Why Is Mommy A Democrat?

[dairygirl4u2c]

there's a difference between opportunity and difficulty in living. i dont dispute it's easier now. ease in living generally that you talk about has nothing to do with opportuinty in any meaningful sense. for example.

if you at least have the option to go take fifty acres, then you could at least have gotten something substantial to give the doctor when you get sick. now, if you're just starting out from high school, and you work a couple years, you wouldn't have as much to show to give that doctor as you would be working a couple years in the olden days.

imagine someone being given half an acre back then. cause they support htemselves, they don't have much to give the doctor. the doctor will see those who have more acres. the person with half an acre never had any meaningful opportunity to advance. that's what's happening today. the amount you make in lowly starting out jobs is nothing to doctors who will cater to the richer more.

or another example. imagine all the land is taken up and no more free for alls. are you saying the guys who had to work on anothers farm just to eventually get a farm himself was just as good if not better off than the guys who could just go out and take a farm (once they got the basic supplies)? surely, technology was better with the guys who had to work their way into buying a farm, but, that doesn't mean they had better opportunity. that guy going around trying to work himself into buying a farm is essentially teh same as those starting out today.

now, back in the day, people could have just started out and failed too as they not have had much time to build things up. but, you can't ignore that guy today who's been out there for awhile would have more then than now proportionally.
there are some gray areas as far as anaologies go, but i don't see why we wouldn't err on the side of helping the lowly men out, given the constraints we've placed on them, denying property rights etc.

Edited November 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

you can work yourself into a knot saying i'm either a socialist or i'm not. (which isn't the case either or) but if you could do that, then don't think you're free from government mandated theivery. as if, to use my hypo from earlier thread to make the point, that hypothetical man as any actual right to take all the land on earth and deny the lowly family.
you're just as much if not more breaking the stealing commandment than anyone if you endorse that system. i'd suspect that we'd not both be breaking that commandment, so i'd err on it being you.

Edited November 18, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1421569' date='Nov 18 2007, 03:51 PM']you can work yourself into a knot saying i'm either a socialist or i'm not. (which isn't the case either or)[/quote]
Well as you haven't made any sort of coherent statements of any kind here, there's no way of saying what you think.

People had to work for things in the old days as now.
I'm not seeing the point, if there is any.

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='142370' date='Nov 17 2007, 11:04 PM']What is different today, is that rather than a nation of hardy pioneers, we have become a nation of fat, lazy, spoiled brats, who think we are all entitled to a big house, a couple new cars, and a big flatscreen hdtv, and if anyone lacks these necessities, it is up to the government to fix the "injustice."[/quote]
I don't disagree that we've become a nation of "fat, lazy, spoiled brats" but no one's calling for the government to provide us with a big house, a new car or flatscreen TV. On that note, a couple of points:
[list=1]
[*]In the US, "government" isn't "them." It's us.
[*]This argument is akin to the bogus "welfare queen" straw [wo]man posited by Reagan. No individuals are living large off the government teat.
[*]Those who *are* living large off the government teat are corporations, whose corporate welfare dwarfs the "entitlement" programs for individuals.
[*]Finally, calls for the provision of universal health care, to fund head start, to fund SCHIP, etc., are hardly the same as government provision of a big house, new car, or fancy consumer electronics. We can certainly have a debate over the merits or otherwise of providing these kinds of supports to the disadvantaged, but please don't muddy the waters with bogus claims about what people need or are asking for.
[/list]

[dairygirl4u2c]

you just don't understand philosophy soc.
i wonder if it's cause you're too lazy to exert any mental effort. this stuff isn't fall in your lap clear. you have to philosophize. engage my analogies and such. if you think it's as simple as life's tough, and least throw me a bone and acknowlege some points. so i don't think i'm talking to a brick wall. it's not the conservative position to be a brick wall, as many conservatives, such as al jeff etc are not brick walls.

i haven't seen you meaningfully respond to my thread asking when government invervention might be okay. maybe you're afraid of what you might say. and prefer to keep it simple... "charity is the answer, taxes are stealing from the rich, rather not talk about people who are suffering with little opportunity to advance."

you act as if nice living, such as maybe running water when they didn't have any back then, is so grand that of course you can afford health care. talk about incoherent. maybe running water back then was worth something. but now it's nothing. you failed to distinguish between opportunity and quality of life.
and then you refused to respond to my analogies and pointing it out.

plus i'm not advocating universal healthcare. just for the lowly starting out in life. and maybe the poor.
of course it's all contingent on each other. if they make enough with a decent wage, a minimum if that's the case, then they don't need and shouldn't get any assistance.

Edited November 19, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[avemaria40]

Regardless of political beliefs, I don't think children should be indoctrinated towards a particular party. Heck, I'm 18 and I'm not sure where I lean towards the most (and my campus is extremely political).

But please, we're not going to solve a particular problem by bashing the other side. And as long as you don't go out to support abortion, homosexual marriage, embryonic stem cell research, euthanasia, or human cloning, I don't think the Church cares whether you're a liberal or a conservative.

[Akalyte]

what i dont like is the whole "democrats for the poor and working man" "republicans for he rich and greedy man". when half the dem party is rich,greedy and many live in mansions and drive expensive vehicles. They try the whole karl marx aproach and only mean class warfare. I remember Father Frank Pavone saying that if Democrats take over the white house we are not changing which party is ruling but we are changing governments.

We will go from a democracy to a communist regime. Bye bye freedom, hello slavery. Then there's the whole "republicans are neo-nazi's" When there are Klan members and ex-klan members in the democratic party. What bothers me is the hypocrisy and the gullibility of many of the democrat voters who think their liberal leaders are going to save them from financial problems. Many of them are holding scratch tickets just hoping to get rich like the "rich and greedy republican party". I mean come on now....

[Akalyte]

another good one "war protests". Throwing rocks and stones at police officers while screaming "end the war". and holding peace signs. Is there sense in any of these people? I am glad my mommy and daddy were republicans, thats for sure, and "poor" ones at that.

Edited November 19, 2007 by Akalyte

[Socrates]

[quote name='kenrockthefirst' post='1422075' date='Nov 19 2007, 11:53 AM']I don't disagree that we've become a nation of "fat, lazy, spoiled brats" but no one's calling for the government to provide us with a big house, a new car or flatscreen TV. On that note, a couple of points:[/quote]
Ok, a bit of hyperbole to make a point. I didn't mean that people are literally demanding flatscreen tvs, etc. from the government, but my point is that people in this country materially have things much easier than in times past, yet demand ever more. I don't mean to discredit genuine poverty, but while in most of the world, poverty means literally not having food to eat or a roof over one's head, for most "poor" Americans, it means doing without things that are in reality luxuries. And many people live beyond their means. As someone here pointed out, how many Americans without health insurance own bigscreen TVs and other items?
Most Americans today take for granted things their great grandparents would have regarded as luxuries or never heard of.
I am speaking primarily of a change of attitude. Americans today, particularly the young generation, have a sense of entitlement to things which their ancestors did not.

Originally, I just pointed out how it's not the business of government to be everybody's "mommy," yet interestingly, such a highly controversial sentiment in itself provokes howls from the usual suspects.

[quote][*]In the US, "government" isn't "them." It's us.[/quote]
If I recall correctly, you've been quite critical of President Bush on here, yet do you consider the Bush administration to be "you"? Or do you consider yourself guilty for Bush's actions or policies with which you disagree?
While considering the government to be the embodiment of the mythical "Will of the People" may make nice "democratic" rhetoric, I think it hardly accurate, particularly if those in power are those one did not vote for.
If Hillary becomes president, for example, I would not consider her presidency or administration to in any way represent me. And it is not "me" that taxes my income without my consent.
But, I dunno, I guess I just don't share your collectivist mentality.

[quote][*]This argument is akin to the bogus "welfare queen" straw [wo]man posited by Reagan. No individuals are living large off the government teat.[/quote]
It's not entirely bogus, as there have indeed been "welfare queens." And there are plenty of people who spend their welfare checks on booze and designer sneakers, and make little effort to get a job. While these people may not exactly be "living large," people should not be living on welfare while not making any serious effort to find work or do anything productive. Government should not subsidize unproductive sloth at the expense of those who do work.

[quote][*]Those who *are* living large off the government teat are corporations, whose corporate welfare dwarfs the "entitlement" programs for individuals.[/quote]
Are you referring to corporate tax breaks here? While one can certainly argue that individuals or small businesses should get more tax breaks than huge corporations, a tax break is not "living off the government teat" - it is simply the government [b]not taking[/b] as much of the profits of other's work as it would have. by your logic, the working family man who gets tax breaks would also be living off the government teat.
Your rhetoric here implies that the profits of businesses or individuals are somehow [i]owned[/i] by the government, which unjustly "gives" the profits back to those who made them.
Big government liberals have it back-asswards.

[quote][*]Finally, calls for the provision of universal health care, to fund head start, to fund SCHIP, etc., are hardly the same as government provision of a big house, new car, or fancy consumer electronics. We can certainly have a debate over the merits or otherwise of providing these kinds of supports to the disadvantaged, but please don't muddy the waters with bogus claims about what people need or are asking for.[/quote]
See my original statement here.
It seems the more we have, the more we demand from government.

[Socrates]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1422084' date='Nov 19 2007, 12:07 PM']you just don't understand philosophy soc.
i wonder if it's cause you're too lazy to exert any mental effort. this stuff isn't fall in your lap clear. you have to philosophize. engage my analogies and such. if you think it's as simple as life's tough, and least throw me a bone and acknowlege some points. so i don't think i'm talking to a brick wall. it's not the conservative position to be a brick wall, as many conservatives, such as al jeff etc are not brick walls.

i haven't seen you meaningfully respond to my thread asking when government invervention might be okay. maybe you're afraid of what you might say. and prefer to keep it simple... "charity is the answer, taxes are stealing from the rich, rather not talk about people who are suffering with little opportunity to advance."

you act as if nice living, such as maybe running water when they didn't have any back then, is so grand that of course you can afford health care. talk about incoherent. maybe running water back then was worth something. but now it's nothing. you failed to distinguish between opportunity and quality of life.
and then you refused to respond to my analogies and pointing it out.

plus i'm not advocating universal healthcare. just for the lowly starting out in life. and maybe the poor.
of course it's all contingent on each other. if they make enough with a decent wage, a minimum if that's the case, then they don't need and shouldn't get any assistance.[/quote]
Ok, do you have anymore ad hominems?

I've taken five semesters of philosophy classes in college, studied minds much more brilliant than your own, I know what philosophy is, and, believe me, your illiterate and incoherent phatmass posts are [i]not[/i] philosophy.

The truth is your posts are so poorly written, it is impossible to follow what you are trying to say, and I know for a fact I am far from the only one that has this problem.
I'd recommend you take some good basic English grammar and and composition classes, learn how to put together a coherent sentence and paragraph, then you can get back to me on the great ideas.

Writing sloppy, vague, ungrammatical, and incoherent postings, then accusing anyone who can't follow them of being mentally inferior or lazy is just ridiculous.

[dairygirl4u2c]

nice way to dodge my the points yet again. ad hominem is only the case when the person uses it to avoid the issues. the only person avoiding the issues here is you.
if you don't like me saying you don't philosophize, then at least discuss. for the love of yeah. like the other civil people here. don't be a brick wall.

are you claiming that running water is so grand that anyone who had it could afford health care? you mentioned AC. the poorest don't have AC. if they have minimum wage, they could afford most of their health care if they have a bank account. they probably couldn't afford much more than that though, for bigger health etc necessity expenses. stuff, that back in the day, you could give the doctor a cow and have done. the poor and those starting out in life do not have the cow. do you claim they have the cow?
so, you're telling me they have a cow? ok joking aside.
i know my posts are not so incoherent as to be unaddressable. analogies rarely are. and my grammar is at least do able. please respond to my points. (espeically that last thread you so convieniently left, i'll bump it)

[quote]But, I dunno, I guess I just don't share your collectivist mentality.[/quote]
on reading you other post though. i applaud you for that. it seemed like a humble quote and a certain acknowledgement. unless by collectivist you meant socialist in a demeaning way. but it doesn't appear that way.

over all. the debate is shallow between you and him, the stuff you'd read in a pamphlet of left wing v right wing basic arguments. it's not getting to the underlying principles. "they're not all welfare queens" "well some are" *but you at least acknowledged your reasonable differences* the problem was lack of addressing the people who aren't welfare queens, and only saying "the more we have the more we want" as if that's addressing the issue, at least very directly.

Edited November 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[dairygirl4u2c]

[quote]Are you referring to corporate tax breaks here? While one can certainly argue that individuals or small businesses should get more tax breaks than huge corporations, a tax break is not "living off the government teat" - it is simply the government not taking as much of the profits of other's work as it would have. by your logic, the working family man who gets tax breaks would also be living off the government teat.
Your rhetoric here implies that the profits of businesses or individuals are somehow owned by the government, which unjustly "gives" the profits back to those who made them.
Big government liberals have it back-asswards.[/quote]

also, you are aware that corporations can get lower tax brackets than most people right? capital gains for example is like 15 while most tax payers pay much more.
it's more than simply not taking what's theirs, you're avoiding the fact that it's being unfair. if you were aware of that you're avoiding it, i mean.

Edited November 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='Socrates' post='1422621' date='Nov 19 2007, 10:56 PM']Ok, a bit of hyperbole to make a point. I didn't mean that people are literally demanding flatscreen tvs, etc. from the government, but my point is that people in this country materially have things much easier than in times past, yet demand ever more. I don't mean to discredit genuine poverty, but while in most of the world, poverty means literally not having food to eat or a roof over one's head, for most "poor" Americans, it means doing without things that are in reality luxuries. And many people live beyond their means. As someone here pointed out, how many Americans without health insurance own bigscreen TVs and other items?
Most Americans today take for granted things their great grandparents would have regarded as luxuries or never heard of.
I am speaking primarily of a change of attitude. Americans today, particularly the young generation, have a sense of entitlement to things which their ancestors did not.[/quote]
As I said, I share your sense that we have become "spoiled." However, it's also a matter of expectations. Yes, we take for granted things our great-grandparents would have considered luxuries, including indoor plumbing, heated homes, a lower infant mortality rate, vaccination against diseases such as polio, and increased life expectancies. And while I agree that poverty for most people in the world is of an abject nature that most in the US would never even dream of, that's more to our shame than anything else: we are the richest country in the history of the world, and for [i]anyone[/i] to live in poverty in the US is an indictment against us.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1422621' date='Nov 19 2007, 10:56 PM']Originally, I just pointed out how it's not the business of government to be everybody's "mommy," yet interestingly, such a highly controversial sentiment in itself provokes howls from the usual suspects.
If I recall correctly, you've been quite critical of President Bush on here, yet do you consider the Bush administration to be "you"? Or do you consider yourself guilty for Bush's actions or policies with which you disagree?
While considering the government to be the embodiment of the mythical "Will of the People" may make nice "democratic" rhetoric, I think it hardly accurate, particularly if those in power are those one did not vote for.
If Hillary becomes president, for example, I would not consider her presidency or administration to in any way represent me. And it is not "me" that taxes my income without my consent.
But, I dunno, I guess I just don't share your collectivist mentality.[/quote]
I don't agree with the Bush administration's policies but a) I don't have to, b) they don't need me to, and c) that's neither here nor there. Our government, the president and congress, were elected in free and fair elections, and is therefore legitimate. That's not "collectivist mentality," unless you consider living in a society in general in which there is civic give and take "collectivist."

[quote name='Socrates' post='1422621' date='Nov 19 2007, 10:56 PM']It's not entirely bogus, as there have indeed been "welfare queens." And there are plenty of people who spend their welfare checks on booze and designer sneakers, and make little effort to get a job. While these people may not exactly be "living large," people should not be living on welfare while not making any serious effort to find work or do anything productive. Government should not subsidize unproductive sloth at the expense of those who do work.[/quote]
Sorry, but it's bogus.

[quote name='Socrates' post='1422621' date='Nov 19 2007, 10:56 PM']Are you referring to corporate tax breaks here? While one can certainly argue that individuals or small businesses should get more tax breaks than huge corporations, a tax break is not "living off the government teat" - it is simply the government [b]not taking[/b] as much of the profits of other's work as it would have. by your logic, the working family man who gets tax breaks would also be living off the government teat.
Your rhetoric here implies that the profits of businesses or individuals are somehow [i]owned[/i] by the government, which unjustly "gives" the profits back to those who made them.
Big government liberals have it back-asswards.[/quote]
No, I'm talking about actual government subsidies. Check out the Cato Institute's [url="http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230"]The Corporate Welfare State: How the Federal Government Subsidizes U.S. Businesses[/url].

[dairygirl4u2c]

ken just to be fair.

how do you respond to the claim that we're stealing from the people who don't want to pay for others' welfare?
is it just a matter of inherent morality that you think it's right the right thing to do, or do you have specific reasons?
personally, i look at the issues often as a matter of justice, not just inherent "it's the nice thing to do". (when justice isn't the issue, there's only practical considerations, and if none of that, then government shouldn't be involved.)

Edited November 20, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[kenrockthefirst]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1422814' date='Nov 20 2007, 11:32 AM']ken just to be fair.

how do you respond to the claim that we're stealing from the people who don't want to pay for others' welfare?
is it just a matter of inherent morality that you think it's right the right thing to do, or do you have specific reasons?
personally, i look at the issues often as a matter of justice, not just inherent "it's the nice thing to do". (when justice isn't the issue, there's only practical considerations, and if none of that, then government shouldn't be involved.)[/quote]
We live in a society, which means that we all give up some degree of personal freedom for the benefit of all. Otherwise, it's just a free-for-all in which the strong survive, and to hell with the weak, the infirm, the aged, the young.