Communism and Socialism

[milefile]

Originally posted by Recury
The single mothers on welfare with waitressing jobs dont consider themselves "successes," certainly not economically, im sure.

And niether do I. What's your point?

 

[Recury]

He was implying that things like welfare that redistribute income, while eliminating failure by helping those who dont "succeed" economically, eliminates the desire for success. Im saying that those that receive welfare are by no stretch of the imagination "successes" and therefore still have the desire to do good for themselves.

I dont know how that applies to what you were saying cause I wasnt addressing you.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Recury


I dont know how that applies to what you were saying cause I wasnt addressing you.

Oh. Okay. Sorry. I'll just butt out.

 

[Recury]

OK, the way I worded that makes me sound like a complete dick. Just pretend I said something really witty, intelligent and nice instead.

 

[Danoff]

Im saying that those that receive welfare are by no stretch of the imagination "successes" and therefore still have the desire to do good for themselves.

What kind of good do they havea desire for? Working harder? Having fewer children? Why should they do that when they get paid to not work and have kids?

 

[Recury]

Making a comfortable living? Living a happy life? Raising good children? God, listening to you people you would think that everyone on welfare was just lazy and trying to take your money. Get a ****ing clue.

 

[Sage]

I think everyone here's well aware that not everybody on welfare is out to take out money. However, the point is that there needs to be incentive to do better, and giving them money for not doing better doesn't help things. I have a neighbor (I'd rather not call him a neighbor though) who's been living off of welfare for at least a decade now, and he really milks the system too... he has four or five different mailboxes, so that he can recieve that many welfare checks per month under false identities. And why does he do this? Because, money is an incentive, and he was given money for being poor at one time, so the incentive now for him is to stay poor so that he gets more money.

Again, I realize this isn't the case with everybody, but it is the case quite often. You can't set up incentives for continuing to do badly, because then people will continue to do badly.

 

[Recury]

My point is the incentives for doing badly are almost nothing, especially when compared to the incentives for doing well in this society. The bottom line is that welfare does a lot more good than bad.

And I'm guessing that since youre so worried about welfare cheats that youre going to go turn your neighbor in for welfare fraud this afternoon, right?

 

[Danoff]

My point is the incentives for doing badly are almost nothing, especially when compared to the incentives for doing well in this society.

Incentives like higher taxes? If the incentives for doing badly are almost nothing, why do people stay on welfare? Why do people remain homeless if there is no reason to remain that way? There is a lot more incentive out there than you might think.

The bottom line is that welfare does a lot more good than bad.

Prove it.

 

[LoudMusic]

I want to vote for more than one.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by danoff
Incentives like higher taxes? If the incentives for doing badly are almost nothing, why do people stay on welfare? Why do people remain homeless if there is no reason to remain that way? There is a lot more incentive out there than you might think.

How about everything except higher taxes? The reason why people stay on welfare is that they dont. The average welfare recipient stays on welfare for 2 years. People remain homeless because even if you do get off whatever drugs it is youre probably on, its nearly impossible to get a job once youve been homeless for any amount of time and dont have anywhere to shower and have to put down on your job application for place of residence "Nowhere" or "the YMCA."

I can do a proof later if I get really bored, but I think itd be a waste of time to come up with a completely logical argument and check all my statistics just to have someone say "TAXES BLARGHHHHHHHHH."

How about some proof that welfare does more bad than good? The burden of proof is just as much on your side as it is mine. Of course I ask only because I know there is no proof of that.

 

[Danoff]

its nearly impossible to get a job once youve been homeless for any amount of time and dont have anywhere to shower and have to put down on your job application for place of residence "Nowhere" or "the YMCA."

Construction job. No questions asked. Hell they take whatever illegal immigrants they can find. Do that for long enough to get up enough money to get yourself a cheap place to stay. Take showers at the Salvation Army or whatever. It's not as hard as you make it sound.

How about some proof that welfare does more bad than good? The burden of proof is just as much on your side as it is mine.

Nope, you have the burden of proof. Government programs should not exist unless they do some good. Even then, some of them are unconstitutional. Anyway if you're going to put a gun to my head and force me to give money to poor people, I think I have a right to ask for proof that it's working the way you claim.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by danoff
Construction job. No questions asked. Hell they take whatever illegal immigrants they can find.

Ha, I dont think so. And we all know how much those companies that hire illegal immigrants pay...

Nope, you have the burden of proof. Government programs should not exist unless they do some good. Even then, some of them are unconstitutional. Anyway if you're going to put a gun to my head and force me to give money to poor people, I think I have a right to ask for proof that it's working the way you claim.

The welfare program already exists in some form or another in most wealthy countries and youre saying that those countries are all wrong and should get rid of it. Before they do that, I think theyll want some proof first of why its harmful.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Recury
Ha, I dont think so. And we all know how much those companies that hire illegal immigrants pay...

They pay what the workers are willing to work for.

It's sad to me that you have no faith in the strength of the individual. It disgusts me that you believe that an individual needs a centralized government bureaucracy in order to be successful.

It is an insult to human beings to insist that they are incapable of doing things for themselves. Governments that patronize are the worst kind of government because they take away any possibility for achievement and kindness. When everything is ultimately attributable to the government, when everything is given and taken away by the government, when "success" is controlled and distributed by the government no single individual can ever take credit for anything, besides passivity.

 

[Danoff]

Ha, I dont think so. And we all know how much those companies that hire illegal immigrants pay...

At least it wouldn't be stealing. Even a career beggar is preferable to a career welfare recipient. The beggar provides a service that people pay for - make them feel good for being charitable. People willingly make that purchase with their money daily.

The welfare program already exists in some form or another in most wealthy countries and youre saying that those countries are all wrong and should get rid of it. Before they do that, I think theyll want some proof first of why its harmful.

I'll re-state: Any government program requires the burden of proof that not only is it a good thing, but that it is a proper function of government and executed in a morally justifiable way.

For example, if we were questioning the need for a military... with all of the tax dollars that are spent on it the burden of proof is to prove that it's worth the money, not to prove that it's not worth the money. Of course the answer is that we have to have a military and it has to be controlled by the government - nothing else would work. But that's the way to approach a discussion about government programs. You have the burden of proof in this case.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by neon_duke
So where is the long-term reward for hard work and success? How do I pass the benefits of my success on to my children, if my money is taken to subsidize someone else's kids who don't have successful parents?

How are my children supposed to learn the value of self improvement, if the benefits are taken away and given to others?

The owner of the place I work for example, can give a lot more to his kids financially than I do... at the age of 10 and 5, his children have been Hawaii, the Carribean and other countries, they have private courses in whatever sport or interest they like. They enjoy the wealth of their parents in many ways, and all that while he lives in the most taxed place in America (well if not, it shouldn't be far...). Our children at home don't have access to those things, we have to make choices that we can afford, it makes perfect sense and I'm fine with it. But to have an unfair advantage over education is something I would care about... it should more be related to the abilities of our childrens, and not the wealth or success of their parents.

It is an insult to human beings to insist that they are incapable of doing things for themselves. Governments that patronize are the worst kind of government because they take away any possibility for achievement and kindness

I don't agree. First we all pay for education, universal healthcare and welfare here and I doesn't keep anyone I know from achieving anything. At worst it makes people whine about their paycheck (including myself), or doing a part of their work on the side...

I think I'm in a good position to know it can be useful. When I was 4, my parent broke up, and my mother was alone left alone with a child and no job. During the first weeks we even didn't have a refrigerator. So my mother got on welfare for about 2 months, before she found a decent job and a babysitter for me. She never used it again, and that didn't prevent her for achieving anything at all. Now she owns a nice house, has a good car, and she worked hard to get there. Most case I know of peolple that have been on welfare, it was the last resort for a short period, and people usually are ashamed of it, and really don't want to get back there.

Following your logic, if I needed surgery during that short period, well, too bad for me? Because you say that losing a small amount of your salary does prevent you achieve personnal success?

I don't see anything wrong in measures to help some people to get back on their feet, wich is their primary goal, not to provide them for the rest of their lives.

 

[Danoff]

I don't see anything wrong in measures to help some people to get back on their feet, wich is their primary goal, not to provide them for the rest of their lives.

Do you see anything wrong with threatening a person with jail time if they don't give up some of the money that they earned in order to fund someone who has not earned it? Does that sound ethical to you?

You assume that if the government were not there to provide welfare, these people would have no place to go and would be destitute. Do I need to remind you that someone made a donation on the order of a B illion dollars to the salvation army recently? Even I would be happy to contribute to charity organizations if it weren't already forced out of my paycheck. If you force it out of me, I will resent it. If you let me pick the charity and the amount, I will feel proud to have helped a few deserving people like your mom get back on their feet.

 

[Carl.]

Originally posted by danoff
Do you see anything wrong with threatening a person with jail time if they don't give up some of the money that they earned in order to fund someone who has not earned it? Does that sound ethical to you?

You assume that if the government were not there to provide welfare, these people would have no place to go and would be destitute. Do I need to remind you that someone made a donation on the order of a B illion dollars to the salvation army recently? Even I would be happy to contribute to charity organizations if it weren't already forced out of my paycheck. If you force it out of me, I will resent it. If you let me pick the charity and the amount, I will feel proud to have helped a few deserving people like your mom get back on their feet.

I see your point, but in a society more geared towards performance and competitiveness at all costs, a lot of people tend to close their eyes on the subject rather than giving help, and that is logical... giving away what they've earned is not at their advange. And a lot of money given to charity is a way to save taxes (at least here, don't know in the US).

 

[Danoff]

I see your point, but in a society more geared towards performance and competitiveness at all costs

At the cost of morality? And do we really get greater performance this way? Prove it.

 

[Duke]

Originally posted by jpmontoya
And a lot of money given to charity is a way to save taxes (at least here, don't know in the US).

So, people will willingly give their money away to avoid having it forcibly stolen from them. Not to mention the fact that every dollar they give away only saves them 25-40 cents on their taxes. It would be cheaper to just let them steal the taxes.

Doesn't this suggest anything to you?

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by milefile
It is an insult to human beings to insist that they are incapable of doing things for themselves.

They ARE capable of doing things for themselves in a capitalistic society, but here in the US, that isnt what we have. Yes the basic rules for capitalism are there, but if you have enough money you can change those rules and thats when it becomes almost impossible to become economically successful if you are, say, a hardworking, enterprising homeless person for instance. The rules become stacked against you in favor of the schmoozing captain of industry begging his politican buds for subsidies. No, what we have is free market capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

Originally posted by danoff
Even a career beggar is preferable to a career welfare recipient. The beggar provides a service that people pay for - make them feel good for being charitable. People willingly make that purchase with their money daily.

You are fantastic at distorting things, Ill give you that. Is the question stealing vs. welfare now? Oh wait, stealing IS welfare. And the government taking taxes out of your paycheck is stealing too! I think we have a future politician in the making here or talk radio host, at least. You dont actually address anything or think about it, you just dodge. Addressing you any more is a waste of time and is getting very boring.

 

[milefile]

Originally posted by Recury




You are fantastic at distorting things, Ill give you that.

It's actually called a "different perspective". This accusation is ironic.

 

[Danoff]

I think we have a future politician in the making here or talk radio host, at least. You dont actually address anything or think about it, you just dodge. Addressing you any more is a waste of time and is getting very boring.

I have addressed all of your points very directly. Please go find one that you think I dodged and I'll re-address it.

The rules become stacked against you in favor of the schmoozing captain of industry begging his politican buds for subsidies.

Exactly why subsidies should be stopped. This is exactly why big government is bad, because polititians play with our tax dollars. It's why the IRS shouldn't exist - It's why the tax code should consist of a single percentage (two at the most, one for income, one for sales). This is exactly the argument for eliminating welfare.

Oh, and another thing. You dodged my point (and neon's) about people (including myself) being willing to donate to charty - even more so if we weren't already forced to give our money to a poorly run government charity we didn't chose.

No, what we have is free market capitalism for the poor and socialism for the rich.

Give me some examples. Show me in our government structure where it is set up to do anything but hinder the rich.

Edit: and don't include politicians, they're in a unique position to screw us all over and that's actually (unfortunately) necessary. The fact that some rich people lobby for special insterest money only strenghtens my argument.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by milefile
It's actually called a "different perspective". This accusation is ironic.

There is a difference between having a different perspective and being misleading. I get enough misleading arguments trying to watch TV.

 

[Duke]

Danoff's not being misleading. He's willing and able to explain chapter and verse of what he thinks and why he thinks it. Point out where's he's avoided you and he'll be glad to fill in details.

Many social troubles we have come from the political system, not the economic system. You're accusing the wrong suspect.

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by neon_duke
Danoff's not being misleading.

Theres something called "framing the argument." Its when you word your responses to something in a way that makes the issue seem to be between two things that it really isnt. Like instead of talking about being homeless vs. being on welfare, we end up discussing "stealing" (welfare) vs. "begging" (being homeless). In this case, I guess "deflecting" is a better word than "dodging." It isn't good debating, its just being misleading. Theres another thing called "saying so many things at once that the person youre talking cant possibly respond to all of them." Bill O'Reilly does it all the time. I realize that you all didnt do that on purpose, but it is 3 against 1 here and the 1 has a job + school, so...

Many social troubles we have come from the political system, not the economic system. You're accusing the wrong suspect.

If this is directed at me, I dont understand how it has to do with what I said.

You dodged my point (and neon's) about people (including myself) being willing to donate to charty - even more so if we weren't already forced to give our money to a poorly run government charity we didn't chose.

There is no way on earth that the amount of money donated then would ever be greater than the amount of money donated now + the amount of money collected through taxes for welfare. The fact that we have to threaten people with jail time to get them to pay up, as you so kindly pointed out, should tell you something about how generous people are.

Give me some examples. Show me in our government structure where it is set up to do anything but hinder the rich.

OK, Disney has a copyright on Mickey Mouse, right? Mickey Mouse makes an assload of money for Disney, right? The current copyright law states that after a certain number of years things like Mickey go into the public domain, right? Well, guess what Disney went ahead and did. They lobbied long and hard to get the copyright law changed! And they changed it! Just a few more years, they said. Then those few years elapsed. Guess what happened then? They lobbied again! And guess what? The copyright law changed again! And guess what? Disney still makes assloads of money off of Mickey because they are rich enough to afford hordes of lawyers to the convince the government to get the law changed.

Edit: and don't include politicians, they're in a unique position to screw us all over and that's actually (unfortunately) necessary. The fact that some rich people lobby for special insterest money only strenghtens my argument.

Well, its the way the politicans can be bought that ****s up pretty much everything, but Id still like to hear this argument.

Whew, did I get everything?

 

[Sage]

Originally posted by Recury
Like instead of talking about being homeless vs. being on welfare, we end up discussing "stealing" (welfare) vs. "begging" (being homeless).

But, don't you see? – that's pretty much how we are defining the argument, and I don't think any of us have necessarily claimed otherwise. I'll even go on a limb and say it myself, and bold it: Welfare is stealing money from the people who have worked for it; homeless people beg a lot (I couldn't think of a way to turn it into the present participle... sorry. ).

So, I don't think any of us have been misleading. Welfare is stealing, many homeless people do beg, Communism/socialism set up the framework for welfare and the like to exist, and that's what I'm arguing.

Theres another thing called "saying so many things at once that the person youre talking cant possibly respond to all of them." Bill O'Reilly does it all the time. I realize that you all didnt do that on purpose, but it is 3 against 1 here and the 1 has a job + school, so...

Well, everybody's just addressing all of the points to make for a fair argument...

 

[Danoff]

There is no way on earth that the amount of money donated then would ever be greater than the amount of money donated now + the amount of money collected through taxes for welfare.

Total bologna. Prove it.

The fact that we have to threaten people with jail time to get them to pay up, as you so kindly pointed out, should tell you something about how generous people are.

They pay up in spite of the fact that we threaten to put them in jail. That should tell you how generous people are.

OK, Disney has a copyright on Mickey Mouse, right? Mickey Mouse makes an assload of money for Disney, right? The current copyright law states that after a certain number of years things like Mickey go into the public domain, right? Well, guess what Disney went ahead and did. They lobbied long and hard to get the copyright law changed! And they changed it! Just a few more years, they said. Then those few years elapsed. Guess what happened then? They lobbied again! And guess what? The copyright law changed again! And guess what? Disney still makes assloads of money off of Mickey because they are rich enough to afford hordes of lawyers to the convince the government to get the law changed.

Complex government programs make it a lot more easier for politicians to be bought. That's why it's best to trim government to its barest bones (meaning no welfare). It's the politicians you want to blame here, not Disney. Blame the elected officials who sold out their constituents. The nice thing about politicians in a democracy, though, is that they are accountable to the people.

Anyway don't get upset with Disney, they're playing the game that your elected officials set up. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

 

[///M-Spec]

Originally posted by danoff
Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

M

 

[Recury]

Originally posted by danoff
Total bologna. Prove it.

They pay up in spite of the fact that we threaten to put them in jail. That should tell you how generous people are.

OK, Ill try to make it EXTRA clear instead of just plainly obvious. I will use an analogy.
Heres basically what you are saying, we repeal laws that tax people and they will naturally WANT to donate money to charities, right? So using that logic, if we repealed the laws against, say, smoking crack then LESS people would smoke crack because for some reason, if we get rid of the laws that force people to do something, they will do the opposite just because they are so happy at not having to be forced to do it. I guess if we just BELIEVE in people then they will do good! Wow! It is like a ray of sunshine into my soul.

Complex government programs make it a lot more easier for politicians to be bought. That's why it's best to trim government to its barest bones (meaning no welfare). It's the politicians you want to blame here, not Disney. Blame the elected officials who sold out their constituents. The nice thing about politicians in a democracy, though, is that they are accountable to the people.

Anyway don't get upset with Disney, they're playing the game that your elected officials set up. Don't hate the playa, hate the game.

First of all, its "the game" that were talking about here. Im not upset at Disney, Im upset that Disney can get away with this.

Secondly, maybe I just never realized what an idealist you are and thats why nothing you say makes sense to me. If we believe in people they will do good, if we dont like the politicians we have, lets just get new ones! And surely the new ones will be better because surely the new ones are not equally as corrupt the old ones. Its a nice concept, but not very pragmatic.

The fact that politicians can be bought has nothing to do with how complex the programs that they pass (AFTER theyve been bought) are.