the law of the jungleSome ultra-libertarians and right wingers here are acolytes of Ayn Rand. Social Darwinism. Sink or swim. Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps; you'll not get help from me. Yet many of these people are saved "Christians", in the right-wing authoritarian sense.
-
Wondering Conservative
-
They may consider themselves so - but see Matthew 25:31-46.To be fair, many of the right do think the strong should help the weak, but privately, rather than perforce through the State. I think that's less practical, though, and few do very much.
-
Jesus said that we should give everything away and help the poor. But some people are attracted to the authoritarian aspect of religion, and Christianity is convenient in this country, since most people are born to Christian families. The original ethical message isn't just perverted; it's smashed to bits. Jesus was far closer to "socailist" than to "right wing".I doubt that many of the self-proclaimed right wing self-centered "Christians" of the U.S. have read and understood Matthew. Perhaps some of them saw Godspell and figured they had it down.> but privatelyThe amount of private charity given to organizations other than churches in the U.S. is quite small. If the government didn't step in, there'd be a lot more people in dire straights. Also, Americans have the idea that the U.S. gives a tremendous amount of humanitarian aid to the world, when it's actually way below 1% of GDP. That's far lower than most other industrialized nations.The U.S. might be the most Christian least Christian nation.
-
Steve you cant denie, american people are very lazy. If a program ment to pay those who cant work was in place, thousands of americans would quit there jobs and just let the government pay them. And eventually there will be such a bad ratio of people paying welfare to people reciving welfare, that the economy wont work properly.
I'm not going to make a generalized statement this time, so i'll have to be very specific when i say this. For some americans, and other humans. If they cant work because they're disabled, then how do they do other things? like cook, clean, take care of childeren, you know, running a household. I hold nothing against these people, they didn't choose to damage themselfs i'm sure. But the government isn't going to help them by picking money out of workers pockets and puting it in to theirs! (as in puting it into the pockets of those who cant work, not themselfs) what are they doing to do with that money? they cant just not make money for themselfs, but they probably cant do other things as well. These people need assistance in a way that people can provide. The government can, and should put money into making places for those who cant operate efficently on there own.
The "poor" countrys like in mexico arn't accually that poor. There problem is that there are 2 or 3 people ( i dont accually meen 2 or 3, i just meen there are a small group of people) that are holding it all. That's what makes the problem in that particular country, when there is a smaller 'flow' of money, the country fails to operate. why?
When the government takes alot of money from it's people. The poeple have less money to spend (DUH) When people have less money to spend, so, less products are bought from stores, less servies are used. In a nutt shell, the flow of money is thinner then it could be. And i'm sure you know this, but the government makes money from every single good bought, every single servis used. (no, not every single servise used, but many servises and goods bought are TAXED,) so, if the flow of money is thinner, less stuff is being bought, the government makes less money off taxed goods. on top of that, if a buisness isn't selling it's products, or people arn't using it's servises as much as they were. The buisness is going to do poorly, what does this meen? the buisness has to start firing people. so now, the unemployment rate increases.
I said this in a nuttshell, so really, this kind of process takes YEARS before it is noticed. it probably takes about a decade before a long term tax raise affects it's economy.
If your thinking, well, the government doesn't just keep the money, it uses it. Your correct, but when the government has all of that money. What will it do with it? and this is a fact of nature for humans, if you have lots of money, your going to spend it on somthing big. like i dont know... pork spending? a financial program? it doesn't matter! it's all stuff that the government wont afford down the line because eventually it's gonna start geting less and less money from it's people. why? i explained why... the flow of money is cut thin, and the unemployment rate is up. That's what makes deficites. When the government.
Maybe i'm a republican because I only know democrats who are brainwashed. I'll type a conversation i heared once, 1) is a person, 2) is another person. Neither person can see eachother.
- do you know who the president is?
- George bush
- do you know who the current Vice president is?
- the Vice president?
- you cant get help, do you know who the vice president is or not?
- no
- do you know who the secretary of state is?
- no...
- secretary of security?
- no...
- So who are you voting for in the election
- That other guy um....
- kerry?
- yes him
- How come
- i saw that movie, Farenheit 9/11
This was a regular new yorker, i believe a woman. The same man (person number 1) did the same thing with 2 other people, he received similar replys. Those are the people who call themselfs democrats, it's almost funny.
Then there are people like you steve and others who can hold up a good argument.
-
> american people are very lazy
America has (probably) the most productive economy (in terms of economic output per worker) in the world. Your generalization is wrong.
> If they cant work because they're disabled, then how do they do other things? like cook, clean, take care of children, you know, running a household.
Are you saying (another generalization) that all disabled people do that? Does a quadriplegic hold the feather duster in his teeth?
Of course there are varying degrees of being disabled. Unless they can do something at home on their computer, and they have a fast enough Internet connection to make it viable, they need to get to a job site. That requires certain logistics be available, like transportation and handicap accessibility.
And after all of that, lots of handicapped people do have jobs.
> But the government isn't going to help them by picking money out of workers pockets and putting it in to theirs!
Who is this "them" that you speak of? Those people?
> what are they doing to do with that money?
Are you talking about the money from welfare, Social Security disability payments, etc.? Presumably, they're paying their rent and buying food. Do you think it's all going to the crack dealer?
> These people need assistance in a way that people can provide. The government can, and should put money into making places for those who cant operate efficiently on there own.
Yeah, and that's happening to some extent.
I love when people who have no idea what poor and handicapped people have to go through, but don't hesitate to share their ill-informed opinions. Go find someone who's actually in the situation. See what a lot of people have to go through to get assistance. Some people don't have skills to earn enough money to feed their families. Some people are poor through no fault of their own, through divorce, accident, etc. Some people, whether they're capable of working or not, are lazy, and will just suck whatever they can out of the system. But most people want to work and earn a living. It's a matter of pride. It just doesn't seem ethical to leave poor and disabled people slowly twisting in the wind because there are some lazy people.
I'm not saying the above captures your opinion on welfare; but there are some folks who think the whole system should be dismantled; then private organizations would just step in and fill the gap. Not likely.
-
NYT, 2 July 2005:In reply to:In Missouri, new cuts also took effect Friday in an effort to reduce the rolls; for example, a single mother of three in Missouri is now ineligible if she makes more than $350 a month.There, are you happy now? If you get a job that pays more than $2 an hour, you are SOL in Missouri if you need medical care or a prescription.
-
memememememeeeee lalalalalalalaaaaaaaa i wrote this because I'm starting to get angry, i cant make a post.now that it's been prooven i can make a post. You are indeed correct, correct that the following doesn't discribe the way i feel. Your just good at pointing out my word errors. ( i know your gonna reply to that ) For those who are on welfare because of.. um.. a finantial issue. Sure, w/e. I dont care if somone Needs to get back onto there feet. That's what welfare is for, It's not for paying americans not-to-work for the rest of their lives, there are few who do, do this. But Few, is still a quantity.There are Disabled people who work, there are ALOT of them infact.This, is a question. If somone who truely, honestly, and forsurly is unable to work. How do they do anything else? And you KNOW what i meen by anything else. But, just to clarify.- clean the house- pay bills- raise childeren (if any)- Buy/prepare Food- Etc. Etc.And i'm also sure, that there are some who can. However, also, just so your not confused. let me clarify somthing else. When i ask you, if they cant work, how can they do the things above, I'm asking you, if they're unable to do Somthing that will give them sufficent money, how are they PHYICIALLY AND MENTALLY capable of doing the things above, this is NOT about if they cant work, how DO THEY GET THE MONEY nonononono, it's obvious that they cannot, unless they're heirs, or struck money to last them a life time. some way, some how.Your also going to notice that i add alot of unnessesary commas to my sentences, making them run-ons or even fragments. I do this because i'm writing the way i a talk. (i also know i'm going to get a reply on this)
-
that the following doesn't discribe the way i feelIf you're talking about the post you just replied to, note well that that post was not a reply to you. Not what name follows the "re:".I don't really understand what your second-to-last paragraph is saying. I'm saying that a lot of people can't earn a living wage, and when their income goes above a pretty small amount, in most states, they lose welfare benefits, like medical care for themselves and their families. That's why the number of uninsured in the U.S. is pushing 50 million, many of them children.> I do this because i'm writing the way i a talk. (i also know i'm going to get a reply on this)This is a big problem, and it makes your posts hard to read and understand. If you were in front of me, I could just keep saying "Huh?", and then you could rephrase what you're saying. But if you have to post three clarifications each time, what are you saving?Don't be lazy. Take this as an opportunity to practice your writing. And you deserve to use a capital "I" when you refer to yourself.
-
In reply to: Your also going to notice that i add alot of unnessesary commas to my sentences, making them run-ons or even fragments. I do this because i'm writing the way i a talk. (i also know i'm going to get a reply on this) You sure are! It's awesome to write the way you talk- it adds personality. However, you should still try to write somewhat correctly, so people can understand your meaning.
-
Post deleted by hee
-
I'll try and write this as carefully as possible!!!!When I say, if you can’t work, then how you can do other things like cook, clean, etc. When I say you can’t work, I mean there are no jobs that you are physically and mentally capable of doing efficiently. In other words, if your in a scenario where you cant find ANYTHING that your capable of doing as a job, whether it's something complicated like a rocket scientist, a mechanic, doctor, lawyer etc. (and I might be wrong, a rocket scientists job might not be complicated, so it that's so, then think of something that might be complicated) or something simple, like a store owner, or a maid, or even working as a baby sitter. W/e you know what I mean. You've tried and looked at everything available, (and no, I don’t mean every job on the planet, please don’t get practical and technical unless you truly don’t understand me.) And yet, there's nothing you can do without getting fired because of poor work ethic. If you’re thinking, "there's NO ONE on the planet like that, or even if your not, Sure, Either way you think of it. It all comes to the same thing when I ask you, THIS.If someone can’t get a job, (look above to understand what I mean, by: "if you can’t get a job") and they get money from the government. How are they supposed to do things with that money, if they're in that much trouble? This DOESN'T include people who are looking for a job, and need some money until they get one. Well, I've made it as comprehendible (in computer text) as possible. I'm not sure what you mint specifically in your 2nd paragraph about your income goes above a pretty small amount, I think your talking about Low wages, and I'm not sure if we see eye to eye on this one, and I don’t want another misunderstanding, so if you look at this post early you'll see allot of errors, I'm going to copy and paste this onto word when I'm done. But back to the subject. If the government start paying people with low wages with money from taxes, rather then with the money of the business that gives them they're wages, it hurts the economy. What businesses pay people, as opposed to other people in job comparisons is outrageous, and in some ways, silly. I'm surprised, haha, with all of the scams in the world of marketing today I’m surprised the employees aren’t getting more. But then again not all workers are in the world of selling and buying. Ok, now for Microsoft word. Sorry, it's hard to correct my work when I can only see 5 lines of my work, one at a time.Now that I’m writing with a semi-legible skill level, I’ll clarify a few things.- Liberals aren’t socialist commies; the phrase “socialist commies” is a pretty redundant phrase in the first place. They’re ideas of how the government should help its people and its economy grow may follow the lines of socialism- I don’t get why some politicians are being persecuted when they say it’s a good idea to bring democracy to places that are controlled in unfair governments. Because there’s always someone, or some group of people who don’t say “we don’t have the right to force democracy upon them.” But then again, we can always throw money at them, set up programs to help them, and no matter what happens. Nothing is really fixed if the government isn’t fixed. I’ll just make Iraq as an example. In the scheme of things, it wasn’t the objective of the US to make Iraq a Country of democracy, and more so, a government free of Sadam, Weapons or not. When he was gone, what were we supposed to do? Ask for another dictator? (Some people are under the strong idea that Bush is THAT dictator, if you have something to complain about in that statement then I’ll always have something to defend it with.) Impress communism upon them? Run off while the country had no government at all? Look in history, and in the present. Compare the Government of a country, to the wealth of the country itself. And not just, the type of government, but compare the flow of money with that government with the wealth. Of Course it doesn’t always take fire power to change a government, Iraq was only an example. A President can always have a diplomatic meeting with that government and Try and convince them to change. - You know, 3 out of 4 of the members of my family, mom dad sister and I, Are republican conservative. Not one of us, not one, unless you include the cats, (god knows how your going to go about doing that: P) Believes that we should “do away” with welfare and pension, and social security. Not one. If you want to debate what my parents and I think then go ahead, that would actually be funny.SupercalifragilisticexpialidociousThis is still probably messy. I can always understand that it would be hard for you to make a debate about somthing with me, if you couldn't understand what my real opinion was. So... talking about my spelling errors would be better then debating what i accually think, since your not completely sure.
-
Even though the post I am responding to was a reply to you, I assume you meant it as a reply to me. You have to hit "reply" to the post to which you intend to reply, or things get confusing, and the "threading" gets all mixed up.> talking about my spelling errorsYour spelling errors and syntax sometimes made it difficult to understand what you meant. I can read and write on a college level; I might have been able to understand what you meant if I'd spent enough time analyzing your writing, but that doesn't seem fair.We're discussing two different things. I made a brief post about the fact that, if you earn a little money, you lose government medical benefits in Missouri. It's true in other states as well. That post was not directed at you; it was directed at johndoe14.I agree that able-bodied (and -minded) people should work, and not just be given benefits to stay home and watch TV (which is what you are discussing). But things are rarely as simple as they seem. For example, if a mother of three small children works at a minimum wage job, what does she do for day care? What does she do for medical benefits for herself and her family? What if the availability of workers for low-skilled jobs is so high that you can't even get job at the Burger King, because there are so many others with better skills and experience that BK can choose from?johndoe14 appears to be a social Darwinist, which means that you sink or swim on your own. If you can't make it, then the world would be better off without you polluting the gene pool. I'm not saying that's what you believe. But you are seriously oversimplifying the problems of the poor in America. You might also want to explore why it's possible to graduate from high school without the skills to operate a cash register. It remains to be seen how much good the testing requirements for a diploma will do. I still haven't seen the unequal distribution of school funding addressed in a meaningful way.
-
Well I cant (and I don’t) agree with John Doe on that. Part of the problem is Cheep business owners are paying people with ridiculously low wages. The government can help, but there are other ways of helping people besides throwing money at there feet. (BTW: Everyone should be entitled to welfare when they need it, but more importantly, everyone should be entitled to a job that they can sustain themselves with. In other words, everyone deserves a job that pays them enough to sustain themselves. Hence, as the old saying goes: Give a man a loaf of bread and he can eat for a day, Teach a man to fish and he will have food for a life time. Of course I DONT expects the government to start running programs for fishing classes. And of course if you’re trying to be practical with the statement, yes, just because you can fish, doesn't mean there will always be fish around for you to catch.)What you said in your last paragraph is true. (Unless I took it the wrong way) High school really doesn't prepare you for any job, even the simple ones which is pretty disappointing. Bill gates agree with you, I agree with you. (This doesn't make me a democrat either) I don’t fully understand the Democratic Party so I could be debating against a non existing party. In other words, let’s say I think that the democrats think that __________, and I'm like "hey I don’t agree with that" so I go up to one and say that, and they're all like "what?"Just because a post wasn’t directed at me, doesn’t mean I can’t throw my 2 cents into the conversation. I notice, a lot, when the debate reaches the end of it’s time. People start complaining about my spelling and grammar instead of what I actually think. So then I start going over my work and they start talking less and less. That’s a positive on my part. : P I’m not saying this is what you think. But if someone is running at wages too low to sustain themselves and the government DOES pay them welfare, then what? They just keep paying her until she dies? Welfare was made as a support. NOT A FOUNDATION. Unless that woman manages to get better pay so she can operate without federal assistance. It’s not fair for the people who are have money taken out of their paychecks to keep her financial system afloat.I think that’s been cleared up. I’d like to see john’s next reply.
-
ME = LIBERAL, i agree with you that there are a lot of liberals on here, but not that there are a lot of atheists. i'm very religious myself
-
In reply to:Everyone should be entitled to welfare when they need it, but more importantly, everyone should be entitled to a job that they can sustain themselves with.Give a man a loaf of bread and he can eat for a day, Teach a man to fish and he will have food for a life time."From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.""Catch a man a fish, and you can sell it to him. Teach a man to fish, and you ruin a wonderful business opportunity.""Religion is the opium of the masses.""The production of too many useful things results in too many useless people.""I am not a Marxist."You know who wrote those gems? The same guy who wrote:"Go on, get out. Last words are for fools who haven't said enough."
-
I am not at all a social Darwinist, and by reading a paragraph or two of what i've written about it isn't going to tell you that i am or am not because politics are too complex for that. I believe in helping out a human brother or sister of mine, but i don't believe in the government having to be required to give them money while they just sit at home. I belive in the government helping its citizens get back on their feet, or get on their feet, and make a sufficent living. I mean, for a few months the government helping a single mother raise her children when she is takeing college courses so she can advance from a mimimum wage job at the local mikie-d's to a eventually well paying job with benifits. I am perfectly fine with moneny being deducted out of my paycheck, when i reach the age to have one, to support someone in that situation or many other similar ones, because to help them, helps the ecomomey, and also i could be in troblem one day that i will need temporany support. I just dislike having my hard-earned money being taken away from me to be given to someone who doesn't at least try to get a better education and excell in a job opporitunity. Thats just what i think. It could be much more complex than that, but in simple terms, thats it.Also, some people get the impression that i think all liberals are athiest. I think not. I simply think there is a correlation between the two. You won't usually see an athiest saying that gay marriages are wrong. So what i'm saying is that most athiest are liberals, i guess. For you steve, and everyone else. You have to understand that you are debating a 14 year old and a, what hee? 12/13 year old. Not saying that because we are younger we have an excuse or are less likely to make a stronge argument, but you say you are at college level, so you have a better advandage on us, you've seen things longer than us and we are just learning, and trying to understand and making our opinion. Then changing our opinion, or keeping it, when we learn more. We at least care about our government and the world around us. We look at things that the sheeple of our generation thinks is boring and/or doesn't care. I know i have more to learn, but at least i'm trying to. I am conservative because of what i currently know and how i think, although i'm not saying as i learn more i become more left. Political debates of forums are difficult and long. I have not participated in awhile even though i started it, i've been quite busy, but thats all i have to say for now. adios
-
every single one of those statements is a statement Based on the core beliefs of liberalisim, and maybe marketing but that's besides the point. I'll explain and debate most of them.-> The production of usefull things makes useless people.But then again, if you took 20 childeren, and 13 of those 20 would have jobs as adults that arn't around today. the phyical strenght and metal powers of humans will always be needed ummonst themselfs, why? because the world is changing constantly and a faster and faster rate that not even technology can keep up with. This simply goes to show that there are SOME who dispise the concepts of new technology. Think about this, american's been around for about 220 years or so. We've had some serious updates since then, and imigrants can still find ocupations, americans can still find occupations. The two "too many"ies are just there to dilute the meaning of the statement. Your second statment discribes how the scam system works. People sell things to you that dont work, or only last so long, hence, you'll keep buying them. It's also somthing similar to the idea of socialisim, we provide everything, you do nothing but take, it doesn't work. that's why people from socialist and communist contry migrate to america, and not the other way around. I want to play movie battles so i'll leave it to this for now...(btw: who writes that stuff? one of your college professors?)
-
every single one of those statements is a statement Based on the core beliefs of liberalisimLiberalism, huh?> (btw: who writes that stuff? one of your college professors?)Are you saying that college professors are commies? (BTW, I finished college a while ago.)Congratulations. You debated Kark Marx.
-
athiest here, i do not believe there are many on here because i have seen many posts referring back to adam and eve, the bible, and what god thinks is wrong. its unfortunate.
-
> I mean, for a few months the government helping a single mother raise her children when she is takeing college courses so she can advance from a mimimum wage job at the local mikie-d's to a eventually well paying job with benifits.
It's hard to advance without a college degree. The couple of courses you can take in a few months won't do it, unless you're talking about vocational training.
> [14 year old versus college level, etc.]
14 years of age is around the time I recall having started to form a political philosophy of sorts. In a perfect world I would say that 14-year-old shouldn't have firm ideological positions. But I did. Your insight is good.
Many opinions weren't formed so much by experience (e.g.:, I've never negotiated a treaty with a foreign government). It has more to do with reading about different policies, seeing what effects they've had, and synthesizing an idea of how it all works. But the quest never ends. You can gather together every Nobel Prize winner in economics, and you will collectively have a group that barely understands how the world economy functions.
I would much rather have these sorts of discussions with someone who is engaged and thoughtful and reads, regardless of their position, rather folks who spew based on God knows what. I'd put you guys in the first category.
Anyway, political disagreement doesn't imply personal hostility. I am very close to people I differ with politically. It's not a big problem.