|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 8:54:21 GMT -8
See, you don't believe that people are capable of taking care of themselves - of being self sufficient. That's insulting and demeaning. I am an example. I have no college degree (76 units with a 3.5 gpa, but no degree), and I make up 85% of my household income and we have taken ZERO money from the government to get by. I have a retirement plan in place, and am contributing to it every two weeks. Not in big chunks but a little bit out of every paycheck. I don't need the government to hold my hand and treat me like a child. Very, very few people really need that kind of hand holding. The government is not mommy and daddy, nor should it be. People live up or down to expectations. Ask any coach about that... (People can be more resourceful than you seem to think they are.) Insulting my pimply butt. You are absolutely incapable of seeing that people originally coalesced into societies to spread risk and specialize-thereby making the whole more productive. If that is not the case please explain why humans did it. What a bunch of gobbeldeegook. "People originally coalesced, blah, blah, blah..." Whenever you use terms like that it's pretty clear you're just using academic doublespeak that has very little to do with the real world. People have been capable of being self sufficient for all of human history. Hunter-gatherers who built their own shelters and hunted and grew their own food took care of themselves. Are you saying that people have become less resourceful over the last 10,000 years? So children NEVER took care of their parents in their old age before?? Really??? And here I thought it was the norm in previous centuries to have the elderly parents who were incapable of caring for themselves to move in with their children so that the kids could repay their parents by taking care of them in the final years of their lives. I guess that never happened... Man, you really continue to be insulting and demeaning - and now you're playing mind reader when you really don't have a clue. Taxes are a necessary evil. They take money OUT of the economy and away from people who can put it to better use. Especially when the taxes hit the middle class. However, there is that, "Necessary," component of the necessary evil phrase, and only a fool would deny that. I have no problem being taxed at a reasonable rate - as long as that tax money isn't being wasted. A HUGE percentage of it IS wasted, so I have a real problem with that - as everyone should. [/b] [/quote] Everyone dies. It's inevitable, unfortunately. But those who genuinely cannot survive without help have always gotten help. There are tens of thousands of private charities in this country alone. Conservatives/Republicans give to charity at a higher rate than Liberals/Democrats, so who really cares most about those in genuine need? And the number of people who legitimately cannot take care of themselves and have no families for support is a lot smaller than you think. And I do agree - they should get some temporary help if they are in such dire circumstances. Most people, however, DO have families that could help support them, but those family members quite often want nothing to do with those people. There is no societal pressure anymore for families to take care of their own. That's wrong - families should look out for their brothers, sisters, and children. Hell, they should help out their cousins, nephews and nieces, too! But in millions of cases they don't. Because the government steps in to do it for them. Family should be the #1 support mechanism. Do you not agree? |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 8:56:12 GMT -8
The aged are simply not productive enough for the conservatives. There is no excuse for them getting old and becoming parasites. Pauperism is their just dessert. Why should a conservative support anyone but themselves? Old age is traitorous behavior.  I am surprised that you would have such a cynical view. Conservatives have the same concerns for the most part as do liberals. Where we differ is how to solve problems. Conservatives think that Government should take a much smaller role in providing basic safety net needs. Private resources like Churches can do the job much better, faster and cheaper. To say that I am cynical about conservative motives is to say that the sun rises in the east. I do not believe that most conservatives care about other people. If there was an entity other than government willing and able to assist effectively I might by your argument about reducing its size. The only other entity large enough to help people economically has been eviscerated by business. If you think corporations are going to do it, Can I have what you're smoking? You offer no effective alternative to government (and it is not charities). So go find an alternative. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 8:59:50 GMT -8
Insulting my pimply butt. You are absolutely incapable of seeing that people originally coalesced into societies to spread risk and specialize-thereby making the whole more productive. If that is not the case please explain why humans did it. What a bunch of gobbeldeegook. "People originally coalesced, blah, blah, blah..." Whenever you use terms like that it's pretty clear you're just using academic doublespeak that has very little to do with the real world. People have been capable of being self sufficient for all of human history. Hunter-gatherers who built their own shelters and hunted and grew their own food took care of themselves. Are you saying that people have become less resourceful over the last 10,000 years? So children NEVER took care of their parents in their old age before?? Really??? And here I thought it was the norm in previous centuries to have the elderly parents who were incapable of caring for themselves to move in with their children so that the kids could repay their parents by taking care of them in the final years of their lives. I guess that never happened... Man, you really continue to be insulting and demeaning - and now you're playing mind reader when you really don't have a clue. Taxes are a necessary evil. They take money OUT of the economy and away from people who can put it to better use. Especially when the taxes hit the middle class. However, there is that, "Necessary," component of the necessary evil phrase, and only a fool would deny that. I have no problem being taxed at a reasonable rate - as long as that tax money isn't being wasted. A HUGE percentage of it IS wasted, so I have a real problem with that - as everyone should. [/b] [/quote] Everyone dies. It's inevitable, unfortunately. But those who genuinely cannot survive without help have always gotten help. There are tens of thousands of private charities in this country alone. Conservatives/Republicans give to charity at a higher rate than Liberals/Democrats, so who really cares most about those in genuine need? And the number of people who legitimately cannot take care of themselves and have no families for support is a lot smaller than you think. And I do agree - they should get some temporary help if they are in such dire circumstances. Most people, however, DO have families that could help support them, but those family members quite often want nothing to do with those people. There is no societal pressure anymore for families to take care of their own. That's wrong - families should look out for their brothers, sisters, and children. Hell, they should help out their cousins, nephews and nieces, too! But in millions of cases they don't. Because the government steps in to do it for them. Family should be the #1 support mechanism. Do you not agree?[/quote] "Everyone dies. It's inevitable, unfortunately." So you admit there are forces beyond people's control. How interesting! I think we have a breakthrough. I was going to answer your post point by point, but as usual with our conversations, I seem to become bored very easily. Your assertions can be easily refuted, but it always takes a lot of typing. You will not change your mind, you will not be moved, you will not acknowledge, you will not agree. I'm out. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 9:04:19 GMT -8
I am surprised that you would have such a cynical view. Conservatives have the same concerns for the most part as do liberals. Where we differ is how to solve problems. Conservatives think that Government should take a much smaller role in providing basic safety net needs. Private resources like Churches can do the job much better, faster and cheaper. To say that I am cynical about conservative motives is to say that the sun rises in the east. I do not believe that most conservatives care about other people. Wow, that's really - sad. Pathetic, almost. So conservatives are cold, unfeeling, inhuman monsters who do not care about people? Wow. That is a ludicrous view. And totally, completely, 100% wrong. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Nov 20, 2010 9:06:05 GMT -8
Insulting my pimply butt. You are absolutely incapable of seeing that people originally coalesced into societies to spread risk and specialize-thereby making the whole more productive. If that is not the case please explain why humans did it. The greatest advancements in humanity's history occurred when they began looking after their old people. You do not like to pay taxes and therefore do not want to help people who are less well off. You refuse to admit the absolutely obvious-- that there are circumstances beyond people's control. If that were not true, mortuaries would have to do much more advertising. Herein lies the basic misconception. Being tax adverse does not mean that you do not tithe or contribute to other social causes. Here is an idea for you to think about. Is it better to pay a dollar in tax in order to get it filtered through many bureaucratic hands and provide a nickels worth of bread to a homeless man or would it be better to hand that man a dollar out the window of our car at a stop sign? Even if that dollar out the window went to buy fortified wine, it is better spent. A side story. There is a beggar that works a corner near my office, as well as other places around town. He is more than middle aged, dresses in clean clothes, but has a limp. His sign says, "stroke victim, can not work, please help". Sometimes I would give him something. About two years ago I saw him get out of his car. A new Camry. I confronted him and asked why a beggar had a newer car than I did. He was flustered, but explained that his daughter had given him the car. I told him I thought he was a fraud and would get no more money from me. Several months ago I saw that he was driving a new Cadillac. Business must be good. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 9:08:59 GMT -8
To say that I am cynical about conservative motives is to say that the sun rises in the east. I do not believe that most conservatives care about other people. Wow, that's really - sad. Pathetic, almost. So conservatives are cold, unfeeling, inhuman monsters who do not care about people? Wow. That is a ludicrous view. And totally, completely, 100% wrong. That is not what I said. Bye Bye. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 9:13:45 GMT -8
Wow, that's really - sad. Pathetic, almost. So conservatives are cold, unfeeling, inhuman monsters who do not care about people? Wow. That is a ludicrous view. And totally, completely, 100% wrong. That is not what I said. Bye Bye. Yes it is. You said that conservatives don't care about other people. Only a cold, uncaring monster wouldn't care if other people were starving to death. You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Nov 20, 2010 10:13:06 GMT -8
Herein lies the basic misconception. Being tax adverse does not mean that you do not tithe or contribute to other social causes. Here is an idea for you to think about. Is it better to pay a dollar in tax in order to get it filtered through many bureaucratic hands and provide a nickels worth of bread to a homeless man or would it be better to hand that man a dollar out the window of our car at a stop sign? Even if that dollar out the window went to buy fortified wine, it is better spent. A side story. There is a beggar that works a corner near my office, as well as other places around town. He is more than middle aged, dresses in clean clothes, but has a limp. His sign says, "stroke victim, can not work, please help". Sometimes I would give him something. About two years ago I saw him get out of his car. A new Camry. I confronted him and asked why a beggar had a newer car than I did. He was flustered, but explained that his daughter had given him the car. I told him I thought he was a fraud and would get no more money from me. Several months ago I saw that he was driving a new Cadillac. Business must be good. I have heard of stories like that. I guess I should have said give to Salvation Army or the Alpha Project. The point is the same. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 11:20:35 GMT -8
That is not what I said. Bye Bye. Yes it is. You said that conservatives don't care about other people. Only a cold, uncaring monster wouldn't care if other people were starving to death. You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination.
You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination."I had to come back for this! You spend a great deal of time offended, don't you? Forgive me, please, please! Conservatives do care deeply about people. The unemployed just need to work harder to find a job, because they should not expect any help from conservatives. Did I get it right this time? Starving to death? You are an extremely funny man. The effect of conservative policies mean that Americans work harder, live shorter lives and are less healthy than a good portion of the western world. And conservatives would give tax cuts to those who have everything to begrudge a family $300.00 friggen dollars a week in unemployment for a few months, when they can't find work, because they need to toughen up and produce. We don't want to baby them while they are terrified, do we. Conservatives want to make worse what is already embarrassing, for the most advanced country on earth, that is. I don't care what conservatives say. I care about the effect of what of what they do. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 20, 2010 12:47:31 GMT -8
Yes it is. You said that conservatives don't care about other people. Only a cold, uncaring monster wouldn't care if other people were starving to death. You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination.
You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination."I had to come back for this! You spend a great deal of time offended, don't you? Forgive me, please, please! Conservatives do care deeply about people. The unemployed just need to work harder to find a job, because they should not expect any help from conservatives. Did I get it right this time? Nope. Not even close. You are so blinded by hatred of that which you fear that you have demonized and distored it so much that if your view of conservatives were the truth only 1% of the population would vote for them. You were the one that said that conservatives, "Don't care about other people," and this in the context of you saying that conservative policies lead to people dying of starvation or lack of health care. Therefore, by logical extension, when you say that conservatives don't care about other people you're also saying that they don't care if those people starve to death as a result of those conservative policies. What's wrong with that? Americans don't work as hard as most people in the world. We aren't competitive as a workforce. That's a fact. Take away murders and accidents - areas where we do lead the world (outside of war zones) and our lifespans are as long as any country's. Funny thing about that - we wait far less for health care than any other country in the western world. Most countries that you would cite have HUGE waiting periods for non-emergency health care. A lot of our health issues stem from poor diet and excercise habits. Another large area that drags our stats down are all the illegal aliens in the country who bring sickness and disease with them and who cannot afford health care. Our issues in health care also stem from a lot of people under 30 who CHOOSE not to buy health insurance (and those stats have held true for the last 40 years). Terrified - hyperbole, much?? How about we give tax cuts to those who CREATE JOBS??? How about we give tax cuts to those who INVEST IN NEW BUSINESSES?? Take money away from the rich and they have less to invest, less to spend, and less to put in the bank. All three of those things help drive the economy. More investment means more new jobs. More spending creates more new jobs. More saving means more money for banks to lend which leads to more money for investment or spending which leads to MORE JOBS. You need to go back and re-take your Econ 101 and Econ 102 classes. Care to embarrass yourself any more? Conservatives WANT to make the country worse?? Yeah right. You forget that in order for these mean, selfish bastards to make money they need a large populace with a lot of DISPOSABLE INCOME. If all these people are made so poor they'll have NO disposable income and won't be able to make the rich people richer. Business needs a marketplace. They need customers. If the economy and the average people are hurt so badly then the marketplace and customers will dry up and shrink. Business needs economic growth from ALL socio-economic levels in order to grow and succeed themselves. This is pretty basic stuff, but you're so busy hating conservatives based on your warped views that you don't see it - or just refuse to. Conservatives are smart enough to know that crushing the middle and lower class will only hurt themselves. You act as though these people are financially suicidal! Conservatives want EVERYONE to experience economic growth. That's the only way that they can continue to succeed. And, on topic, conservatives seem to be the only ones who have proposed any REAL, substantial reforms to Social Security. Why? Because they care enough about the people to actually want to save the program rather than letting it slowly implode as the Democrats seem to be willing to. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 20, 2010 17:07:19 GMT -8
"Yes it is. You said that conservatives don't care about other people. Only a cold, uncaring monster wouldn't care if other people were starving to death.
You said what you said and it was wrong - an unfair, incorrect bit of character assassination."I had to come back for this! You spend a great deal of time offended, don't you? Forgive me, please, please! Conservatives do care deeply about people. The unemployed just need to work harder to find a job, because they should not expect any help from conservatives. Did I get it right this time? Nope. Not even close. You are so blinded by hatred of that which you fear that you have demonized and distored it so much that if your view of conservatives were the truth only 1% of the population would vote for them. You were the one that said that conservatives, "Don't care about other people," and this in the context of you saying that conservative policies lead to people dying of starvation or lack of health care. Therefore, by logical extension, when you say that conservatives don't care about other people you're also saying that they don't care if those people starve to death as a result of those conservative policies. What's wrong with that? Americans don't work as hard as most people in the world. We aren't competitive as a workforce. That's a fact. Take away murders and accidents - areas where we do lead the world (outside of war zones) and our lifespans are as long as any country's. Funny thing about that - we wait far less for health care than any other country in the western world. Most countries that you would cite have HUGE waiting periods for non-emergency health care. A lot of our health issues stem from poor diet and excercise habits. Another large area that drags our stats down are all the illegal aliens in the country who bring sickness and disease with them and who cannot afford health care. Our issues in health care also stem from a lot of people under 30 who CHOOSE not to buy health insurance (and those stats have held true for the last 40 years). Terrified - hyperbole, much?? How about we give tax cuts to those who CREATE JOBS??? How about we give tax cuts to those who INVEST IN NEW BUSINESSES?? Take money away from the rich and they have less to invest, less to spend, and less to put in the bank. All three of those things help drive the economy. More investment means more new jobs. More spending creates more new jobs. More saving means more money for banks to lend which leads to more money for investment or spending which leads to MORE JOBS. You need to go back and re-take your Econ 101 and Econ 102 classes. Care to embarrass yourself any more? Conservatives WANT to make the country worse?? Yeah right. You forget that in order for these mean, selfish bastards to make money they need a large populace with a lot of DISPOSABLE INCOME. If all these people are made so poor they'll have NO disposable income and won't be able to make the rich people richer. Business needs a marketplace. They need customers. If the economy and the average people are hurt so badly then the marketplace and customers will dry up and shrink. Business needs economic growth from ALL socio-economic levels in order to grow and succeed themselves. This is pretty basic stuff, but you're so busy hating conservatives based on your warped views that you don't see it - or just refuse to. Conservatives are smart enough to know that crushing the middle and lower class will only hurt themselves. You act as though these people are financially suicidal! Conservatives want EVERYONE to experience economic growth. That's the only way that they can continue to succeed. And, on topic, conservatives seem to be the only ones who have proposed any REAL, substantial reforms to Social Security. Why? Because they care enough about the people to actually want to save the program rather than letting it slowly implode as the Democrats seem to be willing to. Garrulous. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Nov 21, 2010 6:26:51 GMT -8
People have been capable of being self sufficient for all of human history. Hunter-gatherers who built their own shelters and hunted and grew their own food took care of themselves. Are you saying that people have become less resourceful over the last 10,000 years? Population tells the story of history. For Millions of years according to the fossil record, the population of humans on this planet was way down. It was only when we became "civilized" that population numbers have gone way UP. Our cave man ancestors were nearly wiped out by some scourge of the earth. I have seen estimates based upon DNA testing that come up with as few as 30,000 people scattered in the warmer climates of the Earth. We were not doing a good job of protecting others for the longest time. As a predator species we were probably killing each other off while contesting "our turf" or just for food. Roast rack of thigh, anybody? Ummmm, Yummy if the fat on the outside is crisp! Nope there, podner, it was government instituted by man that brought about improvement in living conditions so that people could live to old age. It brought about collective safety. Though not perfect, it definitely improved conditions. It has gotten so out of hand that we have about six billion too many people on this planet and I strongly favor downsizing the population of man so we stop killing off all the other species of plant and animal life on this planet. What humans have done to Mother Earth is a disgrace to humanity. We need to live in balance with nature. |
|
|
|
Post by waztec on Nov 21, 2010 7:14:08 GMT -8
People have been capable of being self sufficient for all of human history. Hunter-gatherers who built their own shelters and hunted and grew their own food took care of themselves. Are you saying that people have become less resourceful over the last 10,000 years? Population tells the story of history. For Millions of years according to the fossil record, the population of humans on this planet was way down. It was only when we became "civilized" that population numbers have gone way UP. Our cave man ancestors were nearly wiped out by some scourge of the earth. I have seen estimates based upon DNA testing that come up with as few as 30,000 people scattered in the warmer climates of the Earth. We were not doing a good job of protecting others for the longest time. As a predator species we were probably killing each other off while contesting "our turf" or just for food. Roast rack of thigh, anybody? Ummmm, Yummy if the fat on the outside is crisp! Nope there, podner, it was government instituted by man that brought about improvement in living conditions so that people could live to old age. It brought about collective safety. Though not perfect, it definitely improved conditions. It has gotten so out of hand that we have about six billion too many people on this planet and I strongly favor downsizing the population of man so we stop killing off all the other species of plant and animal life on this planet. What humans have done to Mother Earth is a disgrace to humanity. We need to live in balance with nature. All biological populations follow the same course. They begin to reproduce until they exhaust what ever resource it is that they depend on and their population crashes. I can picture the curve in my mind along with the lecture describing it. There has been one exception to the curve. Human beings reproduce less when they have abundance. That pattern is seen in most of Europe, Japan and the rest of the "first world". The reduction that you are talking about has begun, but it is not occurring everywhere, because much of the world still subsists. That begs three questions: 1. Can we improve living conditions for the subsistence populations such that their birthrates decrease? 2. Have we passed the point where we can improve living conditions and reduce populations naturally without totally exhausting what is left? 3.How do we convince the world that more profit, more growth and more everything might not work. And can we slow growth at least until we have stabilized populations? I have to tell you that I am pessimistic. We are facing a real problem in the next few decades and it will be those already stressed who will pay the most. |
|
|
|
Post by The Aztec Panther on Nov 21, 2010 7:45:43 GMT -8
More profit and more growth mean more jobs so more people can support themselves. Is that a problem??
|
|
