, what medical procedures women have, and .. oh yeah... denying that real science actually exists... as long as those trends continue, we will be nothing more than peons for the coporate bred elite.

Jenos Ridan 2nd wrote:

rockfist wrote: If we relied on private charity to fund things, there would be some common sense. Like Ok you have three kids that you can't pay for, if you have a fourth you are cut off.

Nobody ever had/is requiring that you read anything by Charles Dickens while you were/are in school, have/are they?

Because if you had the slightest idea what the 19th century was like, you'd not say this drivel.

I've read Barnaby Rudge, Great Expectations, A Tale of Two Cities, A Christmas Carol, and I am in the process of reading Bleak House. I've also read the Grapes of Wrath and the Jungle.

I like to have my views challenged and take on other perspectives, however even taking in those other perspectives my view remains that Government should not support people under any circumstances.

You fail.

Government should not support people under any circumstances.

Then Why the f*ck should government exist?

So if a natural disaster strikes it's the peoples problem?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote: The government creates the strong incentive for very poor people to continuously procreate. Essentially, welfare services (like medicare and medicaid, and subsidies within the tax code) reward people who earn very little for producing more kids. People tend to be geared toward thinking in the short-term, so they'll discount the long-term costs of raising kids in exchange for the immediate tax credits and services received by the government.

NOPE!

The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

There's a difference between the government creating an incentive which shapes human behavior (my position) and the incentives which shape government/political behavior (your position).

Seeing that you failed to see this distinction by conflating the two different positions, and that you simply discarded my entire argument without really addressing it (via your patented Tangent to the Unknown), then I'd be glad to discuss your criticism if someone else takes up the torch and pitchfork. Or if you wanted to focus on one specific thing in the argument, then I'll talk with you about it.

The Bison King wrote:

rockfist wrote:Government should not support people under any circumstances.

Then Why the f*ck should government exist?

Great question! I ask that all the time!

The Bison King wrote:So if a natural disaster strikes it's the peoples problem?

A government isn't the only one capable of holding reserve pools of commonly held (or entitled) money and resources. It's always the "people's" problem regardless of the involvement of 1) government assistance, 2) private insurance assistance, or 3) mutual aid societies (charitable organizations, communal associations--i.e. SOCIALISM without the state), so your question is kinda... meh.

Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The government has no such incentive. Despots, monarchs, dictators, etc all have incentive to keep people heavily dependent so they won't complain about much of anything and will more fully serve the whims of the elite.

Democracies and Republics, however, provide social services because people don't happen to like seeing their neighbors starve. Traditionally, this included basic medical care because people, above all else, understood that if your neighbor cannot get to the doctor when sick, it is likely they will pass their diseases onto you. We have lost sight of some of that because we have so many vaccines and over the counter preparations to combat symptoms. (many people don't even get that treating symptoms is not the same as treating diseases or that antibiotics don't help colds).

I would contend we're closer to the despots, dictators, etc. than the democracies and republics on that scale. The political class has realized that they can use the powers of the national government to redistribute the wealth in order to buy votes from the poor. And then they can keep them poor and demanding more because of the constant stream of money that they do not have to work for.

ViperOverLord wrote:The problem I see is that a significant portion of the country wants and expects welfare. It would seem that government sponsored welfare is now part of our social fabric. How realistic is it to expect whole sale changes?

That's exactly what the progressives have been doing ever since Wilson was in office. They coerce you into voting for their unconstitutional schemes (like Social Security) in the name of being selfish and not helping out the less fortunate, and then once it has become ingrained into the system, they jack up the costs, payouts, and demonize anyone who wants to make one iota of reform to it. They even do it by constitutional means such as passing the income tax amendment on the premise that it will only be the very wealthy who will pay the tax and that even then it would never go above 1%. We all know how that one has turned out.

And now the current situation with Obamacare fits right into this narrative, which is why we had to try to stop it before it passed. Anyone opposed to it was labeled as hateful, selfish (and frequently racist) people for not giving the government the power to reign in evil insurance companies to help those less fortunate. So they passed this allowance for the government to begin the process of taking over the health insurance market, but they purposefully designed it to fail. Once it fails, they will come back and blame the government's failures on the insurance companies and demand that we turn over the entire health care system over to the government in order to protect the poor, helpless people. Nevermind the fact that the Constitution does not allow for the government to run a private industry such as health insurance nor that it does not allow for the forced purchasing of products. That's just an inconvenience to them rather than an actual roadblock.

You make wholesale changes by teaching people Constitutional principles. You teach them that they have no right to demand the money from other people while also teaching them the value in working hard for their own money. Teach them to make their own money and they will realize the problems with the government constantly demanding that they give more to it.

The Bison King wrote:So if a natural disaster strikes it's the peoples problem?

Actually, yes. One of the most famous examples was from the 1800s when a severe famine struck Texas. The people affected by that went to the federal government asking for aid, and the government turned them down. When the surrounding people heard about this, they donated money and resources to the affected individuals. Their donations were triple the amount the people had asked for from the government. People will always help other people when there are dire circumstances. However, the current governmental structure allows people to just pass on the problems of others onto the government.

rockfist wrote:Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Glad you clarified your position, else I was going to ask whether you were of the mindset that the government should be privatized, as a typical Randroid would advocate (or anybody who feels that the 19th century was some sort of golden age, like pretty much all the "conservatives" who work in the media).

I do, however, think the current method of providing safety nets needs to be critically reviewed and reorganized.

Jenos Ridan 2nd wrote:

rockfist wrote:Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Glad you clarified your position, else I was going to ask whether you were of the mindset that the government should be privatized, as a typical Randroid would advocate (or anybody who feels that the 19th century was some sort of golden age, like pretty much all the "conservatives" who work in the media).

I do, however, think the current method of providing safety nets needs to be critically reviewed and reorganized.

Follow up question for Jenos Ridan II: Do you think the improved state of people in "developed" countries is a result of government intervention (or mostly government intervention)?

10 pages about one crazy lady on welfare.

0 pages about incredibly corrupt banks and mortgage companies fleecing the nation and then their executives not having to pay any fucking income tax. No no, we need to protect those people!

pimpdave wrote:10 pages about one crazy lady on welfare.

0 pages about incredibly corrupt banks and mortgage companies fleecing the nation and then their executives not having to pay any fucking income tax. No no, we need to protect those people!

Yes Dave, but this crazy lady demanded more help and appeared unappreciative of the help she had already recieved. Apparently that's just about a hanging offense around these parts. I've heard that when banks demand help they're incredibly humble about it.

thegreekdog wrote:

Jenos Ridan 2nd wrote:

rockfist wrote:Let me clairify what I meant:

Not that government should never help people, rather that safety nets should possibly assist those who fall down to get back to their feet. If they fall to the ground and go limp - the safety net should not help them.

Glad you clarified your position, else I was going to ask whether you were of the mindset that the government should be privatized, as a typical Randroid would advocate (or anybody who feels that the 19th century was some sort of golden age, like pretty much all the "conservatives" who work in the media).

I do, however, think the current method of providing safety nets needs to be critically reviewed and reorganized.

Follow up question for Jenos Ridan II: Do you think the improved state of people in "developed" countries is a result of government intervention (or mostly government intervention)?

Question jack! The ridiculously high standard of living the wealthy in post-industrial societies enjoy is certainly a result of government intervention, in that the government intervened in poorer societies to take their resources from them, usually with the help of bombs and/or swords, but sometimes loans.

You went to college, dincha?

Aradhus wrote:

pimpdave wrote:10 pages about one crazy lady on welfare.

0 pages about incredibly corrupt banks and mortgage companies fleecing the nation and then their executives not having to pay any fucking income tax. No no, we need to protect those people!

Yes Dave, but this crazy lady demanded more help and appeared unappreciative of the help she had already recieved. Apparently that's just about a hanging offense around these parts. I've heard that when banks demand help they're incredibly humble about it.

The reason is the right wing conservatives are inherrently adverse to critical self-analysis, and prone to critical [outward/external-] analysis. Where as us liberal lefties the opposite is true.

Thus the C.R. spend all their time crapping on about us, and, well, so do the L.L.