Feds: ‘Poor’ Consume Like The Rich

Right on cue...

 

I don't know of a single 24 hour Wal-Mart in this county. Hell, I found out the one in my town closes at 10pm today.

 

How quaint - phrasing the debate in a way that only one side seems reasonable. I haven't seen such effective argumentation since Junior High!

Let's try that a different way, shall we?

The reality is that the Founders weren't all on the same page when it came to this. The first two administrations, Washington and Adams, clearly acted as if they had the right to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare. Jefferson and Madison took the opposite view. At different times in the nation's history the courts have interpreted it differently as well, but the current POV that we are operating under comes from an opinion in 1936 that refers back to an 1833 treatise by Justice Joseph Story that indicated the view espoused by Washington, Adams and Hamilton was the constitutionally correct one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Butler

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to the striking down of Butler and devolving those matters to the States - but that still would involve welfare being a legitimate use of public funds.

 

You haven't been paying much attention in this thread then.

 

And the laws that protect those property rights are created by "a group of people related to each other through persistent relations".

Which is known as a society.

There is nothing magic about the thought 'this shit is mine.' It's yours because the law says it is, the law exists because people want the law to exist. That's it, nothing more to it.

Those same laws say it's better for everyone if we help those people that can't help themselves, at least for a while, because it reduces crime, some of those people will go on to be useful members, some will go on to be rich and give back to the society (look at Jewel or J.K. Rowling, both of whom were homeless and on welfare and went on to be extremely successful), and on top of that it's the right thing to do.

I know the latter doesn't mean anything to you, but the former sure as hell should - or go ahead and withhold taxes and you'll find out just how long that shit remains yours.

 

I'll nuke that bridge when I come to it.

I'm saying me being made to support their needs doesn't connect to the protection of my rights in in the "direct exchange" sense you tried to argue.

I love how me attending to my own needs automatically means someone else is fucked. You're just a few mincing steps away from "property is theft" with that bullshit.

It's not like I've never observed before that pooling resources for the protection of rights is the #1 reason to organize a formal, governed society.

Why? Because college can't possibly exist outside of your beloved redistributionist schemes?

 

Thank you, Captain Obvious. I don't think I even need to read the rest of that post to know you're about to make a bullshit connection to entitlements or an assault on property rights, but let's see..

Well aren't you the model for an obedient subject of the nanny state?

Don't lecture me about "the right thing" while you advance arguments based on the "morality" of extortion, dickhead.

 

Disingenuous when you already read my post at that time, lol.

But I'm sure I'll be accused of being an obedient subject of the nanny state in a moment...

Well, damn, I'm smart! LOL. Again, juvenile shit there man.

No, I just understand the law arises from the will of the people. There's no magic faerie unicorns in the sky which makes old dead white guys pronouncements true in any other sense than what we strive for ourselves.

Your assumption that one particular old dead white guy said something meant it applied to even all the old dead white guys of the time was just ludicrous. They argued about this shit from the beginning, so don't talk to me about what the Founding Fathers would say. You clearly aren't educated enough to know.

Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out of the country then. We all pay taxes for shit we don't like. No, that's not extortion - it's the social contract.

And aren't you the guy that says he actively opposes voting?

 

Nope. But go on and call me a liar if you like. Your opinions are worth less to me than the little baggies of dog shit I throw in the dumpster every day.

The law does. Rights do not. Be wary of anyone who claims otherwise, because it's likely someone who sees you only as a resource to be exploited.

Someone posted a picture as though they actually believed a bloated welfare state was originally intended, and I was compelled to respond.

Why do the always fall back on "accept it all unconditionally or leave" when they've got nothing else?

Maybe that's how the cartoony strawmen in your head sound, but in reality it would be less of a shitty misrepresentation to say I face the truth of the situation, that the only real difference between the two viable parties is one of marketing, and that a vote for either is a vote for more of the same bullshit.

 

He's only punishing those who aren't his cronies.

 

OK. You are a liar.

You have a dog! That's wonderful! That's the great thing about dogs, they'll love even vicious misanthropic cretins that want nothing of the rest of the world other than they fuck off and die.

Oh, sorry, I presume facts not in evidence. Does your dog whimper when you come near, or occasionally bite you?

Actually, they both do. You have no rights that society doesn't agree to. Don't believe me? Read some history. You can make the claim all you want, but it's facetious, and history is replete with what you consider your inalienable rights being deprived and plundered over and over and over again. The rights are enshrined in law, or they don'rt exist. Period.

Liar. Go back and reread that comment. See the quotes around it. That was about aristocracy, not the existence or non-existence of a welfare state as intended by the Founders.

YOU were the one who put in the completely inaccurate portrayal that the Founders were against welfare for the citizens.

Because you refuse even the basic societal expectation of voting for your preferences.

Plus, we'd really like to see you try to live by yourself on a deserted island somewhere without the benefits our sometimes ill conceived but definitely very necessary societal system creates.

You can vote for someone else. You can vote for whoever you want to. Enough people do that, the two party system is done.

You lie a lot, whether you intend to or not.

 

Those who cross our borders illegally?

 

err, no, no one did.
That was your interpretation.

You consistently misrepresent things, even after they've been explained.

I used to think it was a troll, but now I see that you just can't comprehend anything that isn't presented as binary and slanted to your pre existing opinion.

Delicious... I had the impression from another of these chats that you were secure as the overseer of cubicles?

but you go ahead and nuke that outsourcing bridge when you come to it, (Aren't you supposed to have a million billion dollars socked away from investing $25/month for 15 years?) sounds like the responsible, individualistic thing to do. I'll look forward to hearing you rant how you damn well earned your unemployment benefits.

 

Yep. Same with some people who inherit wealth.
Monetary wealth doesn't always equate happiness either. Look at all the miserable rich people.
Wealth envy doesn't make for happiness either.

 

My dog is a better person than most humans I've met.

Which actually started with a response about "labor" being the big determining factor in what you should be graciously allowed to keep. But I'll take your point there.

My preferences are not an option.

Make it a bountiful island, full of wild fruit and ganja plus plenty of animals to eat, and I'm in.

And that act will be every bit as useful as mailing a letter to Santa Claus. I have no use for empty, symbolic gestures.

Yeah, and if enough monkeys fly out of my ass, I could film my own production of The Wizard of Oz.

I admit I was wrong about the context of the picture. But I can totally see how that's no different from you people making shit up and attributing it to me.

Yeah, what were you saying about "interpretation," fucknuts?

I should, but I don't, and that's my problem. See how that works? Personal responsibility. You should give it a try sometime.

Never happen. I'll live in a tent first. Take that to the fucking bank and lock it away in a vault.

 

Well, kind of, yes.

How billionaires are there in Afghanistan? Or Haiti?

Yup. Being poor in America (or Canada) is still better than being poor plenty of other places.

I once had a date with an Indian woman that came to Canada as an adult. When I asked her why she'd moved here, her answer was "more opportunities," but also the social safety net. She basically said, "If you fail or get sick or lose your job in India, no one cares. If you die, there's a billion more people, they need the space. In Canada if you have troubles, you take care of each other."

 

Sorry, missed this the first time around. First off, I'd think it's probably not a one off, but not a larger trend through the country. There may very well be communities where that is true depending on the cultural and socioeconomic situation in that community.

If the trend was true over a larger sample, I'd say it's likely cultural. Immigrants are likely to be ones that are actively trying to better themselves, the fact that they've moved instead of accepting a less lot in life is indicative of this, and focus on education is extremely important there.

However, that explains success for later generations more so than the first generation of immigrant, as we've seen.

In three generations, the average immigrant family is the normal American family, there's little difference in success rates there.

But it's still more difficult for that first generation to succeed, because they have more inherent hurdles to face, often including language, cultural understanding, and contacts.

And let's face it, some cultures do better there. Asian households are wealthier than white households.

Anyway, my off the cuff thoughts - be curious of other view points there.

 

I wanna get back to this island idea.

It'd be like that movie with Leonardo DeCaprio in it, only I wouldn't act stupidly and ruin it for everyone.

 

so you respond to people responding in kind? How novel.

Another chest thumping, bullshit lie. You'd take what you could justify at first, and whatever was left when that ran out... its called survival

 

Nope. Unlike you, I don't rationalize laying claim to that which I have not earned. But you go on not believing me, and I'll go on not giving a shit what some stunted man-child who still thinks he's a badass teenage punk rock rebel believes about me.

And to preempt the next obligatory bullshit argument, it doesn't come out of my paycheck and it's not part of my negotiated compensation, so as far as I'm concerned I did not earn it.

 

Actually, I've done the cold-blooded math, absent "needs", and "wants", and "desires", and all the dumb little irrational emotions, just pure, cold-cold-cold-COLD logic, and...people aren't worth a damn, barely above the chemical cost of their raw elements, and no one "earns", anything.

Everyone's on some kind of "welfare".

This whole thing is made up.

 

Only if:

a) You take a very right wing view of Economic Freedom
b) You believe this right wing version of Economic Freedom to be the alpha and omega of freedom.

 

I think our course is clear.

We all have to get together and vote for an involuntary payment of the membership to buy UA his dream island.

Honestly, it's for the good of us all.

 

Tell that to zombie Thomas Mann.

 

Yes.

Yes it is.

 

You mean if you don't accept the idea that you're not truly free unless you're free from responsibility for yourself.

 

No, UA is an island.


[yt=I am a rock...]IVLFlkehGuU[/yt]

 

Zombie Thomas Mann didn't come into this thread spouting that drivel, you did.

 

see, I don't get where you came up with this? any of it, really.
I've never asked for what I haven't paid into for most of my life. I've certainly observed that a paycheque ain't worth what it once was and that this is something wrong wit the way things work. "The economy" tends to support this.

anyone else seeing the irony? Is this perception based on that book I mentioned about my friends? Excuse us for being part of something 25 years ago.
Oh-and there's no state/fed unemployment insurance off of your cheque? See, I did't mind the 20 years of paying into it-all things considered, I got my moneys worth when I needed it.

Just because you say it's obligatory bullshit doesn't negate the point, it's just one more way your ideology will allow you to be fucked over when you're obsolete or no longer cost effective.

 

The right thing is still the right thing, whether it happens to be pleasant and beneficial to me or not.