I don't expect rags to riches to happen to me or many other people--all I suppose is that it is possible for one to make enough money to stop being destitute.


There are a lot more things for people to do than in the Middle Ages.

No, it's people who are discriminatory, and not all of them over the same things. They cancel each other out. The 'BeefotronX system'...am I running for office here?

You know, under the 'BeefotronX system', we still have police for dealing with those abusive homes.


That is a good story. However, odds are that most of the ex-burger flippers will go for where they think they have the most skill-- in food/meat service as close in job description to their old jobs. However, "this guy" can undergo some inconvenience and if his local grocery stores are anything like any of the three in my home area, they are horribly understaffed in the evening and he can go for a job at one of those places.
Really, we can throw imaginary stories back and forth all day.


Yes.

I don't give much credit to goodness and generosity. The actual number of people needed to be good is not that big. Most people can be their greedy selves, as long as the rest of us see to it that they get away with nothing illegal.




It's not off topic. I just got sick of people blindly bashing the Bush administration, so I hit back with appropriate defense, and I continued with an attack on the opposition ideology. The topic is "silly voters". It started with an attempt to prove that the people who voted for Bush are stupid, but apparently that attempt failed. There's nothing wrong with idealism either. Some of that is necessary to break the status quo.

A brief tour of subject matter-
The Election: Bush won, by more votes than accusations of shenanigans could offset.
Iraq: It was a good thing in general. Despite the mess and the scandals and the homicide bombers (the term 'suicide bomber' shall now be reserved to only those who fail to kill anyone else), Iraq is still better off. Everything is being rebuilt with our help, and the Iraqis are actually grateful mostly. No WMD's were found, and I'm prepared to accept it if they're never found, but I really think we should check Syria just to be sure.
Torture: While I may have been harsh with the 'smacking around' references, some of the actual controversial methods are things like loud music, uncomfortable temperatures, and forced standing. (Yes I read stuff on this after the fact) Nothing that's actually painful, just uncomfortable and annoying. They want to call that torture. My point still stands.


I can say with certainty that I said something afterwards that you didn't seem to have read.
What I went on to say is that when there is government help, there is a great temptation to take as much as legally possible, and that betrays an incorrect perception of responsibility.

I'm not judging the poor, I'm judging the socialists who try to paint the poor as having no way out of their situation except state intervention, because they don't get it. Wealth doesn't need to be forcibly redistributed -- it can be created. About twenty bucks a year from each taxpayer should be enough for some kind of awareness program to teach people the options they have for finding ways to get more money. Maybe one or two TV ads, some posters and brochures that sort of thing. If one can't afford anything else, there's the public library. Yes, self-education is not preferred by employers, but it's way better than nothing.


As for the single mother deal she should find a single job that pays enough as soon as possible. It won't take that long to find. Frankly, the poor family I knew earlier had it somewhat better than this, as the single mom made enough to live in an unremarkable trailer, pay for the smoking habits of her and her deadbeat boyfriend, as well as get a nice stereo system--actually two-- and a TV with cable service. As for the three kids, they did have child support from the dad to help, but this is pretty much similar in severity to your hypothetical situation.



Surely not the same fancy universities with professors like Noam Chomsky. I'm sorry, but I know too many people who worked and deserve every penny they have. My father grew up in a family of six - plus a grandmother, on the income of a steelworker/firefighter. He worked his buttocks off and got through college--he fought his way out of poverty so I don't have to. My cousin is the sort who got a GED, and while he spent years on low-paying jobs, he kept looking for opportunity and now he's an actor. My other cousin is not particularly well off, but he worked hard at his Starbucks job and is an assistant manager. Sharing a one-bedroom apartment with another guy, and foregoing cable TV and Internet service, he is saving enough to go back to college in a few years. He's certainly at least somewhat comfortable now, as he can afford to sustain a tobacco addiction and host the occasional drunken party. On top of that, he's quite a good artist and makes some money off of that skill at times. In summary, all the people I know who were closest to being poor managed to avoid abject poverty, for reasons which cannot be stated very clearly, except that they seemed to find an opportunity, without taking help from the state. Take that how you will-- be it luck or that the USA is such a place where this is normal. For these people at least, lower taxes would have made things even better.

I'm sure a lot of people believe this statement. As for me, I think I'm finished on this thread. I won't presume to declare victory, but I've said just about all I have to say on this matter at this time. Readers of the thread can make their own judgement as to who remained calm and logical and who got emotional and angry. On this thread, I'm done.

Well, well, well. We are finally down to the beefotronix nitty gritty. Everybody else gets to play it like it lays, but beef "just to waste years of my life getting back to where I was by myself, forget it." says I will take my priveledged position bequethed to me by my parents who are rather better off it seems than the average.

We are all thankful you have revealed your true nature. You, like President Bush who never worked for anything in his entire career (a fourth generation inheritor of wealth), are quite willing to take your advantage and rail against those trying to better themselves.

You, like Bush, are the poster children of affirmative action, which you, philosophically, oppose.

Sweet.

BeefotronX wrote:


That is compleate and total bull. Idealism by itself doesn't do diddly squat to the status quo. All idealism does is give people ideas of how the world should be better. If there is anything that breaks apart the status quo it is idealism combined with realism. You need to be idealistic to see how things should be, but realistic to figure out how to change things to the way you want. Like I said idealism is totaly useless by itself. Yes poor people should be able to work their way up from poverty but it doesn't work like that. They can't just go out and magicaly find jobs or work their way up through hard work. Most of them are too busy working to pay for food, medicine and whatever else they need.

Beef here is the funny thing, governments are created to serve the peole not the other way around. What purpose does your government in your idealistic world do besides manage to military and pass laws? Because if there aren't programs like welfare than the government has already failed it's job to serve the people.

This statement displays your lack of a grasp on the wider ramifications of your proposed system. An abused person will not call the police to prosecute their family's sole breadwinner. Not everyone has compassionate, financially secure family to go to. Without welfare to fall back on, it'd be financial suicide - and often they have to think of the kids.



You have been repetitive lately. recurring themes: It's only torture if it's done on innocent terrorist suspects, and you don't believe there are/will be any. America is a level playing field, and as you are 'more level' than most, it's fair to leave everyone to fend for themselves regardless of circumstance. Anyone can succeed in American society, so if anyone doesn't it's the result of a lack of effort. You once knew some poor people and they weren't really that badly off. You have seen some healthy, bright, lower-middle-class kids better themselves, which is proof, again that anyone who can't support themselves is just lazy.

To me it sounds like you have an insufficiant sample on which to base your policies.



How magnanimous of you. Reality check: You have been soundly trounced by all comers. Do you genuinely feel that you even have the option of declaring victory? You have a gift for comedy, for sure.

I know not a whole lot about politics, but it seems I know a whole hemisphere more than you. A decade and a half ago, I held opinions much like yours, generally inherited from my conservative parents.
May I suggest some homework to go on with?
I suggest you actually look at the objectives of welfare. It is supposed to provide a fair, non-discriminatory means of providing financial support to any lawful citizen in need as opposed to a system where the fair, the bold and the well-connected thrive whilst the less fortunate - and I mean the less fortunate by circumstance of fiscal/social heritage, genetics or mischance - get shag-all. It's part of the 'social contract'. If you want to live in a fair, lawful and egalitarian secular society, you pay proportionally the same price, as decided by the elected government, as does anyone else, and you reap the same benifits under the same circumstances.

I'd also suggest you compare the standards of living for the mean, median and mode income people from countries with and without welfare.

Educate yourself and you'll find yourself inspiring less frustration and aggravation in your debate opponents. If nothing else, you'll be better armed to debate against welfare proponents if you do some research...

Folks; BeefotronX is clearly still in his `Ayn Rand is cool' phase, and there is another thread for this kind of discussion on the merits of letting the poor and elderly die of exposure and malnutrition versus some taxation. So please drop it; it's getting tired.

And now, for my last post in this thread (I'm going to go start another); some recent nonsense from the capitalist tool party. First, Bush sees a moral need to borrow ten trillion dollars over the next twenty years (with much more later). This is a downpayment for `fixing' Social Security; which is scheduled to run three trillion dollars short over the next 75 years by the most pessimistic estimates. It seems stealing and lying are now officially Republican morals (along with aliteracy and math phobia); so adjust your translators appropriately.

Also from Dubya: because a slight plurality of Americans were (supposedly) stupid enough to vote for him, we as a people have thus given our blessing to him lying our way into a pointless war, then corruptly and mindlessly losing it. No further discussion need be considered, no matter what goes wrong or leaks out; after all, he has our blessing.

Btw; don't be surprised when the ballots in Iraq are mostly blank, because candidates refuse to let their names or faces be publically known for fear of getting assassinated; and whatever you do, don't mention it to Bush. He's been blessed.

Oh, yes; Remember the non-com busted for Abu Ghraib? He was given ten years for it. While it's nice to see someone, somewhere being held accountable; calling this schmuck the ringleader is like Hoover's FBI busting a bookie and declaring Chicago to be crime free (never mind that Capone fellow; we got the bookie). Btw; after threatening to really brutalize their friends still in jail if they talked, the US freed some prisoners in Afghanistan. They talked anyway; and surprise, they were tortured. What are the odds? After all, the ringleader was busted months ago...not the one who stole reelection, the corporal. Yeah, him. The same corporal who was apparently torturing prisoners in Cuba and lying about it to Congressmen last February. Busy little swine, ain't he?

It's bemusing, btw; Gonzales lied through his teeth to Congress about all of this while under oath, and told the Senate Judiciary Committee to eat (ahem) dung when they asked for his files...and every Republican in the Senate just said Yummy, and pretended that obvious perjury was a groovy thing in an US Attorney General candidate. Y'know; I'm seeing less problem with someone shutting down the Senate in permanent partisan gridlock with every day that goes by.

And now for something slightly amusing. By way of paying off their religious wingnut supporters, the GOP is looking to appoint someone who isn't anti-abortion to be co-chair of the RNC; while Dubya acknowledges that he has no intention of pushing for a same-sex marriage amendment. Never mind what he said on the campaign trail; he ain't gonna do it. Way to keep your already antsy base in line, dudes.

Btw; you might also have noticed that Washington DC is going to have to cough up homeland security funds to protect Dubya's lily white butt during his coronation ceremony. It's a good thing, too; otherwise they might have spent it on, oh, protecting the homeland or something. Can't have that, can we?

What, me annoyed? Sayeth not so.

Well, that was MY MOM. And I wish well paying jobs were that easy to find.


This has degenerated into one of those special olympics threads. Win or lose, you're still retarded.

Well, that says it all, I am afraid.

Let me re-quote beef:

"I don't expect rags to riches to happen to me or many other people"

Now, if I am not mistaken, you have spent inumerable posts claiming that rag to riches is the American principle. With which, I happen to agree.

But what I find appalling in this post is your abject cynicism concerning your own belief.

Sad, beef, sad.