Conservatism vs Liberalism

[JohnfrmClevelan]

I'd like to hear the left say that scammers should starve and be poor. If you can't say that then there's no sense in having a discussion anyway because you want to let them scam in the first place.

I think that idiots should be left to starve and be poor. Idiots have done far more damage to this country than a few welfare cheats. Idiots have saddled us with trump, Dubya, Reagan, McConnell, Ryan... these guys have cost the country far more than a few food stamps.

 

[AlbqOwl]

https://www.prageru.com/signup/fb-video-out-poverty


How do we get people out of poverty?

Sent from my SM-G920V using Tapatalk

I won't sign up to get the video, but I think my sig line is where you start.

1. You have an economy where all able bodied adults are expected to work and those who want to work can work.

2. You restore a cultural trend in which people are expected to get married before having kids, and parents are fully responsible for housing, clothing, feeding their children and seeing that they are educated.

3. You rescind or revoke all government policies that interfere or discourage or remove incentive for #1 and #2.

That won't fix the whole problem but it is a good start and would reduce the problem to something manageable at the local level where the most effective remedies will be found.

 

[winston53660]

Women can have all the abortions they want. Then they get to answer to God for them.

Give them, O LORD: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb and dry breasts.

Hosea 9:14

At that time Menahem, starting out from Tirzah, attacked Tiphsah and everyone in the city and its vicinity, because they refused to open their gates. He sacked Tiphsah and ripped open all the pregnant women. (2 Kings 15:16)

 

[iguanaman]

I'd like to hear the left say that scammers should starve and be poor. If you can't say that then there's no sense in having a discussion anyway because you want to let them scam in the first place.

First you have to say that you want the poor to suffer and starve because.....they are poor. Don't be ashamed, you are just one in a line of skinflints and haters that goes back as far as we can see. But you know what happened to those societies? They were overthrown by the poor and those that wished to help them. Even China knows that and that is why Chinese wages are among the fastest growing in the world.

 

[iguanaman]

I won't sign up to get the video, but I think my sig line is where you start.

1. You have an economy where all able bodied adults are expected to work and those who want to work can work.

2. You restore a cultural trend in which people are expected to get married before having kids, and parents are fully responsible for housing, clothing, feeding their children and seeing that they are educated.

3. You rescind or revoke all government policies that interfere or discourage or remove incentive for #1 and #2.

That won't fix the whole problem but it is a good start and would reduce the problem to something manageable at the local level where the most effective remedies will be found.

In other words you desire a totalitarian State right out of Orwell. Forced labor and Legislated morality requires that level of surveillance.

 

[Moderate Right]

I think that idiots should be left to starve and be poor. Idiots have done far more damage to this country than a few welfare cheats. Idiots have saddled us with trump, Dubya, Reagan, McConnell, Ryan... these guys have cost the country far more than a few food stamps.

That brings pleasure to my ears hearing you say that. It just goes to show how little you understand why Republicans have attained the most power of any party since 1928 and it doesn't have anything to do with Trump. It was already happening before Trump even decided to run, you guys just buried your heads in the sand while it was going on right in front of your faces. Your side was not only arrogant during that time but you were so arrogant in thinking that there was no way Hillary could lose this election. Once you drop the arrogance in thinking that you are right all the time about everything you may actually start gaining some seats back. Until then you can just keep on calling the other side idiots and keep on losing seats.

 

[Moderate Right]

First you have to say that you want the poor to suffer and starve because.....they are poor. Don't be ashamed, you are just one in a line of skinflints and haters that goes back as far as we can see. But you know what happened to those societies? They were overthrown by the poor and those that wished to help them. Even China knows that and that is why Chinese wages are among the fastest growing in the world.

I knew you couldn't say it and I won't say that because that's not the way I feel. In fact, I have said many times that we don't do enough to help the ones who truly need help that aren't scammers. You, however, are perfectly fine with bums scamming the system. That's the liberal meme, enact policies that actually discourage people from working by giving them free stuff without having to earn any of it, such as steal from the rich and give to the poor.

 

[Critter7r]

I'd like to hear the left say that scammers should starve and be poor. If you can't say that then there's no sense in having a discussion anyway because you want to let them scam in the first place.

So you have no clue how you would even address it.

Got it.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Critter7r]

I'm not going to sit here and endlessly post cherry picked facts to counter your cherry picked facts. If you want to have a real discussion without posting your cherry picked facts then let me know.

That's called a philosophical discussion.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[AlbqOwl]

In other words you desire a totalitarian State right out of Orwell. Forced labor and Legislated morality requires that level of surveillance.

If what I posted says totalitarianism to you, you obviously need to look up the definition of the word as well as re-read Orwell. There was nothing in my post to suggest that anybody would be forced to work. But what I am suggesting is that other people not be forced to support you if you choose not to support yourself. I can see how some people would have a problem with that.

 

[Critter7r]

I won't sign up to get the video, but I think my sig line is where you start.

1. You have an economy where all able bodied adults are expected to work and those who want to work can work.

2. You restore a cultural trend in which people are expected to get married before having kids, and parents are fully responsible for housing, clothing, feeding their children and seeing that they are educated.

3. You rescind or revoke all government policies that interfere or discourage or remove incentive for #1 and #2.

That won't fix the whole problem but it is a good start and would reduce the problem to something manageable at the local level where the most effective remedies will be found.

#1 sounds like a good idea on its face, but there is an unintended consequence in that it increases the pool of available workers and decreases wages.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Henrin]

In other words you desire a totalitarian State right out of Orwell. Forced labor and Legislated morality requires that level of surveillance.

Most of those are cultural or social changes.

 

[Critter7r]

I won't sign up to get the video, but I think my sig line is where you start.

1. You have an economy where all able bodied adults are expected to work and those who want to work can work.

2. You restore a cultural trend in which people are expected to get married before having kids, and parents are fully responsible for housing, clothing, feeding their children and seeing that they are educated.

3. You rescind or revoke all government policies that interfere or discourage or remove incentive for #1 and #2.

That won't fix the whole problem but it is a good start and would reduce the problem to something manageable at the local level where the most effective remedies will be found.

#2 is a Catch-22. Its a cultural trend that can't be legislated, so it can only be changed by changing it.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[AlbqOwl]

#1 sounds like a good idea on its face, but there is an unintended consequence in that it increases the pool of available workers and decreases wages.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

It doesn't in a thriving economy in which there are jobs for all who want them. In such an economy it is pretty much a seller's market for labor and, with employers competing for the best people, they generally will pay more. It is only when the pool of labor far exceeds the demand that it becomes a buyer's market for labor and that will suppress wages.

 

[Henrin]

#2 is a Catch-22. Its a cultural trend that can't be legislated, so it can only be changed by changing it.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I would say a good part of that is handled with three. I would however seriously consider reform to marriage laws to decrease the negative consequences to marriage.

 

[Critter7r]

It doesn't in a thriving economy in which there are jobs for all who want them. In such an economy it is pretty much a seller's market for labor and, with employers competing for the best people, they generally will pay more. It is only when the pool of labor far exceeds the demand that it becomes a buyer's market for labor and that will suppress wages.

So when the economy isn't thriving, do we suspend those laws?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Moderate Right]

So you have no clue how you would even address it.

Got it.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Many times you can't find solutions to the problem by looking at paper statistics. I don't know how the nuts and bolts of these things work and the only way you can find a solution to the problem is in looking at the nuts and bolts. If I were to work in one of these many programs where there is fraud I could figure out a solution and implement it (if I had the power to do so).

I used to be a retail manager for a convenience store chain and I trained managers and was considered an inventory and bottom line expert. I was transferred to a store in another state to find a huge problem with the bottom line of a store the higher ups couldn't figure out what was wrong. That's because you can't figure out what is wrong by looking at sheets of paper. After being a manager in the store for a few weeks I was able to determine that the problem was with vendors coming in and charging us X amount of dollars for a product and then they would price their own merchandise (that's actually how it usually worked before UPC codes) at a ridiculously low price, sometimes even below cost. The merchandise would fly out of the store but we either weren't making any profit on it or actually losing money. Just about every vendor was doing it. Anyway, it took someone who was right there on the scene and new the nuts and bolts to figure out where the store was getting scammed.

The left is perfectly fine with letting scammers be scammers. It's like when you are in a store and you see someone stealing but you don't say anything because you figure the only reason they are stealing is because they are poor and can't afford it or that the store's owners are rich so who cares? So, you let them be scammers. This is the mantra of the left.

 

[AlbqOwl]

#2 is a Catch-22. Its a cultural trend that can't be legislated, so it can only be changed by changing it.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

I didn't say it would be legislated though the government can legislate to remove incentives not to work, not to be married. The choice would be left up to the people themselves.

And it would be the responsibility of we the people, not the government, to teach our children that honorable people work for what they receive, and the surest way to prosper is to stay away from illegal substances and activities, learn to speak, dress, and deport yourself for success, stay in school and educate yourself, be willing to work at whatever mcjobs are available to develop a work ethic and acquire experience and references to qualify for better paying jobs, and get married before having kids.

 

[AlbqOwl]

So when the economy isn't thriving, do we suspend those laws?

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

Suspend what laws?

 

[Moderate Right]

That's called a philosophical discussion.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

It takes time to find cherry picked facts and more time to rebut with cherry picked facts and I refuse to play an endless battle of cherry picked facts with someone. While others seem to have endless time, I do not. I have already taken a lot of time to find facts to post in many threads but you guys just counter with more cherry picked facts. If someone wants to have a discussion about something not using cherry picked facts then we can have a discussion but you guys are incapable of posting any facts that aren't cherry picked. So, I will just point out the fact that your facts are cherry picked, which they usually are.

 

[Critter7r]

Suspend what laws?

The ones requiring all able bodies workers to work.

If you didn't mean "#1" to be any sort of law, then my apologies, I took it that way.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Critter7r]

It takes time to find cherry picked facts and more time to rebut with cherry picked facts and I refuse to play an endless battle of cherry picked facts with someone. While others seem to have endless time, I do not. I have already taken a lot of time to find facts to post in many threads but you guys just counter with more cherry picked facts. If someone wants to have a discussion about something not using cherry picked facts then we can have a discussion but you guys are incapable of posting any facts that aren't cherry picked. So, I will just point out the fact that your facts are cherry picked, which they usually are.

Again, your post indicates that you're looking for a philisophical discussion, just with more words than the last one where I told you that.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Critter7r]

Many times you can't find solutions to the problem by looking at paper statistics. I don't know how the nuts and bolts of these things work and the only way you can find a solution to the problem is in looking at the nuts and bolts. If I were to work in one of these many programs where there is fraud I could figure out a solution and implement it (if I had the power to do so).

I used to be a retail manager for a convenience store chain and I trained managers and was considered an inventory and bottom line expert. I was transferred to a store in another state to find a huge problem with the bottom line of a store the higher ups couldn't figure out what was wrong. That's because you can't figure out what is wrong by looking at sheets of paper. After being a manager in the store for a few weeks I was able to determine that the problem was with vendors coming in and charging us X amount of dollars for a product and then they would price their own merchandise (that's actually how it usually worked before UPC codes) at a ridiculously low price, sometimes even below cost. The merchandise would fly out of the store but we either weren't making any profit on it or actually losing money. Just about every vendor was doing it. Anyway, it took someone who was right there on the scene and new the nuts and bolts to figure out where the store was getting scammed.

The left is perfectly fine with letting scammers be scammers. It's like when you are in a store and you see someone stealing but you don't say anything because you figure the only reason they are stealing is because they are poor and can't afford it or that the store's owners are rich so who cares? So, you let them be scammers. This is the mantra of the left.

First, I find it difficult to believe that auditors couldn't figure out why a 7-11 that was paying more for products than it was selling them for, was losing money and needed to send you there in person to crack that case for them.

Second, yet another anecdote not dealing with the subject matter.

Third, the nuts and bolts you're looking for? Guess what those are called? Facts. And by your definition, they are cherry picked and can't be trusted. Congrats, you've painted yourself into a Catch-22 corner.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

 

[Gimmesometruth]

But what I am suggesting is that other people not be forced to support you if you choose not to support yourself.

Since the context is SNAP, and that the overwhelming majority are either too old or too young to work, and the rest are required to work, yer argument is more Randian than anything. No one is forcing you to remain in this society.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The ones requiring all able bodies workers to work.

If you didn't mean "#1" to be any sort of law, then my apologies, I took it that way.

Sent from my SM-G360V using Tapatalk

No. If I had intended it to be law I would have specified law. I said we need to return to a culture in which all able bodied adults are EXPECTED to work for what they get. But it would be their choice. They just couldn't expect government assistance without agreeing to that.

We set aside the PC argument that some are oppressed or disadvantaged or whatever. That should not be considered an excuse for neglecting to do what we need to do to legally and ethically support ourselves as much as we are able.

So, IMO, the law should specify that an able bodied person will perform community service or do something useful in return for government assistance. Such a law, in my opinion, would help reorient people into a concept of doing for themselves. If they have to get up in the morning, get cleaned up, get appropriately dressed, and report to do community service work in return for a government pittance, they will be much more likely to think of getting a real job that pays better. And the kids would see mom or dad getting up in the morning and going out to work for that weekly check and would not be raised with a sense of entitlement and expectation that the government will take care of him/her. It would begin to break an unrelenting cycle of poverty passed down from generation to generation.