Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
![]()
They do have a right to be annoyed, sure. But You could maybe..I dunno, DO something about it instead? Because being "annoyed" or as DG put it, snarking about it, doesnt improve shit or motivate them to change, it just makes them feel even worse about themselves.
People in the projects buy rims because its a cultural thing, and generally, social status among peers matters most. So maybe address that instead of just being mad at the person. Businesses do that because they like escaping from regulations that force them to treat workers as people instead of replaceable cogs, so that needs to be addressed too.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:45:30 AM by Midgetsnowman
What you're doing, Starship, is poisoning the idea of programs to help the needy by saying that they might also help the undeserving. That's a risk regardless, but really it's not for you (or any of us, really) to define who deserves what help on the basis of how they choose to spend their leisure time. Ghetto culture is a "thing", just like every counterculture movement has been since the dawn of time. I can't say I like it either, but if someone's going to be spending their spare money on rims, that's at least an improvement over spending it on coke or meth.
And as DG says, there's no law that says you can't have nice things just because you're poor. If someone's spending money on fancy handbags or rims instead of feeding their kids, that's one thing, but you don't get to dictate what people do with their money as a precondition for helping them.
Hell, take Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. By the ethics you're discussing here, he should have spent that found dollar on food for his family, not a chocolate bar. And maybe, in a world without narrative causality, he would have starved to death rather than find the last Golden Ticket. But his desire to have a chocolate bar does not make him unworthy of help.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:49:18 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"People are often quick to label others as leeches, when they might have issues nobody has every bothered to investigate, let alone address. <shrugs> Doesn't mean their problems don't exist, just because they don't know how to deal with them.
Also, even if their priorities skew into areas others disagree with doesn't make them any less valid. After all, innovation often comes from strange places: to get those rims done, somebody needed to put the work in to customise them. <shrugs> That person is doing alright, right?
Even "spongers" help the wider economy around them, just by going out to get food.
Somebody will make something of that.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:50:25 AM by Euodiachloris
Regarding Maxima's point: while we probably are not at the point that he is wary of (and I feel this way after seeing a documentary about existing poverty), it's still a good ideal check to ensure that we don't go too far in collectivism that we lose the essence of capitalism.
The main justification is that if we go over the line with welfare and liberal evening out, then having more wealth loses meaning. What's the point of having earned more money if you can't reap any benefits with it? I know we're not at that level yet but it's worth remembering.
You know, I'm not sure why the author of the book chose to add the part that Charlie changed his mind. His original goal was to buy a 10-cent chocolate bar and eat it right there, fulfilling a wish, and return the rest of the money to the family. But then he decided "just one more bar" and it was the second bar that had the golden ticket.
edited 6th Dec '12 3:21:07 PM by Trivialis
![]()
Thats another thing, yeah. I always find it funny when people get mad that people /might/ spend welfare money on luxury goods. As though somehow the fact they spent their "immoral" money on an Xbox doesnt help the economy grow.
we're nowhere near that level.
Nowhere.
Not to mention, the main benefit of wealth isnt buying fuckloads of shit. Its being able to afford basic healthcare and never having to worry about losing your housde or the health quality of your food supply.
The only unique thing high amounts of money allows you to do is to make fuckloads of money off investing fuckloads of money in creative ways that dont get taxed . In short. using money to make money.
any other "benefit" is control freak shit like only donating to causes you support morally or being able to live in a gated community away from the commoners.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:04:17 AM by Midgetsnowman
How??? We're not even talking about programs. I'm saying there's a growing demographic of people in all income brackets who don't seem to have any concept of personal responsibility.
This is what aggravates many about certain progressives. It's like, this chant "Programs! Programs! Save the programs!" now makes any mere hint of "Y'know these people can take some agency with their lives" a crime.
Disagreed. First off, since it was missed the first time, I have no issue with someone doing as they choose with their money. As a capitalist, that's a central tenet.
But you are stone cold wrong that I have no right to question giving money to someone who's simply wasting due to misaligned priorities. You can do whatever you want with your money, but when my taxes disappear into a neverending spiral of babysitting checks when they can be used to actually help the people who need it, you need to be damn well certain I'm going to bitch and bitch loudly.
I need no one's permission to be pissed off that I'm expected to work for mine, and others aren't. And as for do something, what do you suggest? Pat them on the head and reassure them that they're a victim and that mustn't trouble themselves to do better?
It was an honor@Triv: We are at that point. Last year Drunkscriblerian got a raise, and because it pushed us into the next tax bracket, we lost food stamps and got less take-home pay and no tax return.
@Starship:
Which is the exact same argument that the people used to justify snarking at me for having a nice purse. They just assumed that I had purchased it, and that I had used their tax dollars to do so.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:07:33 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianI think I missed the part of the discussion where you actually provided hard evidence for this.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.But what's ultimately the point if that money doesn't provide you benefits or a higher standard of living? You're just working harder for nothing, and in fact you're probably pointlessly hurting the economy/other people.
I too said that we're probably not at the level that Starship says the right is using as a justification. But it's still a useful theoretical check.
![]()
![]()
Tough. I work for my college degree too. I've been on unemployment, and will shamelessly admit IO bought videogames with the money.
And no, what you should do is go out into their community, help fix structural problems that lead to it being more important to have rims than a college education to not be ostracized socially, and otherwise you know. Do the christian thing and worry more about helping the poor than bragging about how much hard work you do for what you have or how much more you deserve things.
Jesus didnt give a shit about how much hard work you did. He gave a shit about the poor for you know. Existing. Never once did the idea of "only these poor people who dont mooch off the government deserve help" ever enter the Bible to my knowledge.
My point was, past a certain level of wealth, more wealth doesnt improve your standard of living all that much except in the size of your mansion or being able to afford the best possible doctors. There isnt an appreciable difference in quality of life between a guy who makes 500,000 a year and Mitt Romney outside the luxury goods they can buy.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:10:42 AM by Midgetsnowman
Let's go about this another way. Who is teaching financial responsibility? The onus is supposed to be on parents, of course, have not proven themselves to be fiscally responsible, as they are really the ones who caused this financial crisis. Rich and poor alike do not know how to handle money. So where?
The essence of capitalism sounds nice in theory.
In practice, its more akin to "he who is best at manipulating a thousand morons into buying his useless product wins"
Earning stuff, I can get behind. Assuming guilt before innocene upon the poor as though the most likely explanation for their continued poorness is a moral failing isnt capitalism, its some weird economic calvinism.
edited 19th Nov '12 10:13:12 AM by Midgetsnowman
@Triv: I personally don't support pure capitalism or capitalistic libertarianism, because it shakes out to the rich guys at the top screwing the poor guys at the bottom.
I think that there needs to be regulations and social programs to keep that from happening.
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -DrunkscriblerianYes, that's why we say pure laissez-faire capitalism is infeasible and we have various governmental and other efforts to help even the playing field. But it's still maintaining the essence of capitalism.
I interpret Starship's point as "Let's remember to keep that essence", and by that much I agree; I just also think that we still have plenty of room to support the poor while leaving that essence intact.
I find it intellectually disingenuous of people to make the argument that correcting the stark levels of wealth gap would lead to wealth becoming meaningless even on a purely theoretical level. That will NEVER happen, unless the country itself falls apart with so little forewarning that the wealthy don't have time to evacuate, because power inherently consolidates more power. Always has, always will.
I also find it disingenuous to frame it as capitalism versus anti-capitalism, seeing as how our current levels of wealth disparity are simply not sustainable and lead to an incredibly self-destructive economy wherein companies are plundered for short term gain and left to rot afterward. Allowing wealth to consolidate itself on the basis that the wealthy 'deserve' it inevitably results in them bleeding the system dry until the system itself can no longer function.
It doesn't matter how good a businessman you are if people don't have the money to buy what you make.
Furthermore, I think Guantanamo must be destroyed.Simply put, the era of the 1950's saw a 91% top marginal tax rate and an effective marginal tax rate of 70%, and had the greatest degree of economic freedom and innovation in our history.
Finland and other Nordic countries tend to rank at the very top of eace of doing business indices and all sorts of measures about innovation and R&D. This is precisely because of the benefits we get from having high tax rates and because we place the ideal of equal opportunity at the very core of our Constitutions (plural because I'm talking about Nordic countries in general) and other institutions.
Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.@Triv: My point is that his point is that Starship, while well meaning, doesnt really examine what he's saying. The hardest working people are not the highest paid, and never have been. The people who work their asses off to earn their keep are factory workers. Steelworkers. Retail associates. construction workers. Scientists and doctors.
NONE of them make anywhere close to the same amount of money as a CEO, banker or investment associate and never will.
I mostly just think that there should not exist so many jobs that one cannot live off of. There are two obvious solutions to this but both require what one would consider the redistribution of wealth. That, and some better safety net for people who get sick and can't work, etc. The fact is though that there are so many positive externalities one can get by having people in a society at a certain level that it's not even funny.
However, yeah, I still think people should be rewarded for working hard and innovating.
NONE of them make anywhere close to the same amount of money as a CEO, banker or investment associate and never will.
You really have to stop refuting arguments of your own making.
That sucks, and I'd change that.
Sadly, ignorance is a thing. I wouldn't have had an issue if you had taken my tax dollars to buy a nice handbag.
You, DG, are precisely the kind of person I'd trip over myself to help because you can be trusted to be responsible with that help. Some people aren't you, and it seems that it's a crime to even admit that, let alone hold them accountable for it.
As I said, one can review statements made on these very threads to see what I'm talking about.
Jesus didnt give a shit about how much hard work you did. He gave a shit about the poor for you know. Existing. Never once did the idea of "only these poor people who dont mooch off the government deserve help" ever enter the Bible to my knowledge.
You want to bring the Bible into this? Okay, let's do it. The Bible actually says a man that won't work shouldn't eat.
And Jesus said help the poor and needy, yes. He never said help the lazy and entitled. If he did say that somewhere, please let me know.
It was an honorAnd Jesus said help the poor and needy, yes. He never said help the lazy and entitled. If he did say that somewhere, please let me know.
Well, there is that 'judge not lest ye be judged' bit, and his emphasis on helping out even the lowest and most disdained members of society (see also, Matthew 25:40).
What's precedent ever done for us?
Not to mention theres no actual factual evidence theres this massive amount of poor people that are only poor because they sit at home eating fried chicken and watermelon while they blow up their friends on Co D Black Ops 2 instead of job hunting.
To be frank, Starship, there are more lazy and entitled people in the upper class than in the lower, by percentage. You keep saying you support social programs to help those who deserve it, but then you insist on that "personal responsibility" meme that our esteemed Mr. Romney used to classify everyone who gets government support of any kind as a moocher.
This is classic aristocratic arrogance. We'll give to the poor because it makes us feel better about being rich, but we don't want them thinking they can ever truly be as good at us. So what we'll do is find a few of them that we can elevate above the rest, call it an example of what can happen if you really work hard, while making it clear that we won't help them one bit along the way. This way they come to believe that they are indeed undeserving and will stop trying so hard, so we can justifiably blame them for being lazy.
Meanwhile we can actually be lazy and feel good about it because we "earned" it.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

I don't think they have any right at all to assume things about my position in life because I make an attempt to not look like a homeless person.
edited 19th Nov '12 9:44:13 AM by DrunkGirlfriend
"I don't know how I do it. I'm like the Mr. Bean of sex." -Drunkscriblerian