hoofhearted4 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 welfare will never be cut. those are tons and tons of votes right there. any politician who wants to weed out welfare is screwed because he would lose out on votes unfortunately. unless they made it so you cant vote on welfare ahaha.....they should at least require a drug test for welfare and other government services. if i have to take a drug test to work where i work, you have to take a drug test to get the money from my work. that would solve a lot of welfare problems! as i said, cutting taxes doesnt mean cutting ALL taxes. the government would still have money and will still have an income from other taxes. also, as i said, you cant cut taxes without cutting spending. if you spend less, youll need less, if you need less, then you dont need as much taxes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 welfare will never be cut. those are tons and tons of votes right there. any politician who wants to weed out welfare is screwed because he would lose out on votes unfortunately. unless they made it so you cant vote on welfare ahaha.....they should at least require a drug test for welfare and other government services. if i have to take a drug test to work where i work, you have to take a drug test to get the money from my work. that would solve a lot of welfare problems! as i said, cutting taxes doesnt mean cutting ALL taxes. the government would still have money and will still have an income from other taxes. also, as i said, you cant cut taxes without cutting spending. if you spend less, youll need less, if you need less, then you dont need as much taxes. Only one problem. The government isn't in the business of controlling their budget, that's why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt........ Your ideal society sounds good, but, once humans get involved, you can forget it. We are some of the rudest, most wasteful, selfish critters on the planet. Wolves are better at sharing than we are. (at least, among their own pack.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 So you think 'weeding out' people that are not compatible with your moral outlook is acceptable? So you don't think that selfishness is a terrible thing and shouldn't be weeded out of human behavior? Okay. :rolleyes: Be unselfish....or else. A terrible thing would be someone who thinks they can go around telling people how they should behaviour, and then weeding the ones out who didn't conform. :rolleyes: Plus it doesn't work like that anyway. The society would be started by people who already abandoned selfishness on their own. Weeding out those who refuse to help out is a way of maintaining that society. You wouldn't expect a communist (real communist mind you) to last if it was overrun by capitalists would you? No. In the same way, you can't expect a society that works around selflessness to last if the selfish are allowed to have the same benefits as the selfless without giving anything back. The idea is great. But when pretty much all wealth in the world is being focused on 1 thing: methods of getting more of it. Most of the time it's grand motivator doesn't give a crap if it helps people, it certainly doesn't want to have anything to do with sharing. Giving stuff away isn't exactly easy, I mean it's easy in the sense, here ya go take this stuff. it's all well and good telling people they must give their stuff away or else be weeded, but most people spend the greater portion of their life trying to get stuff, and not to just give it away. So I do not think it is a fair thing to demand of people at all. Hard to control when the surrounding land comes to refuse to support you because of your selfishness. And if it gets to the point where that selfish person/family doesn't need to rely on the surrounding society to suppor them, then there's the bigger problem of there being an essential invasion. Selfishness can be tolerated to a point, but not to the point where it becomes detrimental to society to keep those selfish people/families in their midst.when this weeding out the selfish crusade starts, I personally doubt people will start demanding stuff from neighbours. What is the criteria for being selfish anyway? seems like rather vague nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imperistan Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Be unselfish....or else. A terrible thing would be someone who thinks they can go around telling people how they should behaviour, and then weeding the ones out who didn't conform. Thats the way to do it, halting progress and all. :rolleyes: The idea is great. But when pretty much all wealth in the world is being focused on 1 thing: methods of getting more of it. Most of the time it's grand motivator doesn't give a crap if it helps people, it certainly doesn't want to have anything to do with sharing. Giving stuff away isn't exactly easy, I mean it's easy in the sense, here ya go take this stuff. it's all well and good telling people they must give their stuff away or else be weeded, but most people spend the greater portion of their life trying to get stuff, and not to just give it away. So I do not think it is a fair thing to demand of people at all. Except you're missing the part where nothing is demanded. The weeding out only amounts to denying those who refuse to participate the ability to go up to the goverment and ask for free food if they need it. The ability to recieve healthcare regardless of whether they can afford it or not. And so on and so forth. The general population can still help them out if they so choose (as is their right) but no help will be government sanctioned. (though it won't be government condemned either) It isn't a bad thing to hold people to a higher standard. And when there are incentives to following this higher standard, it isn't a bad thing to deny those incentives to those who refuse to adhere to that standard. You cannot seriously say that people being more selfless would be a bad thing. Unlike other situations where acting like this to promote X standard can be quite terrible (because X standard only applies to a certain few), this isn't terrible at all, because selflessness can apply universally. when this weeding out the selfish crusade starts, I personally doubt people will start demanding stuff from neighbours. What is the criteria for being selfish anyway? seems like rather vague nonsense. Who said anything about anyone demanding anything? And seriously? I'm not going to spell it out for you. If it isn't obvious then you don't belong here discussing this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 welfare will never be cut. those are tons and tons of votes right there. any politician who wants to weed out welfare is screwed because he would lose out on votes unfortunately. unless they made it so you cant vote on welfare ahaha.....they should at least require a drug test for welfare and other government services. if i have to take a drug test to work where i work, you have to take a drug test to get the money from my work. that would solve a lot of welfare problems! as i said, cutting taxes doesnt mean cutting ALL taxes. the government would still have money and will still have an income from other taxes. also, as i said, you cant cut taxes without cutting spending. if you spend less, youll need less, if you need less, then you dont need as much taxes. Only one problem. The government isn't in the business of controlling their budget, that's why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt........ Your ideal society sounds good, but, once humans get involved, you can forget it. We are some of the rudest, most wasteful, selfish critters on the planet. Wolves are better at sharing than we are. (at least, among their own pack.) the problem is, Americans dont pay attention to s***. they listen to whatever the Politicians tell them, without looking at their history. they just want to hear certain words and they are happy. like Change. i think this is an amazing example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YOh-rpvjYg vote Ron Paul. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeyYou Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 welfare will never be cut. those are tons and tons of votes right there. any politician who wants to weed out welfare is screwed because he would lose out on votes unfortunately. unless they made it so you cant vote on welfare ahaha.....they should at least require a drug test for welfare and other government services. if i have to take a drug test to work where i work, you have to take a drug test to get the money from my work. that would solve a lot of welfare problems! as i said, cutting taxes doesnt mean cutting ALL taxes. the government would still have money and will still have an income from other taxes. also, as i said, you cant cut taxes without cutting spending. if you spend less, youll need less, if you need less, then you dont need as much taxes. Only one problem. The government isn't in the business of controlling their budget, that's why we are 15 trillion dollars in debt........ Your ideal society sounds good, but, once humans get involved, you can forget it. We are some of the rudest, most wasteful, selfish critters on the planet. Wolves are better at sharing than we are. (at least, among their own pack.) the problem is, Americans dont pay attention to s***. they listen to whatever the Politicians tell them, without looking at their history. they just want to hear certain words and they are happy. like Change. i think this is an amazing example: http://www.youtube.c...h?v=0YOh-rpvjYg vote Ron Paul. :D Or "Lower Taxes"..... It should be scary just how accurate the video clip is........ And it's true. Americans are divided basically into thirds. The Democrats, the Republicans, and Everyone Else. :D There is very little difference between the D's, and R's when it comes to foreign policy. They might just as well be the same party. Domestic policy is where they differ, with the dems seeming to want everyone on welfare, and the republicans just wanting their rich buddies to get richer. (some d's fall into that category as well....) With the FLOOD of mass media, and the far right leaning, and far left leaning 24/7/365 news channels spewing their pap, it really shouldn't come as a surprise that we have such a polarized society. There ARE a few folks that I interact with on various newspaper blogs, that have a clue, and realize what it's going to take to turn this country around domestically.... Trouble is, the folks that are in power have zero motivation to change ANYTHING, as they make more money by NOT changing anything. They may make noises about "change", and "an america you can believe in" etc. But, it's all BS. Big money controls who runs for office, and who gets elected. If you DON'T have billions backing you, you don't stand a chance. And once you ARE elected, if you want to STAY in office, you better do as your Big Money Masters say, or, the 'other guy' will get their backing, and you will retire... no more government perks for you. (aside from your FULL salary, and 100% health care coverage for the rest of your life..... that's friggin stupid too, but, guess who would have to vote to change it..... That's right, the very people that benefit most from NOT changing it.) With our current tax, and foreign policies, america is going to be bankrupt within a decade. We simply can't afford being "world police" any more. It won't be a war that brings down america, it will be economic collapse, that our government brought down on us while we watched, and we KEPT ON VOTING THE SAME PEOPLE INTO OFFICE. Individually, there are some americans that are actually pretty bright, and astute. Collectively though, we got nothin' on a box of rocks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoofhearted4 Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 america is going to be bankrupt within a decade. define bankrupt? cause last time i checked $15.3 trillion in debt was bankrupt. :wallbash: :facepalm: http://www.usdebtclock.org/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghogiel Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) Be unselfish....or else. A terrible thing would be someone who thinks they can go around telling people how they should behaviour, and then weeding the ones out who didn't conform. Thats the way to do it, halting progress and all. :rolleyes: The idea is great. But when pretty much all wealth in the world is being focused on 1 thing: methods of getting more of it. Most of the time it's grand motivator doesn't give a crap if it helps people, it certainly doesn't want to have anything to do with sharing. Giving stuff away isn't exactly easy, I mean it's easy in the sense, here ya go take this stuff. it's all well and good telling people they must give their stuff away or else be weeded, but most people spend the greater portion of their life trying to get stuff, and not to just give it away. So I do not think it is a fair thing to demand of people at all. Except you're missing the part where nothing is demanded. The weeding out only amounts to denying those who refuse to participate the ability to go up to the goverment and ask for free food if they need it. The ability to recieve healthcare regardless of whether they can afford it or not. And so on and so forth. The general population can still help them out if they so choose (as is their right) but no help will be government sanctioned. (though it won't be government condemned either) It isn't a bad thing to hold people to a higher standard. And when there are incentives to following this higher standard, it isn't a bad thing to deny those incentives to those who refuse to adhere to that standard. You cannot seriously say that people being more selfless would be a bad thing. Unlike other situations where acting like this to promote X standard can be quite terrible (because X standard only applies to a certain few), this isn't terrible at all, because selflessness can apply universally. when this weeding out the selfish crusade starts, I personally doubt people will start demanding stuff from neighbours. What is the criteria for being selfish anyway? seems like rather vague nonsense. Who said anything about anyone demanding anything? And seriously? I'm not going to spell it out for you. If it isn't obvious then you don't belong here discussing this. You said something about an essential invasion, I took that to mean that the selfish people with their resources that they keep to themselves would be invaded because they have enough wealth or resource that the proletariat would want it, then invade them to take their stuff. I admit you confused me what you were on about with paragraph. So basically you have a choice to be selfless, and give freely of your own volition, or else you will not be eligible to any/all the benefits that a society would otherwise have granted you. there is a clear 'or else' to me. For there are reprocussions, which amount to class division, by not donating of your own freewill you become a lesser citizen with less rights than other who do. It is not a selfless act to be a donor in this case, it is buying into a service. It sounds neat saying it's unselfish and what not, at the end of the day it is not a voluntary gesture or selfless act, it sounds like insurance. You don't pay, you don't get. It's buying The worst part is the option to not buy in, is not really much of an option. The option is being made out to be so bad that anyone not buying the service is ostracised. Edited February 14, 2012 by Ghogiel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) <SNIP>You said something about an essential invasion, I took that to mean that the selfish people with their resources that they keep to themselves would be invaded because they have enough wealth or resource that the proletariat would want it, then invade them to take their stuff. I admit you confused me what you were on about with paragraph. So basically you have a choice to be selfless, and give freely of your own volition, or else you will not be eligible to any/all the benefits that a society would otherwise have granted you. there is a clear 'or else' to me. For there are repercussions, which amount to class division, by not donating of your own freewill you become a lesser citizen with less rights than other who do. It is not a selfless act to be a donor in this case, it is buying into a service. It sounds neat saying it's unselfish and what not, at the end of the day it is not a voluntary gesture or selfless act, it sounds like insurance. You don't pay, you don't get. It's buying The worst part is the option to not buy in, is not really much of an option. The option is being made out to be so bad that anyone not buying the service is ostracized.I drew the same conclusion as Ghogiel, this is not a voluntary system but rather an enforced mandate with attached penalties for non compliance.It strikes me as forced social engineering at it's most meddlesome and intrusive (which is my view ). The soviets attempted to reform human nature and failed miserably, this is just another version of trying to mandate class interactions. Edited February 14, 2012 by Aurielius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nintii Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Quite frankly I have no qualms with paying taxes as it simply means that government can invest it into something tangible that is to my and the people of my nations benefit.I think Balagor's statement right in the beginning of this thread is short clear and accurate ... and on the mark. My big grievance is privatization ... what I have paid taxes for, what belongs to me, is being sold off by government to private individuals and corporations.Elected government needs to realise that they DO NOT OWN ANYTHING, they have merely been elected by the people to RUN the nation for a period of time.This authority they have been given does not give them the right to sell what I and my mother and father and their mother and father before them and so on have paid for. They are hired hands and not owners, they are called public servants ... the servant (government) does not own what his master (the electorate) has given into his hands to manage.The problem is this, that the servant has usurped the authority and the master is cowering in the basement.And the longer the master - you and I - cower, the more the servant will gather to him or herself at our expense. The finances that come into the State coffers during their term of office is theirs to manage BUT the assets of the nation belongs to all the people.Think of government as a business, how successful is yours ?Your taxes should be seen as an investment to grow the nation's wealth and not fund a clueless CEO ... fire the bugger and get someone new, even if they are the opposition ... this decision is not merely for yourself but for your children and their childrens children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts