I Hate Welfare!

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

But in the end the universe is precise. We live in a net sum zero gain reality and if you have gained it is always because another has lost.

So a man who invents a light bulb and gets rich does so at the expense of those who did NOT invent it?

You know, if you incorporate a philosophy into your consciousness, its a good idea to choose one that can’t be destroyed in one question, like I just did.

Whoever taught you your philosphy about zero-sum should be beaten with a stick. And you were dumb enough to believe him…pathetic…

[/quote]

It is not a philosophy it is physics. A man that invents a light bulb still does it at the expense of many people, animals, and plants. This is a fact.

Entropy is a law and the more advanced and complex a life form gets the more lesser lifeforms are consumed to provide it’s existence.

Humans are not equal. A modern scientist or inventor consumes more energy and creates more chaos in his environment than the destitute worker that assembles his shoes. His achievement is only made possible because countless other humans and other lifeforms are providing him with the necessity’s of life.

His claim to superiority is valid. Many men are lesser by the definition that they consume far less energy and create far less chaos.

The great thinkers and inventors and politicians of antiquity are almost exclusively of a higher class or patronized by this higher class.

Human history has only very recently replaced slave labor as the basis of providing a higher class with the leisure to advance the human race.

Even now with fossil fuels and mechanized labor allowing for enormous amounts of people to exist at higher levels of energy even the most advanced society’s still rely on an incredibly poor segment of their populous to provide them with basic services.

Individual effort is a valid accomplishment and should be rewarded but humility is also a virtue. A man that creates a great innovation is a boon to all but the factors that allowed his contribution are complex and impersonal as well.

The first man to make a discovery is often not even the man that gets credit for it if you have studied the history of science.

For every scientist and innovator in politics and business there are countless unsung heroes that laid the foundation of his or her success and countless others that missed the mark of being hailed first by a few moments or even actually were first but did not receive credit.

And by the way you are an idiot if you think your simplistic response has destroyed the theory of entropy which the statement you quoted is clearly referring to.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
How about have boxes on the tax forms so we can mark off how we want our money dispursed? Those who want to help welfare recipients can mark the appropriate box.

I agree with Mike; why does the government have to use force, instead of simply asking? If enough people want something, they’ll fund it. If something should have been funded and isn’t (like police, fire, whatever), then they will soon learn the error of their ways. Taxes should be replaced with some sort of voluntary system. Then, if the gov’t screws up, cut their pay! Why should they get to dictate their checks? We sure don’t!

You do realize such a system would destroy military funding, right?

If enough people in a society believe that they can live without a military to protect them, then let them learn if this is possible.

Most people with a little common sense would designate part of their paycheck or income for military, fire, police, judicial, and so on. If they don’t, they get exactly what they deserve.

Don’t you believe in cause-and-effect? I know I do.

[/quote]

I believe that people don’t realize how much is actually ‘needed’ for military spending. Or anything else for that matter.

How is an everyman supposed to know how much is ‘a lot’ to give to welfare, and how much is ‘a little’? What if he thinks ‘a little’ is 30% of his taxes? What is he thinks giving ‘a lot’ to the military is 30% (way under what we give now)?

That kind of system only makes sense in a nation filled with intelligent, well informed people who truly understand how the spending will effect the nation and care about it, regardless of whether or not it effects their lives. America is NOT such a nation (and neither is any other nation IMHO).

Another problem, people will vote by region. Westerners will obviously devote less money to national security than north-easterners, who are in a greater area of threat.

As well, a lot of the South is unaware that it receives a greater portion of socially spent tax money than the northern states. The northern states, however, provide a greater portion of socially spent tax revenue. A system like the one your supporting could screw over entire areas that have beliefs opposite to their actions.

A system like the one you propose would also give a ridiculous amount of power to the incredibly wealthy, who would get a stranglehold over politicians, and could refuse to fund certain things/choose to fund certain things.

I hate all forms of government welfare. Yes, that also includes corporate welfare.

Now, charity is something everyone should become involved with. Time, money, or both.

Heliotrope,

I think the fact that there is a mix of living and non-living factors involved in providing for ourselves, that the math can be somewhat thrown out.

A square foot of soil might be used to grow a skunkweed plant or a tomato plant. There is certainly a tradeoff, in terms of the skunkweed population, but it does make a difference to us, and unless someone has been denied their skunkweed plant, this is not a zero sum situation to us.

Or, heat energy that is otherwise going to be radiated out into space could be used to perform some work on our behalf. Though some portion of space has been “denied” it’s share of radiant heat energy, it is not a zero sum situation to us.

Now, on the other hand, there is the issue of cooperation or sharing resources. If two homes are built in a semi-detached manner, they will use less resources and could certainly require less heating and cooling than two separate homes. Not a zero sum game to us.

Economics has many examples where cooperation, or trade, can allow for more resources or products at lower prices. Certainly not a zero sum game to us.

Basically, our lives are not on the order of magnitude of the universe, so whether it is going to be one big zero sum game or not really won’t make any difference for a period of time outside of our ability to fathom.

Ah well, what’s the difference… we all live in a temporary anomaly anyway.

Wow, what a shitty and petty society some of you want.

[quote]vroom wrote:

Basically, our lives are not on the order of magnitude of the universe, so whether it is going to be one big zero sum game or not really won’t make any difference for a period of time outside of our ability to fathom.

Ah well, what’s the difference… we all live in a temporary anomaly anyway.[/quote]

I agree our lives are rather limited.

And I can relate to the sentiment, “what’s the difference”.

Rousseau had an interesting story in the Reveries. He wrote how he would take the same route every day, and this little beggar boy would ask him for a little money. Rousseau was happy to give it to him, moved as he was by pity for the child.

Over time, the boy became familiar with him, calling to him “Monsieur Rousseau!” as he approached, expecting to be given his daily share. Soon, Rousseau started taking a different route to avoid the boy.

While Rousseau was more than happy to give to the child of his own will, out of his own pity for the boy’s plight, he resented any implied duty to provide for the boy.

While it was charity freely given, it was sweet. But once it is a demand, once it is habit, once it is expected, it becomes an ugly thing.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Wow, what a shitty and petty society some of you want.[/quote]

Yup, we are small, heartless, mean-spirited people.

We do not kill hundreds of million people searching for ways to force other human beings into a better society, but that is obviously a lame excuse.

[quote]new2training wrote:
vroom wrote:
I love welfare. In fact, I am always angry that I have any money left over after taxes… surely the government isn’t taking enough of my money. I live only to pay taxes.

You commie bastard…

Wait, you were being sarcastic weren’t you?[/quote]

There are no taxes under communism.

[quote]Heliotrope wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Heliotrope wrote:

But in the end the universe is precise. We live in a net sum zero gain reality and if you have gained it is always because another has lost.

So a man who invents a light bulb and gets rich does so at the expense of those who did NOT invent it?

You know, if you incorporate a philosophy into your consciousness, its a good idea to choose one that can’t be destroyed in one question, like I just did.

Whoever taught you your philosphy about zero-sum should be beaten with a stick. And you were dumb enough to believe him…pathetic…

It is not a philosophy it is physics. A man that invents a light bulb still does it at the expense of many people, animals, and plants. This is a fact.

Entropy is a law and the more advanced and complex a life form gets the more lesser lifeforms are consumed to provide it’s existence.

Humans are not equal. A modern scientist or inventor consumes more energy and creates more chaos in his environment than the destitute worker that assembles his shoes. His achievement is only made possible because countless other humans and other lifeforms are providing him with the necessity’s of life.

His claim to superiority is valid. Many men are lesser by the definition that they consume far less energy and create far less chaos.

The great thinkers and inventors and politicians of antiquity are almost exclusively of a higher class or patronized by this higher class.

Human history has only very recently replaced slave labor as the basis of providing a higher class with the leisure to advance the human race.

Even now with fossil fuels and mechanized labor allowing for enormous amounts of people to exist at higher levels of energy even the most advanced society’s still rely on an incredibly poor segment of their populous to provide them with basic services.

Individual effort is a valid accomplishment and should be rewarded but humility is also a virtue. A man that creates a great innovation is a boon to all but the factors that allowed his contribution are complex and impersonal as well.

The first man to make a discovery is often not even the man that gets credit for it if you have studied the history of science.

For every scientist and innovator in politics and business there are countless unsung heroes that laid the foundation of his or her success and countless others that missed the mark of being hailed first by a few moments or even actually were first but did not receive credit.

And by the way you are an idiot if you think your simplistic response has destroyed the theory of entropy which the statement you quoted is clearly referring to.[/quote]

By this sort of Buddhist logic, eating a bowl of rice a day and staring at your belly button is the way to go.

Entropy? That’s how someone with intellect and drive steals from those who have neither? Now I’ve heard everything!! LOL!!!

The lengths that whacked out libs will go to denounce intelligence and achievement!! Entropy!!! ROFLMAO!!!

[quote]Beowolf wrote:

I believe that people don’t realize how much is actually ‘needed’ for military spending. Or anything else for that matter.

How is an everyman supposed to know how much is ‘a lot’ to give to welfare, and how much is ‘a little’? What if he thinks ‘a little’ is 30% of his taxes? What is he thinks giving ‘a lot’ to the military is 30% (way under what we give now)?

That kind of system only makes sense in a nation filled with intelligent, well informed people who truly understand how the spending will effect the nation and care about it, regardless of whether or not it effects their lives. America is NOT such a nation (and neither is any other nation IMHO).

[/quote]

This is the sort of elitism that angers me: “The people are dumb, so let’s simply take what we want.” Yes, I agree that most people are ignorant, don’t care, or what not. But this doesn’t give anyone the right to rob them or rule them ‘for their own good’.

How do we get a nation of well-informed and concerned citizens? By treating them like cattle? Like wards of the state? Nope. You let them choose for themselves. You say: “Its your money. Go and blow it at the races or on lottery tickets if you want. But…want schools, fire departments, cops, and a few Marines to guard your borders? Choose.”

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Rousseau had an interesting story in the Reveries. He wrote how he would take the same route every day, and this little beggar boy would ask him for a little money. Rousseau was happy to give it to him, moved as he was by pity for the child.

Over time, the boy became familiar with him, calling to him “Monsieur Rousseau!” as he approached, expecting to be given his daily share. Soon, Rousseau started taking a different route to avoid the boy.

While Rousseau was more than happy to give to the child of his own will, out of his own pity for the boy’s plight, he resented any implied duty to provide for the boy.

While it was charity freely given, it was sweet. But once it is a demand, once it is habit, once it is expected, it becomes an ugly thing.[/quote]

Excellent point, and a good story. Could we sum it up with something like ‘Charity for all but tribute for none’ ? ;D

[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
new2training wrote:
vroom wrote:
I love welfare. In fact, I am always angry that I have any money left over after taxes… surely the government isn’t taking enough of my money. I live only to pay taxes.

You commie bastard…

Wait, you were being sarcastic weren’t you?

There are no taxes under communism.

[/quote]

Slaves do not pay taxes.

[quote]jawara wrote:
Why doesnt she use some of the free birth control that we pay for???[/quote]

I am guessing she’s Catholic. Blame God.

[quote]jawara wrote:
I work hard for my money, I’m in the Army and I’m in a combat MOS. I’ll be going to Iraq for a 3rd time here in a few months. My wife is going to college she doesn’t get any of my education benifits because she isnt in the Army. The cost of putting her through school is tough but I welcome it because in the end it will benefit our family.

Now, what really pisses me off is that the government takes money out of my check to support these 2 losers and their kids. http://www.wfaa.com/sharedcontent/dws/wfaa/latestnews/stories/wfaa070531_lj_twins.17091f2.html[/quote]

Yup, but the reason welfare exists is because it creates a loyal voting base. Oppression is built on the backs of the poor. Giving hand outs creates dependence and indebtedness. Once you’re on the take, then you are expected to do two things. Stay on the take, and be loyal to the hand that feeds you.

The right thing to do is to end welfare and use the money to create and nurture opportunity. Leave the charity up to the individual and private organizations. But that will never happen. Assholes who want power will keep people on the take rather than help them out of there holes.

In the U.S. it is the democrats who do this, in other places these people become dictators. See Venezuela.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Beowolf wrote:

I believe that people don’t realize how much is actually ‘needed’ for military spending. Or anything else for that matter.

How is an everyman supposed to know how much is ‘a lot’ to give to welfare, and how much is ‘a little’? What if he thinks ‘a little’ is 30% of his taxes? What is he thinks giving ‘a lot’ to the military is 30% (way under what we give now)?

That kind of system only makes sense in a nation filled with intelligent, well informed people who truly understand how the spending will effect the nation and care about it, regardless of whether or not it effects their lives. America is NOT such a nation (and neither is any other nation IMHO).

This is the sort of elitism that angers me: “The people are dumb, so let’s simply take what we want.” Yes, I agree that most people are ignorant, don’t care, or what not. But this doesn’t give anyone the right to rob them or rule them ‘for their own good’.

How do we get a nation of well-informed and concerned citizens? By treating them like cattle? Like wards of the state? Nope. You let them choose for themselves. You say: “Its your money. Go and blow it at the races or on lottery tickets if you want. But…want schools, fire departments, cops, and a few Marines to guard your borders? Choose.”

[/quote]

Problem: Half the people will spend it on the lottery and crap. The other half will be screwed along with them.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara wrote:
Why doesnt she use some of the free birth control that we pay for???

I am guessing she’s Catholic. Blame God.[/quote]

Conservatives: Pwned.

[quote]Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara wrote:
Why doesnt she use some of the free birth control that we pay for???

I am guessing she’s Catholic. Blame God.

Conservatives: Pwned.
[/quote]

Yes, despite 2 sets of twins by at least one other man, despite all of her children being born out of wedlock, when it came to using birth control her Catholic sensibilities took hold. Right.

Sorry, it wasn’t Catholic or conservative ideals that caused this. If any ideology is “pwned” by a story like this…Nah, I’ll leave it at that.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Sorry, it wasn’t Catholic or conservative ideals that caused this. If any ideology is “pwned” by a story like this…Nah, I’ll leave it at that.
[/quote]
Blame the system if you prefer, either way you have no control over it.

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Beowolf wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jawara wrote:
Why doesnt she use some of the free birth control that we pay for???

I am guessing she’s Catholic. Blame God.

Conservatives: Pwned.

Yes, despite 2 sets of twins by at least one other man, despite all of her children being born out of wedlock, when it came to using birth control her Catholic sensibilities took hold. Right.

Sorry, it wasn’t Catholic or conservative ideals that caused this. If any ideology is “pwned” by a story like this…Nah, I’ll leave it at that.

[/quote]

It was a general statement, and you took it as a specific one to create an argument. Nice.

Joke is this: Conservatives get angry at poor people who have babies we must support. Conservatives get angry when we try to teach them how to not have babies. Conservatives get angry when we try to prevent babies from being born into a terrible situation.

It’s called irony. And yes, it deserves the term pwnage.