MIKolbe Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 you are such a pedantist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) [size=4]To say social security is a ponzi scheme is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of money and it's relation to government. In effect, it is to treat the 'realness' of the money as more important than keeping people fed and not dead. If money smells of elderberries at enabling such a system, the answer is not to to change the system, it's to change the money. [/size] [size=4]Edited: Typo. [/size] Edited September 28, 2011 by ParadiseFound Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1317238154' post='2311800'] [size=4]To say social security is a ponzi scheme is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of money and it's relation to government. In effect, it is to treat the 'realness' of the money as more important than keeping people fed and not dead. If money smells of elderberries at enabling such a system, the answer is not to to change the system, it's to change the money. [/size] [size=4]Edited: Typo. [/size] [/quote] You believe that government must set the value of money? The history of government manipulation of money is a history of inflation. We live in a state of permanent inflation so pervasive that is is accepted as a fact of life. Edited September 28, 2011 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Socrates Posted September 28, 2011 Share Posted September 28, 2011 (edited) [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1317238154' post='2311800'] [size=4]To say social security is a ponzi scheme is to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of money and it's relation to government. In effect, it is to treat the 'realness' of the money as more important than keeping people fed and not dead. If money smells of elderberries at enabling such a system, the answer is not to to change the system, it's to change the money. [/size] [size=4]Edited: Typo. [/size] [/quote] How? I suppose by simply printing more money, since as good economic "liberals," we know that all wealth is produced by being shat out of Obama's backside to be fairly distributed amongst the hoi polloi by federal bureaucrats. The government needs to just write everybody a nice fat check for a million bucks, and thus take care of all our needs. Edited September 28, 2011 by Socrates Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ParadiseFound Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317238713' post='2311804'] You believe that government must set the value of money? The history of government manipulation of money is a history of inflation. We live in a state of permanent inflation so pervasive that is is accepted as a fact of life. [size=4][/quote][/size] [size=4]We live in a state of money so pervasive that it is accepted as a fact of life! And no, government doesn't [i]need[/i] to set the value of money, but it can and it should - to use your rhetoric, in times of hyper-inflation the government is required to change the currancy entirely. [/size] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='ParadiseFound' timestamp='1317289994' post='2312137'] [/size] [size=4]We live in a state of money so pervasive that it is accepted as a fact of life![/quote][/size] Money is accepted because it is more convenient than barter. In fact, it is so convenient that it improves the standard of living. [quote]And no, government doesn't [i]need[/i] to set the value of money, but it can and it should - to use your rhetoric, in times of hyper-inflation the government is required to change the currancy entirely. [/quote] Monetary manipulation by a central power has always been the cause of hyper-inflation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 Winchester is right, certain people don't deserve food... according to the Bible; "[i]For also when we were with you, this we declared to you: that, if any man will not work, neither let him eat.[/i]" (2 Thessalonians 2:10) Fortunately the establishment clause keeps all this backwards nonsense out of the Constitution and our laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) Provide the quote where I said certain people don't [i]deserve [/i]food. Edited September 29, 2011 by Winchester Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317117377' post='2310877']You define people with cellphones, cars, medication, health care, cable television, internet, [u][b]enough food to eat[/b][/u] and new electronic devices as poor.[/quote] You disagree with the Bible again?! Strange Christian you are. But you are the one who seems to think the poor are getting a free ride and that poor people shouldn't have enough food to eat. Does little Winchester not like his silly arguments being misconstrued? How cute!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317314667' post='2312303'] You disagree with the Bible again?! Strange Christian you are. But you are the one who seems to think the poor are getting a free ride and that poor people shouldn't have enough food to eat. Does little Winchester not like his silly arguments being misconstrued? How cute!!! [/quote] I was pointing out our definition of "poor" included people who had necessities and luxuries. I didn't say they did not deserve enough food to eat. "Poor" is not a synonym for "not working", either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317314938' post='2312308']I was pointing out our definition of "poor" included people who had necessities and luxuries. I didn't say they did not deserve enough food to eat. "Poor" is not a synonym for "not working", either.[/quote]Since the topic isn't progressing, I feel like making a jab at the Bible. Winchester, does this verse to you mean what it says? Because if you are right, then I completely agree, this whole welfare/charity idea to those needing food is unchristian. Well... unless they are working. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317315060' post='2312311'] Since the topic isn't progressing, I feel like making a jab at the Bible. Winchester, does this verse to you mean what it says? Because if you are right, then I completely agree, this whole welfare/charity idea to those needing food is unchristian. Well... unless they are working. [/quote] Welfare is not charity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317315218' post='2312313']Welfare is not charity.[/quote]And that was not an answer to my question. Why do Christians have so much difficulty understanding simple questions or statements? Edited September 29, 2011 by Mr.Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winchester Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 [quote name='Mr.Cat' timestamp='1317315435' post='2312317'] And that was not an answer to my question. Why do Christians have so much difficulty understanding simple questions or statements? [/quote] I didn't say I answered your question. Obviously, I object to equating welfare and charity. Answering your question as it stood would indicate agreement with your Statism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Cat Posted September 29, 2011 Share Posted September 29, 2011 (edited) [quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317315818' post='2312324']I didn't say I answered your question. Obviously, I object to equating welfare and charity. Answering your question as it stood would indicate agreement with your Statism.[/quote]Winchester, you non-christian communist, why don't you ever learn to stop accusing people of things that their not? I mean, it's not like I am making fun of your nationalist and soviet leanings. I'm sure you have good reasons for opposing democracy and libertarianism, but really... really Winchester? You are funny comrade Winchester, your holy book says those who don't work shouldn't eat, and you think social security is a ponzi scheme because almost the entire Republican party disagrees with that statement. Edited September 29, 2011 by Mr.Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now