Sure, the economy is fine. We're in a recovery, right?

[FiredMotorCompany]

How about this? Say the government was the sole provider of food like they are the nearly sole provider of education and health care. Suppose it has been this way for over a hundred years, and people know nothing else. Suppose someone came up with the idea that people should be able to go out and buy their own food. How many arguments would the left come up with saying that this would never work? People would starve. People would be sick from eating unhealthy food. Regions where there is no agriculture would suffer famine when crops were poor. These are similar to arguments when anyone suggests doing away with any government programs. I don't think that we need government at all. New technology eliminates the need for government. The left argues that new technology requires more government, as it makes it harder to control freedom. Freedom should be looked on as a good thing.

Freedom correlates to responsibility at some level. And I grant that we can debate what that level is.

 

History has clearly demonstrated the results when freedom without responsibility has failed versus freedom with responsibility has succeeded.

 

And I am particularly highlighting responsibility of the individual for the consequences of their exercising that freedom.

Sure, you have the right to not work. But, if you make that decision, or one that makes you unemployable, then that choice has the consequences of your not having income to support your sustenance.

THAT is NOT my responsibility.

 

Just as YOUR decision to have sex, protected or not, should not and does not have any connection to my responsibility to provide you with support for your decision.

 

If you and your co-conspirators decide that voting as a block can get you higher taxes on another individual to provide you with enhanced benefits, it becomes my right to stop working and paying into that system, ala "Atlas Shrugged", using the existing tax code to minimize my obligations, becoming an ex-patriot, going to a pure barter system, bitcoin, or otherwise circumvent the traditional income tax system in any legal manner available. And that will ultimately lead to fewer participants to support your benefits, that could eventually cause your assumptions to collapse.

 

An obligation to anyone else is a personal decision. To make it a legal obligation mandated by those who will benefit from that mandate, is nothing less than democratically sanctioned theft. Just because the majority chooses to steal from a few doesn't make it right. Exactly as it isn't right for a majority of guys to decide to rape the single woman. In both cases, democracy fails liberty, freedom and moral responsibilities of civilization and our stated purpose, freedom.

[the_spaniard]

Are the poor the same as animals? Maybe at SOME level.

 

Again, very illuminating thought process. Half of the food stamp recipients in this country are children, and over 5000 active-duty military members are on food stamps.

 

 

Conditioning works the same for animals as it does people.

 

You use either positive or negative reinforcement to obtain the desired behavior.

 

It's a little more complicated than Skinner or Pavlov might suggest. If it was that simple, the prison/incarceration system in this country would not be the massive failure that it is.

 

 

This is what many liberals either don't understand or don't like. I have first hand experience with this growing up in a rural town with a large welfare supported population and with my wife's great aunt. A lot of people are perfectly happy getting by with the bare minimum without any effort. If you gave them the option of having a productive job making $2K/month or getting a disability payment of $1K/month, a lot will choose the $1K for no work.

 

The "don't feed the bears" analogy is right on. That's why I'm advocating instead of giving people handouts we give them jobs where they have to at least show up every day and if there is some work that the government needs done they do it (pick up trash, paint, clean, etc.). If no work needs to be done they can take online classes or do something else productive for minimum wage. That would give them a lot more incentive to get a better job on their own.

 

As someone that grew up poor and have lived in/worked in/work in poor areas across the country, I agree with this. Now lets just not complain about a nice tax increase to make this a possibility.

[akirby]

No tax increase necessary. Take the existing foodstamp, unemployment and disability funding and use it for this instead. The money is still going to the same people as before.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Again, very illuminating thought process. Half of the food stamp recipients in this country are children, and over 5000 active-duty military members are on food stamps.

You find illumination without seeing what was presented.

People and animals are related and very often behave is similar ways. To compare humans to animals is not outlandish. It's common knowledge.

Rats and rabbits, pigs and other non-humans have contributed to the study of the human body and provided life-sustaining assets. We are biologically much alike.

We are genetically related to fruit flies and pond scum.

 

To say poor people behave in some ways like animals is not lowering humans to the level of animals as much as raising animals to the level of humans.

How often do we assign human emotions to the assumed affections of a puppy, cat and other pets?

 

So, other than attempting to derail the salient point of my comment, your poorly concealed snide remark doesn't undermine the truth of my comment.

[RangerM]

It's a little more complicated than Skinner or Pavlov might suggest. If it was that simple, the prison/incarceration system in this country would not be the massive failure that it is.

Depends on what you think prison is for.

 

I don't know anyone sent to prison who wants to return.

 

Many cons associate prison with getting caught, as opposed to the crime they commit.

[Trimdingman]

Whether we have government or not, we have responsibility. In fact, with government we have the choice of shirking our responsibilities without consequence. In the natural world, we reap what we sow, and this will lead to a stronger superior species. Any institution which seeks to control will subjugate; be it government, religion, parents, employer, you name it. Freedom fosters advancement. It is good to have help until you learn the ropes; but at this point, you need to be free to pursue your own ambitions.

 

Without government squandering resources and killing ambition, there would be universal prosperity, and high wages with employers out-bidding each other for scarce labor. Any suffering would be taken care of by peoples' natural generosity. As it is now, many have lost that because of government.

[the_spaniard]

You find illumination without seeing what was presented.

People and animals are related and very often behave is similar ways. To compare humans to animals is not outlandish. It's common knowledge.

Rats and rabbits, pigs and other non-humans have contributed to the study of the human body and provided life-sustaining assets. We are biologically much alike.

We are genetically related to fruit flies and pond scum.

 

To say poor people behave in some ways like animals is not lowering humans to the level of animals as much as raising animals to the level of humans.

How often do we assign human emotions to the assumed affections of a puppy, cat and other pets?

 

So, other than attempting to derail the salient point of my comment, your poorly concealed snide remark doesn't undermine the truth of my comment.

 

You discount the cognitive differences, which are vast. Anatomically there are similarities, behaviorally, you don't see much in the way of similarities beyond the basics until you get into higher primates. You are still denigrating the poor in the comparison. If you want to spin it as non-derogatory, you would say all people (regardless of socioeconomic status) are like animals. You didn't do that.

 

Your defense of your remark is really no defense at all, because we are specifically talking about a socioeconomic class, and not people. Rats, rabbits, pigs, puppies, cats, fish, and pond scum do not have a socioeconomic status (the whole point), so I don't really see where that is relevant.

[the_spaniard]

Depends on what you think prison is for.

 

I don't know anyone sent to prison who wants to return.

 

Many cons associate prison with getting caught, as opposed to the crime they commit.

 

 

It doesn't really matter what the individual thinks prison is for. Anyone can justify anything in any discussiont. Lets look at what the BOP describes it as:

 

It is the mission of the Federal Bureau of Prisons to protect society by confining offenders in the controlled environments of prisons and community-based facilities that are safe, humane, cost-efficient, and appropriately secure, and that provide work and other self-improvement opportunities to assist offenders in becoming law-abiding citizens.

 

 

What part of that is seen as a success in our society, particularly when we incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world? If you consider it as an effective deterrent of crime (reinforcement to alter behavior - within our context here) how can it be seen as anything other than a failure?

Edited September 17, 2014 by the_spaniard

[akirby]

He did not equate poor people with animals. He simply pointed out a behavior that is seen in both humans and non human animals and noted the difference in how it is perceived and addressed.

 

Humans are animals. It's a biological fact not a derogatory statement.

 

Always looking to play the victim/offended card.............

[the_spaniard]

Whether we have government or not, we have responsibility. In fact, with government we have the choice of shirking our responsibilities without consequence. In the natural world, we reap what we sow, and this will lead to a stronger superior species. Any institution which seeks to control will subjugate; be it government, religion, parents, employer, you name it. Freedom fosters advancement. It is good to have help until you learn the ropes; but at this point, you need to be free to pursue your own ambitions.

 

Without government squandering resources and killing ambition, there would be universal prosperity, and high wages with employers out-bidding each other for scarce labor. Any suffering would be taken care of by peoples' natural generosity. As it is now, many have lost that because of government.

 

While I agree with some of what you say, a populace with a void of central government is troubling. History is not exactly ripe with libertarian success stories. I'd be curious to see what happens after this country fails (which it will at some point - all civilizations do).

[akirby]

 

History is not exactly ripe with libertarian success stories.

 

About the same number as Socialism success stories..........

[cal50]

 

 

It doesn't really matter what the individual thinks prison is for. Anyone can justify anything in any discussiont. Lets look at what the BOP describes it as:

 

 

What part of that is seen as a success in our society, particularly when we incarcerate more people than anyone else in the world? If you consider it as an effective deterrent of crime (reinforcement to alter behavior - within our context here) how can it be seen as anything other than a failure?

 

 

 

Basically there are two (2) classes of criminals: Violent & Non-violent.

 

Prison is best used to keep violent offenders away from a civilized populous.

If a person commits a non-violent crime then by all means slap and ankle bracelet on them and let them live on their own dime with community service work to keep them busy.

If a person commits a violent offense they should be locked away or put to death if warranted.If they leave prison its in a box or at room temperature.

 

I never considered prison a deterrent becasue its not. Its best use is to put really bad people away from society.

(Rehabilitation of violent offenders is a joke)

 

Its sad when a person is assaulted or child goes missing only to discover someone that had prior convictions for similar crimes was involved, gee what a surprise......

[the_spaniard]

He did not equate poor people with animals. He simply pointed out a behavior that is seen in both humans and non human animals and noted the difference in how it is perceived and addressed.

 

Humans are animals. It's a biological fact not a derogatory statement.

 

Always looking to play the victim/offended card.............

 

He directly compared the poor with animals in his original post, and you saying he didn't does not change his written words on the post above. Its not about a victim syndrome, intentional or not it's a fairly derogatory way to refer to people, and how exactly am I "always" looking to play that card?

 

Its an interesting world where being wealthy (part of that American Dream) can actually reduce your compassion, empathy and generosity while being poor can impede cognitive function, reduce your opportunities, and make it difficult to become wealthy. Maybe that Jesus fella was onto something when he said that its easier for an elephant to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person getting into heaven. It's not about victim-offender. It's about seeing problems everywhere (not limiting your analysis to political affiliation, social class, etc).

[the_spaniard]

 

About the same number as Socialism success stories..........

 

Care to list them? I'm not here advocating Socialism.

Edited September 17, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

 

 

 

Basically there are two (2) classes of criminals: Violent & Non-violent.

 

Prison is best used to keep violent offenders away from a civilized populous.

If a person commits a non-violent crime then by all means slap and ankle bracelet on them and let them live on their own dime with community service work to keep them busy.

If a person commits a violent offense they should be locked away or put to death if warranted.If they leave prison its in a box or at room temperature.

 

I never considered prison a deterrent becasue its not. Its best use is to put really bad people away from society.

(Rehabilitation of violent offenders is a joke)

 

Its sad when a person is assaulted or child goes missing only to discover someone that had prior convictions for similar crimes was involved, gee what a surprise......

 

Now that I get, but then what do you do with them when they are released? It keeps them tucked away for a limited time in an environment that often in order to survive you have to become a better criminal.

Edited September 17, 2014 by the_spaniard

[phil1336]

 

About the same number as Socialism success stories..........

Really? Seems like the Citizens of Sweden,Holland, Norway, Finland etc might take exception to that belief. Their income disparity is low compared to ours, for the most part they are Happy and Healthy. A benign socialist structured government much like Canada`s takes care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. Drugs and Sex are plentiful while Guns and Violence is not. Time to let Joe McCarthy R.I.P.! Several things missing in their Societies are apparent though. Religious fervor and lack of Gun worship. Dumbing down a Nations populous has its consequences. Both Conservatives and Progressives (usually) can agree on that point, right?

[akirby]

 

He directly compared the poor with animals in his original post, and you saying he didn't does not change his written words on the post above.

 

No he did not. That's how you interpreted it but that is not at all what he said. It was an analogy that people can become dependent on government handouts in the same way that bears can become dependent on food handouts from park visitors.

That behavior is not limited to poor people - it's a basic trait of all animals.

 

 

I would like everyone to read the "lesson in irony" that I believe says it all--------->

 

Todays Lesson in Irony!

 

The food stamp program is administered by the US department of agriculture. They proudly report that they distribute free meals and foodstamps to over 46 million people on an annual basis.

 

Meanwhile, the National Park Service, run by the US department of the interior, asks us, "please do NOT feed the animals." Their stated reason for this policy being that..........

 

"The animals WILL become dependent on the handouts, and then they will NEVER learn to take care of themselves."

 

This concludes todays lesson in irony with an example that even the farthest leftist can understand. Any questions?

 

 

 

While I get what you are saying, it is illuminating that you equate the poor with animals.

[akirby]

Really? Seems like the Citizens of Sweden,Holland, Norway, Finland etc might take exception to that belief. Their income disparity is low compared to ours, for the most part they are Happy and Healthy. A benign socialist structured government much like Canada`s takes care of everyone from the cradle to the grave. Drugs and Sex are plentiful while Guns and Violence is not. Time to let Joe McCarthy R.I.P.! Several things missing in their Societies are apparent though. Religious fervor and lack of Gun worship. Dumbing down a Nations populous has its consequences. Both Conservatives and Progressives (usually) can agree on that point, right?

 

 

Even Socialistworld.net doesn't think Sweden is Socialist. Far from it in fact.

 

"To speak of Sweden as socialist today is pretty far off the mark. Neo-liberal reforms have gone much further here in some sectors than in the US. Sweden has become a sort of laboratory for privatization", commented Brian Palmer, a professor of anthropology at Sweden’s Uppsala University. Olle Wästberg, a liberal and the former Consul-General to New York, boasted that: "In many fields, we [sweden] have more private ownership compared to other European countries, and to America. About 80 percent of all new schools are privately run, as are the railroads and the subway system."

 

http://www.socialistworld.net/doc/3752

 

 

I'm all for better ways of doing things and I'm much more liberal on social issues than you think I am. But that's a long way from true Socialism.

[the_spaniard]

 

It was an analogy that people can become dependent on government handouts in the same way that bears can become dependent on food handouts from park visitors.

That behavior is not limited to poor people - it's a basic trait of all animals.

 

 

Cmon, man. Context: Food stamps are specifically referenced. Tell me, does everyone get food stamps or are we just talking about the poor? I understand the analogy completely...the context of the analogy is derogatory, and you really don't have to look far or read into it to get that.

[the_spaniard]

I don't have anything in particular against libertarianism other than it is unrealistic. People are not perfect life forms, and expecting the average person to be just, moral, and have high ethical standards has no basis in history or reality. It's a nice dream, but it is still a dream.

[akirby]

Its an interesting world where being wealthy (part of that American Dream) can actually reduce your compassion, empathy and generosity while being poor can impede cognitive function, reduce your opportunities, and make it difficult to become wealthy. Maybe that Jesus fella was onto something when he said that its easier for an elephant to go through the eye of a needle than a rich person getting into heaven. It's not about victim-offender. It's about seeing problems everywhere (not limiting your analysis to political affiliation, social class, etc).

 

It has nothing to do with being wealthy. It has to do with being successful and taking personal responsibility for your circumstances and watching other people who have the same opportunity choose differently. Being successful doesn't mean being wealthy - it just means being able to support yourself and your family. I have 4 nephews who grew up in small towns. All 4 are self-supporting and married with children. None went to college. One is a fireman. One is an electrician. One does construction and the last one works for the power company. My son has a college degree and will have 2 master's degrees next month. For the last 3 years he has completely supported himself living in Seattle and working at a Starbucks store.

 

I believe in equal opportunity, not equal outcomes. I have a family member who has turned down well paying jobs because she would rather sit at home and live on $800/month. Why should I feel sorry for someone who chose to do that?

 

As you become successful and you get older and wiser you start to realize that most people do have a choice. I saw a lady on tv who was on SSI disability because she had arthritis in ONE hand. My neighbor only has one arm and he manages to hold down a well paying full time job. Why does the lady choose to get by on disability? Because she can. If you told her tomorrow she was off disability she'd have a job in no time.

 

We still have compassion but we reserve it for the ones who deserve it - the ones who are truly physically or mentally disabled and cannot work. Unfortunately that is a tiny percentage of those getting assistance.

[akirby]

 

Cmon, man. Context: Food stamps are specifically referenced. Tell me, does everyone get food stamps or are we just talking about the poor? I understand the analogy completely...the context of the analogy is derogatory, and you really don't have to look far or read into it to get that.

 

You don't have to be poor to get food stamps.

 

It's only derogatory because you don't agree with the analogy about people becoming dependent on government handouts.

[akirby]

I don't have anything in particular against libertarianism other than it is unrealistic. People are not perfect life forms, and expecting the average person to be just, moral, and have high ethical standards has no basis in history or reality. It's a nice dream, but it is still a dream.

 

For once we agree. But so are a lot of liberal ideals, such as being able to tax your way to prosperity.

 

What we need is the right balance of regulations, government, laws and taxes. Right now nobody wants to compromise on anything.

[phil1336]

 

For once we agree. But so are a lot of liberal ideals, such as being able to tax your way to prosperity.

 

What we need is the right balance of regulations, government, laws and taxes. Right now nobody wants to compromise on anything.

Seriously, did you say, "compromise"? Have you not seen that Video a dozen times already showing the Senate Minority Leader, Mitch McConnell stating in fact that the Republican Party had but one agenda, and that was to assure that Barack Obama would be a one term President. Do you recall when he uttered those words and made that statement? Obama was at that very moment being sworn into Office for his (first) Term. You going to find "compromise" there? One hell of an Olive Branch to extend to someone before they took their hand off the Bible (Koran) whatever....Got to give McConnell credit, he kept his word, "Mission Accomplished". Where have I heard that used before....?

[akirby]

See Phil - that's your problem. I said nobody wants to compromise and you immediately blame Republicans.

 

What part of NOBODY did you not understand? There is just as much blame on both sides of the aisle. Perfect example: raising the debt ceiling.

 

A compromise solution would have been to raise the debt ceiling the first time but to put in a plan to get to a balanced budget within 2 or 3 years so the debt ceiling did not have to be raised again. But that didn't happen.

 

Continuing to spend us into oblivion (and it doesn't matter what we're spending it on or who is to blame - the power to fix it lies with the current group) with no end in sight is terrible governing by everyone in Washington.

 

Trying to blame one party or the other does nothing to fix the problem.