New study/experiment. Uber conservatives now get a diagnosis?

[Griff]

Originally Posted by skysidhe

No stand-up guy to come along in your defense UT.

He's a big boy, he can take it.

[Undertoad]

Well he didn't turn it down when I gave him money, and hell, if someone approached me and gave me money....neither would I.

R e a l l y ?

Or was that just a throwaway line, something you said to justify your position, that you didn't really think about.

If someone approached me and gave me money I would never accept it. (And then I would go home and re-think my decision to wear sweat pants everywhere.)

Accepting charity you don't need is fundamentally dishonest.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

..."Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?
...

Please answer my question.

Originally Posted by Undertoad

...OR

- Anonymous government employees watch over the removal of a fifth of my paycheck. They take what they need, then send you a check for the amount you qualify for. We never meet, but I assume that because a huge chunk of my earnings was taken from me for your assistance, you are surely being helped.

First of all, I don't think all 20% taken from your check goes toward helping those in need.
Can you or I provide the same services that a full-time, well-trained social worker can? Can you or I identify mental illness, refer the person in need to a qualified care giver? Do you or I have the backing and buying power of the government? IMO, a professional will do a better job than you or I would be able to.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

We also live in a world where people will do anything to get by on nothing. ....

I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"

Originally Posted by Undertoad

We knew that "a manageable portion of their wealth/income" was code for full-blown fucking Marxism, but we were surprised that the code fell away so quickly.

How much is enough?

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Yes. By giving them just enough to get by, but not enough to get out, they perpetuated the ghettos.

Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc. Perhaps the increase in minimum wage will widen this gap.

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

She'd have to move to Nevada for that to work.

Yeah - TYPICALLY, it's the folks who want to do away with welfare that also don't want to leagalize cock sucking.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

So if the dude ran off an bought a dime bag from somebody or a fifth of MD 20/20 wine how did you just help him? further his addiction of feed his belly? That is why such actions are quite fruitless. ...

And if bought some wholesome, organic, nutritious food, the actions would be fruitful. If you can predict the fruitful vs fruitless, maybe you could help out there...

Originally Posted by lookout123

...if you want something bad enough to work for it, you can achieve it. if you can't it is because you didn't want it bad enough. end of story.

I want so bad to run a two minute mile, be King of the World, be 7 feet tall, and I'm working on it real hard. How hard do I have to work?

[lookout123]

how hard have you tried? my guess is you really haven't tried to do any of those things.

there is a huge difference between saying "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house... now pass me a beer", and "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house, now pass me that pen so i can sketch out my plan".

saying you want something is not the same as committing yourself to achieving it. and, yeah, you can revert to your ridiculous examples for a response if you want.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Certainly you are not trying to lecture to me about how I should "give" to worthy causes?

I can see you are not taking notes.


Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that DanaC said:

"a manageable portion of their wealth/income."

and then you said:

"Great, define that."

and then I said

"From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need."

I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

..."Around you" being the key. After Katrina, I donated to the Bush-Clinton Katrina Fund. I am not "around" New Orleans. I could not go to New Orleans to help, or to take a car load of supplies. I did not know anyone in New Orleans to send a check to. How would I help them, using your philosophy?
...

Please answer my question.

Originally Posted by lookout123

how hard have you tried? my guess is you really haven't tried to do any of those things.

there is a huge difference between saying "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house... now pass me a beer", and "i want to have enough money for a fancy car and a big house, now pass me that pen so i can sketch out my plan".

saying you want something is not the same as committing yourself to achieving it. and, yeah, you can revert to your ridiculous examples for a response if you want.

My "ridiculous" list was to illustrate how ridiculous your statement is. There are plenty of things you can try real hard to do, yet not accomplish. I'm sure that anything I suggest would be ridiculous to you, though.

[lookout123]

To answer your question, I don't have a problem with charity groups. I support a few myself. There is a huge difference between a charity group that I can voluntarily give my time and money to, and the government that takes my money with no promise of efficiency.

and on the second issue, this has been a discussion of economics and charity, you stepped in with "i want to be 7 feet tall". That's ridiculous, that's not a goal, it's a fantasy.

State a financial or social status goal and it can be achieved by someone willing to do what it takes. (obvious caveats for physical or mental disability with some goals)

Goal: I want to have my home paid off in 15 years with no other debt. I would like to also own a beachhouse in mexico. I would like to semi-retire in 15 years and split my time between these two locations. not my actual goals, just examples

Requirement: X dollars

Task: Build business to generate Y income annually, putting Z aside...

Get the point? If that goal is really a priority then you can achieve it.

It may have just been a dumb movie, but Pursuit of Happyness was based on a real guy. Some people have the drive to do what it takes to achieve even their most ridiculous goals. Most people sit around and bitch about why they can't achieve anything, and it almost always boils down to someone is "holding me back". BS. You hold you back.

[Cicero]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

R e a l l y ?

Or was that just a throwaway line, something you said to justify your position, that you didn't really think about.

If someone approached me and gave me money I would never accept it. (And then I would go home and re-think my decision to wear sweat pants everywhere.)

Accepting charity you don't need is fundamentally dishonest.

No....it's something else entirely. Random gifts are awesome! If someone approached me and said hey- here's a river rock take it- same thing.....

You are right, I didn't think that through........

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

I don't get that. What sane person says "yeah, $800 a month - this is the life!"

The ones that like having that guaranteed base to back up what they can hustle on the street or make under the table.

Could it be that entry-level jobs don't give enough of an improved quality of life, over welfare subsustence, to make it worth getting a job? I've read where people get a job, and have a lower standard of living than when they were on welfare. When employed, they have to pay for health insurance, childcare, transportation, maybe better clothing, etc.

Yes, that's exactly the problem. Damn little incentive to risk giving it up.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by BigV

I can see you are not taking notes.
Had you been paying attention, you would have noticed that DanaC said:
"a manageable portion of their wealth/income."

and then you said:
"Great, define that."

and then I said
"From each according to his ability.
To each according to his need."

I answered your request for clarification of DanaC's statement. Lecture? Not really. Perhaps you have a guilty conscience.

No you didn't answer the question. All you did was give a trite little quote.

According to his ability... how much is that? Who determines my ability, you?
How do you know how much I can spare without jeopardizing my lifestyle, my security, or even my needs.
How do you know if I'm supporting aging parents, a child with expensive special needs, 3 ex-wives and 14 children?

Obviously you can't. More obviously you shouldn't.

[BigV]

Yes, I did answer his question. Because you dislike, misunderstand or disagree with my answer doesn't change the fact that I did clarify DanaC's phrase. I'm sorry you think the quote is trite.

According to his ability... how much is that? Are you seriously suggesting there is a discrete finite numeric answer to this question? It is obvious to me that there isn't such a single number. Who determines ability, me? No. Ideally, practically, *you* determine what your ability is, just as l123 has eloquently described elsewhere.

I did not and do not pretend that I know how much you can spare without jeopardizing yadda yadda yadda... Please.

And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.

I know as you all do that there are many example of gaming the system for individual gain. There are far far more examples of this system working undramatically well where people give / surrender / part with / yield / pay willingly or unwillingly their taxes that don't involve lawbreaking or law bending.

As to my *opinion* about your ability to pay, you know what they say. Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. And in this case, I'll keep mine both to myself; I don't feel like sharing either with you.

[DanaC]

And as to the Marxist Chicken Littles in the audience, I ask you: How is this point of view different from our current system of progressive income tax rates? Those with more, contribute more, and those with less, contribute less. As a point of view, not as a statistical reality to four decimal places.

I think the distinction lies in the way that system is balanced/weighted. Though it is progressive, it is not progressive enough (for myself, as a Marxist Chicken Little). I personally favour a more distributive approach to taxation.

It's also about intent. Is the intent just to bring in enough revenue to run the country (with the allowance made for differencnes in income and therefore percentage of the burden), or is the intent to try and bring about a more equitable society?

Obviously, I realise that not everyone agrees that this would be the effect of redistributive taxation, or even that this is something that should be 'socially engineered' in that way.

[fargon]

Last Sundays Get Fuzzy says it all.

[9th Engineer]

I see. Well, I'll change my plans for after law school then. I'll take out loans to pay for it of course, but I'll just pay the minimum each month since there's no advantage to being debt free. I'll spend not only my generous paycheck, but I'll run up credit card debt like a typical person. Cars, a huge house, fancy vacations and all the techno-toys I want, I'll push myself as far as I can just like other people do. Then, when my house of cards topples I'll declare bankruptcy and use my knowledge as a lawyer to write off everything I can as necessities; after all, why should I give up my house when others aren't forced to? I'll end up paying back 10 cents for every dollar I owed, and in a few years I can start the whole thing over again. And while I'm unemployed I'll have Dana there to defend my right to money even though I was a complete asshole and screwed so many other people over. It's the same thing that lots of other people do, I'll just do it a bit bigger. I love my rights!

[DanaC]

I believe the better you treat people, the better they are likely to behave.