The Glade 4.0

"Turn the lights down, the party just got wilder."
It is currently Sat Nov 23, 2024 4:36 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Elmarnieh wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Khross wrote:
Nope. It's just a supply and demand argument.


Wow, and you still support removing any and all safety nets? If your theory is correct, we have about 100 million in "surplus population" we need to rid ourselves of now. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can support policy positions that will necessarily result in the deaths of millions or even tens of millions, and then still claim the moral high ground over all the people they're shoving in a hole.



And it amazes me how liberals when confronted with the reality that their policies will result in the killing of 100's of millions of people blame conservatives for pointing this out when the time comes and think the conservatives caused it.


Even if it was "liberal" policies that caused massive over-employment, that still is no reason to let millions starve. It does not cost much to feed someone. Honestly, in my opinion, you should cut pretty much every single government function before you cut the one that provides basic food and shelter to those in need.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 4:36 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Xequecal wrote:

Even if it was "liberal" policies that caused massive over-employment, that still is no reason to let millions starve. It does not cost much to feed someone. Honestly, in my opinion, you should cut pretty much every single government function before you cut the one that provides basic food and shelter to those in need.


My God Xeq, its not about "letting" people starve. Its understanding that people WILL starve.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:06 pm 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Elmarnieh wrote:
Xequecal wrote:
Wow, and you still support removing any and all safety nets? If your theory is correct, we have about 100 million in "surplus population" we need to rid ourselves of now. It never ceases to amaze me how conservatives can support policy positions that will necessarily result in the deaths of millions or even tens of millions, and then still claim the moral high ground over all the people they're shoving in a hole.



And it amazes me how liberals when confronted with the reality that their policies will result in the killing of 100's of millions of people blame conservatives for pointing this out when the time comes and think the conservatives caused it.


Even if it was "liberal" policies that caused massive over-employment, that still is no reason to let millions starve. It does not cost much to feed someone. Honestly, in my opinion, you should cut pretty much every single government function before you cut the one that provides basic food and shelter to those in need.


No, you should cut that well before you cut things like law enforcement, emergency response, and defense. Those functions are the basic reason the government exists at all.

In any case, what makes you think those people will starve? A lot of those people are the dependants of people who do work. A lot more will receive private charity assitance, and while doing so will find way to employ themselves. As for the rest, it's not like they'll just sit there and starve. They'll start coming up with ways to make money and survive.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 8:28 pm 
Offline
Bull Moose
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 7:36 pm
Posts: 7507
Location: Last Western Stop of the Pony Express
People starve, have starved, will continue to starve, because they refuse to take responsibility for feeding themselves, for doing what it takes to make their way in this world.

In the case of pre-pubescent children it isn't really their fault, it is the fault of their parents and the system they are raised under. By creating and continuing to maintain a system of thoughtless charity that encourages people to do nothing and just collect the dole, it has become the government's fault.

Ninety percent of the country's population used to be agricultural, a huge number of whom were otherwise unemployed. Just because they were unemployed does not mean they were not responsible for growing some crops, raising some livestock to keep themselves and their families going. When you had enough left over to sell to the city folk, times were good, when you didn't, not so good. When your crops failed, your livestock died, and frequently you and your family did too.

The westward migration that filled the middle of the country was made up of a lot of the surplus population that weren't otherwise employed, that were looking for farmland where they could make a new start. Those who already had land tended to stay where they were, those who didn't moved where they could get land, or moved to a city and got a job to support themselves and their families.

Anyone who thinks women weren't working at least as hard as the men, you are wrong. The difference was that men, being seen as the providers for the family, were given preference for all jobs. Women pretty much only found employment when they did not have a family or already had skills needed by the employer.

The industrial revolution changed a lot of that, changed the way the world worked, and women became employable as worker drones, mostly in manufacturing jobs.

None of this is universally true. This is a generalization of the way things were.

The recognition of the social problems brought about by crowding more and more people into the cities to work the manufacturing jobs, and the fact that nobody without very good and needed job skills was going to get paid much more than subsistence wages, brought about the need for unionization, the conflict escalated into a near civil war footing and the government stepped in and tried to make things right.

It has been a long hard fight between the needs of the industrialists, and the needs of the people ever since. The problem with the government's end is that in trying to make things right, to make them more fair, it has created a system where you don't need to work unless you want to, unless you have a desire to succeed - especially if you are female, even more so with children.

Politicians, to curry favor with the voters keep identifying the poor population segment of the week and make a new program to feed and shelter them. Many of the programs created are pretty redundant, and exist because the government doesn't teach people how to acquire the benefits they are already entitled to. Creating new programs creates new administration, more government, more unneeded spending of tax dollars, more waste.

By slowly cutting off the free money flow and telling people the free ride is over, get a job or go farm somewhere which is even harder, we could recover from the problem - but it isn't going to happen because the people will vote that lousy bum that turned off the money spigot out of office and elect someone who will install new spigots so they can get even more money, at least in the cities. Farmers tend to appreciate government thrift, well - unless they are subsidized.

This all leads to why Elmarnieh is both right and insane. What he froths regularly about is the extreme version of fixing the problem. Other, more gentle and better thought out processes could fix the problem without killing 100 million people. Unfortunately, because he is also right about the government not being willing to fix itself, he is also probably right about what will eventually happen.

Hopefully cooler heads will keep it from happening in our lifetimes, but I'm losing faith in that future.

My thoughts on the subject, yours will almost certainly vary.

_________________
The U. S. Constitution doesn't guarantee happiness, only the pursuit of it. You have to catch up with it yourself. B. Franklin

"A mind needs books like a sword needs a whetstone." -- Tyrion Lannister, A Game of Thrones


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 29, 2010 11:22 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
In an insane world to be considered sane is to prove one's insanity.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:39 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Diamondeye wrote:
No, you should cut that well before you cut things like law enforcement, emergency response, and defense. Those functions are the basic reason the government exists at all.

In any case, what makes you think those people will starve? A lot of those people are the dependants of people who do work. A lot more will receive private charity assitance, and while doing so will find way to employ themselves. As for the rest, it's not like they'll just sit there and starve. They'll start coming up with ways to make money and survive.


I'm pretty sure they can't do anything, since the assumption is that employment is cut by 60%. If they're making money some way they're by definition employed.

Yeah, sure, a lot are dependents, but if you just chop 60% out of the workforce then at minimum that 60% can no longer feed themselves. Let alone the people who are already unemployed or all the dependents of the two groups. There's also the people who have stopped looking for work but I could definitely see abandoning them.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Jun 30, 2010 8:50 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
I'm pretty sure they can't do anything, since the assumption is that employment is cut by 60%. If they're making money some way they're by definition employed.


Sure they can do something. In what kind of world does an assumption make the employment situation static? That assumption is based on a one-provider household in the first place, so a lot of those people are the other adult in the household and do things around the house.

Moreover, they are not, by definition, employed just because they find a way to make money. A kid who babysits once a week is not "employed".

Quote:
Yeah, sure, a lot are dependents, but if you just chop 60% out of the workforce then at minimum that 60% can no longer feed themselves. Let alone the people who are already unemployed or all the dependents of the two groups.


Horseshit. You're assuming that those people are all completely independant of someone who is still employed when in reality, most of them are not.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:08 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Diamondeye wrote:
Sure they can do something. In what kind of world does an assumption make the employment situation static? That assumption is based on a one-provider household in the first place, so a lot of those people are the other adult in the household and do things around the house.


That's what I thought too, I specifically asked him that and he denied it. Even if it is a one-provider household assumption, the employment situation isn't going to magically organize itself from a bunch of two-provider households to a bunch of one-provider households. Much more likely is you'll have something like 25% of households still have two people employed, 50% have one provider, and 25% have no job at all. They're the ones who are screwed.

Quote:
Moreover, they are not, by definition, employed just because they find a way to make money. A kid who babysits once a week is not "employed".


If you earn a wage in exchange for working, you're employed. Doing work once a week is sure sporadic employment, but it's still employment.

Also, where does this assumption come from that every single person has the ability to earn themselves a living regardless of outside conditions? I hear this so often from conservatives, who seem convinced that literally one hundred percent of all the unemployed are only that way because of relative laziness or ignorance, without exception. Not the majority, which I would agree with, every single one of them. It's bullshit. Some people will not be able to find jobs period regardless of their work ethic or aptitude. What do you plan to do about them? Sorry, tough ****, go somewhere and die don't bother me?


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 4:44 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
Speaking for myself, I would help them as much as I can until they can find a job. I carry money around with me in my wallet solely for this purpose.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Thu Jul 01, 2010 5:00 pm 
Offline
pbp Hack
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 02, 2009 8:45 pm
Posts: 7585
Xequecal wrote:
What do you plan to do about them? Sorry, tough ****, go somewhere and die don't bother me?


Let charities be charitable, and let governments govern? aka the same thing that happen to them before 1920

Also if you are talking about the physically unable (permanent disability SSI) If I were king of America I'd leave that largely intact.

_________________
I prefer to think of them as "Fighting evil in another dimension"


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re: Re:
PostPosted: Fri Jul 02, 2010 6:53 am 
Offline
The Dancing Cat
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 04, 2009 2:21 pm
Posts: 9354
Location: Ohio
Diamondeye wrote:
No, you should cut that well before you cut things like law enforcement, emergency response, and defense. Those functions are the basic reason the government exists at all.

In any case, what makes you think those people will starve? A lot of those people are the dependants of people who do work. A lot more will receive private charity assitance, and while doing so will find way to employ themselves. As for the rest, it's not like they'll just sit there and starve. They'll start coming up with ways to make money and survive.

I wish someone would do a study on how many more people would donate to charities if taxes were cut. I know that essentially right now I am living hand to mouth because every month some retarded unexpected expense pops-up so my charitable contributions are way down.

_________________
Quote:
In comic strips the person on the left always speaks first. - George Carlin


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Mon Jul 05, 2010 8:02 pm 
Offline
Peanut Gallery
User avatar

Joined: Thu Nov 26, 2009 9:40 pm
Posts: 2289
Location: Bat Country
Khross wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:
So he is now acknowledging a depression in an attempt to fish more money...to make the hole deeper?
Yes.


Dig up, stupid!

I believe local charities will step up in times of need. I actually believe people are generally decent. Coercive charity removes the value of charity. There is no goodness in it when someone takes it from your pockets, even if you would have given anyway. :(

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:22 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
That's what I thought too, I specifically asked him that and he denied it. Even if it is a one-provider household assumption, the employment situation isn't going to magically organize itself from a bunch of two-provider households to a bunch of one-provider households. Much more likely is you'll have something like 25% of households still have two people employed, 50% have one provider, and 25% have no job at all. They're the ones who are screwed.


Except that they're not. Lots of households survive with no real provider.

Quote:
If you earn a wage in exchange for working, you're employed. Doing work once a week is sure sporadic employment, but it's still employment.


No it isn't. It's work, but it's not employment. An employed person has expectation of work at regular, predictable intervals.

Quote:
Also, where does this assumption come from that every single person has the ability to earn themselves a living regardless of outside conditions? I hear this so often from conservatives, who seem convinced that literally one hundred percent of all the unemployed are only that way because of relative laziness or ignorance, without exception. Not the majority, which I would agree with, every single one of them. It's bullshit. Some people will not be able to find jobs period regardless of their work ethic or aptitude. What do you plan to do about them? Sorry, tough ****, go somewhere and die don't bother me?


Nobody ever said it was 100%, but the overwhelming majority of adults are able to work in some fashion or other.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:27 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Oct 24, 2009 5:44 pm
Posts: 2315
Households with no provider survive now because the government feeds them, exactly what you're planning to take away.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:33 am 
Offline
Noli me calcare
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:26 am
Posts: 4747
Except when they survive through private charity, or family.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Jul 06, 2010 10:41 am 
Offline
Commence Primary Ignition
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:59 am
Posts: 15740
Location: Combat Information Center
Xequecal wrote:
Households with no provider survive now because the government feeds them, exactly what you're planning to take away.


I suppose all those church-run food banks are government programs.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2009 8:49 am
Posts: 2410
Dash wrote:
He also wants the government to do the spending and thinks the reason we're still in a recession is because the stimulus should have been trillions not billions.


And he is absolutely correct.

The reason we are in the situation we are in now is because people foolishly believe that running a country is like running a household. Had we followed his advice, and had we had the courage to spend a lot more money now to create jobs (yes, even if we had to pass the largest public works program since WWII), we would be well on our way to fiscal health.

Our problem right now, as Kaynes said a long time ago, was a persistent lack of demand. When the private market goes into such a cycle, it is unlikely to come out of it any time in the near future. So, government steps in and fills the gap. The key is for the government to stave off rising prices when the economy overheats.

We should be targeting another properly sized stimulus where it will do the most good - into the hands of people who will spend the money quickly (the unemployed, small businesses, etc). Unfortunately, our insane and utterly irrational fear of big short term deficits is playing better in the media.

_________________
Image

It feels like all the people who want limited government really just want government limited to Republicans.
---The Daily Show


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:38 pm 
Offline
Deuce Master

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 9:45 am
Posts: 3099
"Short term deficits" - lol

This illustrates you assume that either we can make up all that borrowed money in a couple years or that you approve of simply printing more money to make the problem go away. Either one is ignorant.

_________________
The Dude abides.


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:50 pm 
Offline
Not a F'n Boy Scout
User avatar

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 12:10 pm
Posts: 5202
Monte:

How about: You don't get to reference economists until you actually study economics, and understand what the **** they are talking about. Or atleast until you can spell their names correctly.

_________________
Quote:
19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Ezekiel 23:19-20 


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 5:59 pm 
Offline
Too lazy for a picture

Joined: Sat Sep 12, 2009 8:40 pm
Posts: 1352
Rynar wrote:
Monte:

How about: You don't get to reference economists until you actually study economics, and understand what the **** they are talking about. Or atleast until you can spell their names correctly.



Why should now differ from the last few years?

_________________
"Life isn't divided into genres. It's a horrifying, romantic, tragic, comical, science-fiction cowboy detective novel. You know, with a bit of pornography if you're lucky."
— Alan Moore


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 9:58 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Who is Kaynes?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:39 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
this dude?
Image


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:41 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
So Monte is quoting a gay fish?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:43 pm 
Offline
Asian Blonde

Joined: Mon Sep 21, 2009 7:14 pm
Posts: 2075
He's not happy, have you heard his lyrics lately? He's at most, angry, horny fish...


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jul 07, 2010 10:49 pm 
Offline
adorabalicious
User avatar

Joined: Thu Sep 03, 2009 10:54 am
Posts: 5094
Poor fish that I am staying very far away from.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville


Top
 Profile  
Reply with quote  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 88 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 6 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 234 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group