Reply With Quote
Really? What could YOU do? Sure we could hope someone does something, but with that data what could you personally do about it? Not a ing thing.
Good question.
Another good question:
Does it matter that he can't be found when you have to decide whether or not to give the mother/child some help?
One is faced with a decision as to whether or not to let the child suffer for the faults of the parents.
Really? What could YOU do? Sure we could hope someone does something, but with that data what could you personally do about it? Not a ing thing.
No one has defined this "we" folks keep speaking of. The "we" I am aware of don't have a choice in the matter. We are taxed at gunpoint basically and the funds redistributed as "they" see fit. We're basically chickens in a hen house pretending we have control over who eats the eggs.
Who said it was, outside of race-baiters?
... the same gun fellatin racists who counter gun control advocates with "what about black-on-black crime"
You say that but all I see is "waaaah". I get it, you don't like "taxes at gunpoint". Fine.
You avoided the obvious moral question underlying why those "taxes at gunpoint" are made, which was the point of my post.
Setting aside all other considerations, what SHOULD be done, from a moral standpoint?
Assume the country consists of just you, with all the food you can eat, and one mother with one child who can't, for whatever reason, work to support themselves.
Would you give them enough food to live, assuming you still have more than enough to eat after giving them enough to survive? why or why not?
Bull . There is plenty you can do with it, if you aren't a lazy wanker. With enough effort, you can move the levers and affect change.
Cynicism like that is just lazy thinking, IMO. "That heavy thing just CAN'T be picked up, so why bother?"
From: http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1676In the U.S. today,[1] there are more than 80 federal means-tested welfare programs that provide cash, food, housing, medical care, and social services to low-income residents. An October 2012 report by the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service (CRS) indicates that as of 2011, federal spending on these programs had reached $746 billion per year—more than expenditures for Medicare ($480 billion), Social Security ($725 billion), or the military ($540 billion).
S
It's gotten to the point that I am ready to call liberals heartless, mindless bas s. It is truly frustrating that they CONSTANTLY want the moral high ground on issues such like poverty simply because they are willing to put more money and energy into government programs to alleviate the problems. The programs don't work. You are perpetuating them. People are living miserable, poverty-stricken existences in spite of those programs, and yet you continually scream that we need MORE of those programs!! You are no friend to the poor. You are simply a friend of big government/ideology. No doubt there are plenty on the right guilty of the same thing, but I believe the discussion needs to change. Government welfare/en lements are failing the poor, and sucking up vast resources that might be used to help them.
How about a tax credit for direct aid to a specific person. If I knew the woman from the story, I could easily help her, lift her out of poverty, and get her on her way to self-sufficiency. Grandiose government programs have failed the poor. We should try something else.
"tax credit for direct aid to a specific person"
income tax credit? only works if you have income.
All the public assistance programs aren't making the poor more poor, except in your rightwingnut "blame the poor for being poor, govt always sucks" ideology, that dictates aid to the poor must be cut because, because bull .
How about $15 or $20 hour Federal minimum wage indexed to inflation forever? nope, you rightwing nuts block all increases to Fed min wage.
and 100% tax deductible day care for people below certain income level? absolutely not, gotta "pay for"
Can you show a relationship between a raise in minimum wage and a decrease in poverty?
You just want more government. You could give two s about the poor.
And don't put words in my mouth. I much more blame partisan assholes like you for the plight of the poor than I do the poor themselves.
I've got no problems with tax deductible daycare, (it is for many through DCSA's); however, as you say how does that help someone who pays no income tax?
How about a tax credit for a person that will watch a poor person's kids?
There's all kinds of ways to help poor single women work a job, but jobs have to pay $15 hour minimum. (which gets working women off much if not all public (taxpayer) assistance that subsidized employers paying poverty wages)
Repugs, intent on ing over poor people, esp black and brown "breeders", will block ALL assistance to the poor, and are continually proposing CUTTING assistance. So take that up with your Repug politicians.
And how about taking $200B/year from DoD, and/or taxing crude oil exports, and spending it on upgrading schools in poor areas so people finish HS and have a chance at $15/hour employment?
Repugs WILL BLOCK EVERYTHING FOR THE POOR while cutting $Ts from BigCorp tax bills.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-17-2015 at 02:41 PM.
Nope, still no compassion. That's reserved for people who actually deserve it
You've proposed nothing that has any hope of working. You just want to be shrill and blame the Republican boogeyman for the impotent policies that you champion. What you are proposing has been tried, and it has failed. You want to try more of the same. This indicates to me, again, you DON"T CARE ABOUT THE POOR! You just hate Republicans. You want to cut DOD by 30% in order to increase social spending by 20%. Net result BASED ON ACTUAL EVIDENCE? Same amount of poor (probably more since there are now hundreds of thousands of unemployed Sailors, Soldiers Marines and Airmen), while were are far less safe. Great plan.
Not my job to fix poverty, but I know that raising the Fed min wage would tremendously help poor women, single mothers, plus give them free day care and free pre-K.
None of that has a chance of working because the Repugs don't want ANYTHING to work for helping the poor.
CONSERVATIVES WON'T FEED STARVING BABIES!!!!
You're logic's equivalent of a Christian Bible thumper.
You go around addressing people's fallacious logic referencing which fallacy they've commited with the correct Latin spelling and terms like an elitist dip , but give yourself a free pass.
You ain't any different.
All I know is if you have good data about how the welfare dept is run, and good data about recipients, you can make informed decisions. But there are very few places that keep good data and certainly very little idea what it means.
What I am saying is it possible that the only reform that needs to take place is within the government organizational structure without even cutting payments, or possibly putting more deserving people on it at a total savings... If you have good data, and people who know how to analyze it. But we don't. I say this about both Governmental and Private organizations that are large. IMO this should be one goal of this country throughout. We collect horrible data and we do a worse job analyzing the little good data properly.
Its extraordinarily wasteful. If you have seen it done properly on a small scale, you can see how it could be of great significance on a large scale. I'm not even making moral judgments. I'm saying get a good read on the whole phenomena. We don't do this. It's why we hear such different or distorted takes from ideologues IMO. If no one really knows what the F is going on you can just make up to suit your ideology.
I am merely trying to get to some of the underlying moral issues involved, since it provides a basis for what we can or cannot do.
Decent people should be able to at least get some agreement about that. The rest is just methodology.
I don't think that all conservatives would rather children starve to death than help them, but at least one person arguing against welfare has stated that is their preference here. I can give you a link to that if you want. I would classify vy65 as "conservative" by most measures.
I think most conservatives are generally good human beings, vy et al. excepted, who would want to do moral things when faced with decisions. If you want to lie about what I believe that is on you.
As for being an elitist, meh. I am smarter than you are. Deal with it, but I won't apologize for pointing out bad thinking when I see it.
Fully agree.
You're a ing peasant. Why the would I, or anyone for that matter, care what you think? Particularly when you respond to being called out badly with "I'm smarter than you." Crofl. But hey, post some more internet memes. Do you have a logical fallacy to quote too? That's all that's missing.
I am merely trying to get to some of the underlying moral issues involved, since it provides a basis for what we can or cannot do.
Decent people should be able to at least get some agreement about that. The rest is just methodology.
I don't think that all conservatives would rather children starve to death than help them, but at least one person arguing against welfare has stated that is their preference here. I can give you a link to that if you want. I would classify vy65 as "conservative" by most measures.
I think most conservatives are generally good human beings, vy et al. excepted, who would want to do moral things when faced with decisions. If you want to lie about what I believe that is on you.
As for being an elitist, meh. I am smarter than you are. Deal with it, but I won't apologize for pointing out bad thinking when I see it.
Called out on what exactly? If memory serves mingus essentially made up some to make himself feel better in a kind of tear someone else down to build himself up thing that I am not really going to waste time responding to. If someone is dead set on lying about me, I guess that is their business.
I could easily quote logical fallacies all day, if they are obvious enough. No apologies there.
That you seem to think that flawed thinking seems to be something to be tolerated, and/or addressed as if it wasn't fatally flawed... says volumes about how you construct your own worldview.
That's a different argument that has to do with overall violence statistics, and is a fact of statistics.
Okay.
I dealt with it, and in acknowledgement of that I surrender to you this argument and all future arguments.
I give up, you win!
God, I wish arguing for me was as as simple as it is for you. The "smarter than you, I win!" card isn't in my deck of cards anymore. I wore it out by the 3rd grade.
Done with this thread. Was hoping to have some good debate, just realized I walked into a circus.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
