Trends in Political Values and Core Attitudes

[Dr Grump]

In this country, if you are of sound mind and body and you are poor, then you have chosen to be so.....

Will Rodgers...

Luckily Will Rogers was a comedian/actor...

 

[Shogun]

I did not say it was not a social program. Of course it is a social program. I said it was not socialism and explained why.

You do know the difference between a social program and socialism don't you?

And I guess I could use your schoolyard means of debate, too, and point out that changing the word or what somebody says to something more easily attacked is a typical tactic of yours, Shogun.

uh, yea. you said that people didn't have to go into business. That's some of the stupidest bowl of retarded i've seen in a while.

Why don't you explain what YOU see as the difference between a social program and socialism, fox. YOU seem to be the one with all the funny discombobulations that you seem to think are actually logical. Should be good for as good a laugh as those bible threads where I hold your head just below the surface of the water...



oh NOW I"M the one trying to manipulate the nomenclature like a can of playdoh, eh?

OOOOK, ms. "unemployment is not socialism because no one has to go into business"

 

[Foxfyre]

You honestly don't know what socialism is do you Shogun. Perhaps it would save us a lot of time here if you looked it up.

And while you're at it, perhaps you could demonstrate how unemployment insurance, as a requirement for operating a business, differs from Workers Compensation or General Liability or E & O or auto insurance etc. that employers voluntarily assume as a requirement for going into business. And also show me a statute that REQUIRES anybody to go into business. You DO know that it is the employer and not the employee who pays for all those insurance programs don't you? I can avoid all of them simply by choosing not to be in business for myself.

 

[Shogun]

It's not that I'm ignorant about what is and what is not socialism, fox. I'm just waiting for you to post another gem like the brilliance above!

Now, stop dancing around the issue and let your own words convey your, uh, brilliance.


And while you're at it, perhaps you could demonstrate how unemployment insurance, as a requirement for operating a business, differs from Workers Compensation or General Liability or E & O or auto insurance etc. that employers voluntarily assume as a requirement for going into business. And also show me a statute that REQUIRES anybody to go into business. You DO know that it is the employer and not the employee who pays for all those insurance programs don't you? I can avoid all of them simply by choosing not to be in business for myself.


HAHAHA!

yea, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE SURE IS JUST LIKE AUTO INSURANCE!



I mean, we see UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMPANIES lining up at the door to compete for insurance business, dont we!




uh, because there are no statues that REQUIRE people to go into business!




oh shit, this is rich!

You DO know that it is the employer and not the employee who pays for all those insurance programs don't you? I can avoid all of them simply by choosing not to be in business for myself.








Holy SHIT, fox... I guess we know why you tend to run away with your tail between your legs when Im thumping you with a bible too, eh? After all, There is no statute that requires everyone to be a christian either!







I'm going to be sharing your, uh, "wisdom" with my co-workers in the HR office today, fox. I'll make sure and let them know that auto insurance, work comp and unemployment is totally unnecessary because there is no statute that says people have to go to work for themselves!

 

[Foxfyre]

If you tell them that, be sure and tell them you thought that up all by yourself, because I haven't said anything even remotely like that.

But then I have become accustomed to your insults in lieu of rational discourse, your red herrings when you've been out argued, and your unique ability to utterly ignore anything that doesn't fit with your dogma.

I quite clearly, in a previous post, stated that the ONLY difference between Unimployment insurance and the other mandatory insurances mentioned is that the government administers FUTA and SUTA rather than private companies. Even there, many states have insurance pools to help the 'assigned risk' employers to obtain insurance when nobody else will insure them. It is still intended to be a pay as you go system, however, and it is the employers, not the employees who pay it. Meanwhile the government owns no part of the businesses insured.

You didn't look up the definition of socialism did you.

 

[Shogun]

If you tell them that, be sure and tell them you thought that up all by yourself, because I haven't said anything even remotely like that.

But then I have become accustomed to your insults in lieu of rational discourse, your red herrings when you've been out argued, and your unique ability to utterly ignore anything that doesn't fit with your dogma.

I quite clearly, in a previous post, stated that the ONLY difference between Unimployment insurance and the other mandatory insurances mentioned is that the government administers FUTA and SUTA rather than private companies. Even there, many states have insurance pools to help the 'assigned risk' employers to obtain insurance when nobody else will insure them. It is still intended to be a pay as you go system, however, and it is the employers, not the employees who pay it. Meanwhile the government owns no part of the businesses insured.

You didn't look up the definition of socialism did you.

uh, so, the necessary criteria for socialism is WHO gets to pay for the social program, eh?





After all, no one HAS to go into business at all, right?




I'll have to remember that... "there is no law that saws you have to go into business for yourself!" sounds like a good reply to those who are ordinarily not stupid enough to facilitate their personal ignorance when debating socialist programs. I mean, hell, I'm not trying to burst your bubble with the historic reaction to unemployment as it was perceived as socialism because watching you gasp for air in the vacuum of your own stupidity is, truly, what brings me back to these forums.


b-b-b-but, uh, there is NO LAW that says you have to work for yourself though!

 

[midcan5]

Did anyone watch this last evening? It makes one wonder how this country went backward so quickly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3898008n

These are working people.

 

[Bern80]

Did anyone watch this last evening? It makes one wonder how this country went backward so quickly.

http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/i_video/main500251.shtml?id=3898008n

These are working people.

Backward how? Is it your impression that the country was teaming with rich people a couple decades ago? Honestly where we are doesn't suprise me at all. What surprises me is that many on the left 1) don't recognize that our collective attitude has changed significantly and 2) don't believe it has anything to do with where we are now.

 

[Larkinn]

Backward how? Is it your impression that the country was teaming with rich people a couple decades ago?

Oh, well thats the only sign of progress. Whether the income disparities increase

Honestly where we are doesn't suprise me at all. What surprises me is that many on the left 1) don't recognize that our collective attitude has changed significantly

And how exactly has it changed?

and 2) don't believe it has anything to do with where we are now.

And it relates to where we are now, how?

 

[Bern80]

Oh, well thats the only sign of progress. Whether the income disparities increase

Of course not. The implication of Midcan's statement however is that at somepoint things were just great. That more people had a better standard of living than they do now. I highly doubt that to be the case.

And how exactly has it changed?

I accept that these are only my observations/opinions based on anecdotal evidence but what I have seen are some very general shifts in mentality away from acceptance of personal responsibilty towards expectation and entitlement. We have become a lawsuit fearing society. There also seems to be general attempt to legislate away risk and adversity in life and attempts to remove all uncomfortable or trying elements from life. The problem with that I think from a societal standpoint is that it weakens society. How do the members of our society become stronger in all facets of life if they never have any experiences to learn from? Individuals and by extension societies become stronger through adversity. Instead we are moveing more toward a nanny state that thinks is job is to protect people from life.

Now before you go down that road, no I'm not proposing that we never help each other and become a dog eat dog society or that there isn't a need for government social programs. But a balance does need to be struck and I think the scale is tipping in the wrong direction.

And it relates to where we are now, how?

It relates because as I've said a couple dozen times now in various threads we have become an instant gratification society. When things don't go right down to the most trivial things we want to hold someone else accountable. We increasingly shy away from adversity and the difficult in life. If people have a choice between easy and hard they are going to pick easy more often than not. That relates to the divide in have and have nots or the suppossed shrinking middle class that many of you have complained about because - surprise, surprise - becomeing a 'have' or rich is difficult. It relates to the article that was originally posted because many on the left seem to feel it is there job to babysit people. People say we need to have equal opportunity and my sneaking suspicion is what some really mean is equal outcomes. because what is the only variable left in play if you even the playing field of opportunity? Then a person's success at fulfilling an opportunity is limited only by the individual.

I don't know if you were hear for our debate rich people and how they got that way or not, but contrary the opinion of many here, most of the rich worked their way to where they are. The media has distorted that to some extent because the only wealthy people we see in media are hollywood celebs.

My point is some side seems to believe that there is this force that people have no control over is dictating their place in life. When the truth is probably more close to the only person dictating your place in life is you. More often than not in people I've met where they are can be traced back to a decision they made. And even when things out of your control befall you, you still have control over how you choose to handle the situation you've found yourself in. Circumstances don't make the man, they reveal him.

 

[midcan5]

Of course not. The implication of Midcan's statement however is that at somepoint things were just great.

Circumstances don't make the man, they reveal him.

Bern, did you watch the video? And if you did, do you think the people shown, working people, show a "very general shift(s) in mentality away from acceptance of personal responsibilty (sic) towards expectation and entitlement?" Your world view is a social darwinist world, do you think the woman who needed glasses was lazy and shiftless? Sad that people who live in this world think as you do. I hope the majority accepts the idea that if we are to be part of a moral society, we do what is needed for each other. If there were a heaven the man who runs that program deserves the highest place.

PS Also I grew up in a large family and although we would have been considered dirt poor we went to an dentist once in a while. So while utopia never was, there was a time when medical treatment was within the reach of most. That changed as medical expenses rose and salaries remained stable in my opinion.

 

[Bern80]

Bern, did you watch the video? And if you did, do you think the people shown, working people, show a "very general shift(s) in mentality away from acceptance of personal responsibilty (sic) towards expectation and entitlement?" Your world view is a social darwinist world, do you think the woman who needed glasses was lazy and shiftless? Sad that people who live in this world think as you do. I hope the majority accepts the idea that if we are to be part of a moral society, we do what is needed for each other. If there were a heaven the man who runs that program deserves the highest place.

I suppose it would be a sad world if I thought what you think I do. In your attempt to quote only the two sentances you liked and not come even close to addressing the meat of the post I guess you missed the part where I said I was NOT arguing against social programs. I still don't get why you insist upon assuming such an extreme positions of others that they border on truly absurd if they actually thought that.

PS Also I grew up in a large family and although we would have been considered dirt poor we went to an dentist once in a while. So while utopia never was, there was a time when medical treatment was within the reach of most. That changed as medical expenses rose and salaries remained stable in my opinion.

Accept salaries have not remained stable. And I don't want to rehash the UHC thing again, but will just say I agree that medical costs are getting ridiculous and to fix it I would want to exhaust a lot of other possible solutions before resorting to government.

 

[midcan5]

Bern, there was no need to post it all, I think if social darwinist doesn't fit what you wrote I don't know what does. Re-read it. For instance your primary premise is we live in a society where people pick the easy way out, unless they are rich, and liberals believe in a nanny state. That is peppered throughout your replies. But again I know the rich and I disagree and I know the poor and I still disagree. Answer one question, did the people in that video take the easy route, did they expect the nanny state to shelter them? Any of them?

 

[Bern80]

Bern, there was no need to post it all, I think if social darwinist doesn't fit what you wrote I don't know what does.

That's a nice catch phrase you've come up with there but what exactley is 'socially darwin-istic' about it?

Re-read it. For instance your primary premise is we live in a society where people pick the easy way out, unless they are rich, and liberals believe in a nanny state. That is peppered throughout your replies. But again I know the rich and I disagree

I imagine you don't shit about the rich. Unless of course it's an amazing coincidence that all the rich people you know attained wealth by sitting on their asses.

and I know the poor and I still disagree.

Just as I'm sure the poor people you know share absolutely no responsibility for teh postion their in. You claim apparently that people don't take the easy route rather they are just victims, unlucky, held down by 'the man', etc. Isn't it amazingly ironic to you what an 'easy' answer that is to give?

Answer one question, did the people in that video take the easy route, did they expect the nanny state to shelter them? Any of them?

I have no idea what meandering route any of them have taken through life. I don't know what choices they made or what circumstances befell them or how they chose to deal with those circumstamces. Do you?

Still I think the program is an excellent one. Perhaps you missed part of the story yourself. Somone came up with a non-government solution to a problem.

 

[midcan5]

You didn't answer the question. Do they appear to be people who are waiting for the nanny state to take care of them? Let me be presumptuous and answer for you since you don't have the guts to be honest. NO.

"Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them."

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

 

[Gunny]

You didn't answer the question. Do they appear to be people who are waiting for the nanny state to take care of them? Let me be presumptuous and answer for you since you don't have the guts to be honest. NO.

"Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them."

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

So what's you point? Applying the theory of natural selection to society is quite easy.

Sometimes shit just happens that's beyond one's control; however, when one is persistent, one can overcome obstacles to achieve what one wants so long as it is a reasonable goal based on individual parameters.

Those people born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouthes are a small minority. Most of the "haves" have busted their butts to get where they are and have what they have.

Yet you would take from them what they have earned, and just redistribute it those who don't have because they have not earned it, just so that they can have some too.

That's just plain BS. Where's the incentive to excel if you're just going to take it away and give it to someone who does not excel? And it doesn't matter WHY they don't excel ... it's just plain old unjust to hold me accountable for their inability to do so. That's called stealing where I'm from and it's a crime. Except when the government does it.

 

[Bern80]

You didn't answer the question. Do they appear to be people who are waiting for the nanny state to take care of them? Let me be presumptuous and answer for you since you don't have the guts to be honest. NO.

I did answer your question taking into account what I know about those people, which is absolutely nothing. You, however, did not answer mine. Based on knowing absolutely nothing about any of the people in the report I can't answer that question. Neither can you. You don't know who's just in a rough patch, who's made bad decisions, or who's exploiting the system. Are you, Midcan, where you are right now by choice or circumstance? Why are you so hell bent on absolving people of the responsibilty for the situations they find themselves in? The most honest answer I can give you is that where a person is in there life can almost always be traced to a choice. In the instances where things out of your control happen to you, even then you still have the choice in deciding where you will go from there.

"Herbert Spencer, a 19th century philosopher, promoted the idea of Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is an application of the theory of natural selection to social, political, and economic issues. In its simplest form, Social Darwinism follows the mantra of "the strong survive," including human issues. This theory was used to promote the idea that the white European race was superior to others, and therefore, destined to rule over them."

http://www.allaboutscience.org/what-is-social-darwinism-faq.htm

Then by extension your argument is that people aren't where they are by choice. It's all just environment/circumstantial/bad luck/predestiny right? That would have to be the case if you maintain there is no merit to the notion that people achieve whatever they choose to. You say you know poor people and knowing them causes you to not agree with my argument. So your argument would have to be that the majority of the poor are just unlucky?

 

[midcan5]

You did not answer the question, you speculated on their life choices. Consider how inept that argument is for a minute. Who would choose to be poor? But you would argue they made poor choices? But again I ask, who would choose to make dumb choices. People are not poor/rich because they have the opportunity to pick. The people in the news story made choices based on what they could do, they did what everyone does, they lived their life and tried the best they could. If a level playing field existed we could buy your inept argument. But also it is UHC that is missing not how people come to be rich or poor.

Again do these American working people appear to be dependent on the nanny state? I am not asking you to analyze their every move through life.


GunnyL, you're getting way too far into your own world there. I would never argue against excelling at anything. Nor is justice fairness or a moral world too radical a goal that we can't all contribute to it.

 

[Foxfyre]

So what's you point? Applying the theory of natural selection to society is quite easy.

Sometimes shit just happens that's beyond one's control; however, when one is persistent, one can overcome obstacles to achieve what one wants so long as it is a reasonable goal based on individual parameters.

Those people born with the proverbial silver spoon in their mouthes are a small minority. Most of the "haves" have busted their butts to get where they are and have what they have.

Yet you would take from them what they have earned, and just redistribute it those who don't have because they have not earned it, just so that they can have some too.

That's just plain BS. Where's the incentive to excel if you're just going to take it away and give it to someone who does not excel? And it doesn't matter WHY they don't excel ... it's just plain old unjust to hold me accountable for their inability to do so. That's called stealing where I'm from and it's a crime. Except when the government does it.

Amen and amen.

Until FDR, all former presidents had a deep sense of the impropriety of the government dispensing charity of any kind because there was no constitutional authority for confiscating property of some citizens and giving it to others.

A fundamental core value was violated when the government decreed that it was necessary to force Citizen A who stayed in school and educated himself, stayed away from drugs/booze and illegal activities, developed a work ethic and a marketable trade, who waited until marriage before having kids, and thus succeeded to support Citizen B who dropped out of school, was high on drugs and booze most of the time, got in trouble with the law, was too lazy to work, who screwed around and wound up with kids s/he couldn't support.

Those who follow Citizen A's path will almost always succeed. Those who follow Citizen B's path will almost always fail. It is immoral to make Citizen B Citizen A's problem.

 

[midcan5]

:Until FDR, all former presidents had a deep sense of the impropriety of the government dispensing charity of any kind because there was no constitutional authority for confiscating property of some citizens and giving it to others.

A fundamental core value was violated when the government decreed....It is immoral to make Citizen B Citizen A's problem.

That has to be one of the most bizarre, ahistorical comments I have ever read. Even for a conservative that boggles one's sense of the real. Have you ever studied the situation before FDR? Do you know what it was like for Americans? Is there any accident he was elected over and over? Is the public reaction the Social Security reform any hint for you?


http://memory.loc.gov/learn/features/timeline/depwwii/depress/depress.html

"In a country with abundant resources, the largest force of skilled labor, and the most productive industry in the world, many found it hard to understand why the depression had occurred and why it could not be resolved. Moreover, it was difficult for many to understand why people should go hungry in a country possessing huge food surpluses. Blaming Wall Street speculators, bankers, and the Hoover administration, the rumblings of discontent grew mightily in the early 1930s. By 1932, hunger marches and small riots were common throughout the nation.

However, not all citizens were caught up in the social eruptions. Many were too downtrodden or busy surviving day to day to get involved in public displays of discontent. Instead, they placed their hope and trust in the federal government, especially after the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt to the presidency in 1932."

Bern, more of those lazy Americans you know so well. And a counterpoint from the CG.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/business/02jobs.html?_r=2&th=&emc=th&pagewanted=all/&oref=slogin

"...what is left unstated here is how many company’s have off-shored their customer service departments to ‘lower cost’ labor markets leaving US workers ‘twisting in the wind’."

http://www.conceptualguerilla.com/?q=node/1519