Stop patronising poor Americans

Palimino said:
By that logic; I hardly think that government intervention in the 1800’s was so pervasive that poverty affected 80%. That’s what you are claiming. I can accept the figures, but to hold government responsible is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

No, the assertion was that without government welfare programs a society would be too "unstable" to develop. I'm showing that even with such a vast proportion of people afflicted by poverty and no welfare programs that the industrial revolution and the lack of governmental interventionism and taxation allowed for a great deal of economic growth and employment to occur.

Today, governmental intervention, supposedly enacted in the interests of the poverty-stricken, is destabilizing to the market process and hampers growth.
 
Hard Rain said:
People are "poor" because they lack a source of income.
Click to expand...

No, they are poor because they lack an education. Much easier to rattle begging-bowls at the government.

Who is going to provide the income?
Click to expand...

The poor sodding taxpayer, who is already on his knees (as he always has).
 
Palimino said:
No, they are poor because they lack an education. Much easier to rattle begging-bowls at the government.
Click to expand...

People in the Soviet Union got first-rate educations, yet they were still poverty stricken. I wonder why...
 
seventhson said:
You know how many highly educated people that are barely making a liveable salary? a fusk load.
Click to expand...

I wonder why that is? Oh yes, they don’t have a black face and years of experience herding goats.
 
Hard Rain said:
I'm feeling a little flu-ish. I'm gonna get my friends to hold you up at gunpoint for some cash to get Panado. Fair enough?
Click to expand...

Well, that is what happens when poor people get desperate. Personally I'd prefer to pay about 0.001% of their panado pills and not run the risk of being held up at gunpoint at all.
 
grayston said:
Well, that is what happens when poor people get desperate. Personally I'd prefer to pay about 0.001% of their panado pills and not run the risk of being held up at gunpoint at all.
Click to expand...

You're misinterpreting my analogy. My "friends" are the government and the gunpoint robbery is taxation. *sigh*
 
Hard Rain said:
You're misinterpreting my analogy. My "friends" are the government and the gunpoint robbery is taxation. *sigh*
Click to expand...

No! Serious?

Without your "friends" and the "gunpoint robbery", you get "criminals" and real gunpoint robbery.
 
grayston said:
No! Serious?

Without your "friends" and the "gunpoint robbery", you get "criminals" and real gunpoint robbery.
Click to expand...

Really, so let me get this straight: The government needs to tax and regulate business to fund its welfare state so it can give freebies to people who are poor because prices are high from taxes and they can't get jobs because of regulation. All makes sense now. Let's just have the government be nanny for millions and all will be well? This sounds like the greatest extortion racket ever: hand over your cash or we'll unleash the poor! How ridiculous.
 
Hard Rain said:
Really, so let me get this straight: The government needs to tax and regulate business to fund its welfare state so it can give freebies to people who are poor because prices are high from taxes and they can't get jobs because of regulation. All makes sense now. Let's just have the government be nanny for millions and all will be well? This sounds like the greatest extortion racket ever: hand over your cash or we'll unleash the poor! How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Ahahahahaha! LOL!

Consequentalism is the "in" thing with liberals. Despite the fact it is purely arbitrary and internally contradictory, thus by any rational standard, automatically invalid.
 
Hard Rain said:
Really, so let me get this straight: The government needs to tax and regulate business to fund its welfare state so it can give freebies to people who are poor because prices are high from taxes and they can't get jobs because of regulation. All makes sense now. Let's just have the government be nanny for millions and all will be well? This sounds like the greatest extortion racket ever: hand over your cash or we'll unleash the poor! How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Hey it works for the ANC ;)
 
Hard Rain said:
This sounds like the greatest extortion racket ever: hand over your cash or we'll unleash the poor! How ridiculous.
Click to expand...

What's so ridiculous about it? The poor cost us money, whether through crime or the costs of imprisonment or state lawyer fees or reduced foreign investment. They don't only cost money when they're given welfare.
 
grayston said:
What's so ridiculous about it? The poor cost us money, whether through crime or the costs of imprisonment or state lawyer fees or reduced foreign investment. They don't only cost money when they're given welfare.
Click to expand...

Newsflash: not all poor people are criminals, and the private sector has a plethora of mechanisms for addressing the costs associated with crime far more efficiently than robbing some to dump freebies on others; the socialist legal system notwithstanding. Give me a real cost/benefit analysis and maybe then a utilitarian argument can make headway against the obvious moral objections?

It's also interesting that you don't refute the point that government taxation and regulation hurts the poor and prevents them from becoming employed. No, you'd rather treat them as if there's no hope for social mobility and employment and they're a static issue that can merely be addressed. Not very noble.
 
Hard Rain said:
Newsflash: not all poor people are criminals
Click to expand...

You're quite correct. And if someone would prefer to ask for handouts for things they can't afford rather than commit crime, I am all for supporting them in that regard.
 
Hard Rain said:
It's also interesting that you don't refute the point that government taxation and regulation hurts the poor and prevents them from becoming employed. No, you'd rather treat them as if there's no hope for social mobility and employment and they're a static issue that can merely be addressed. Not very noble.
Click to expand...

Rather sick entrapping people into dependence like the ANC have done here. Makes them easier to control......
 
grayston said:
You're quite correct. And if someone would prefer to ask for handouts for things they can't afford rather than commit crime, I am all for supporting them in that regard.
Click to expand...

"The appeal to "charity" is a truly ironic one. First, it is hardly "charity" to take wealth by force and hand it over to someone else. Indeed, this is the direct opposite of charity, which can only be an unbought, voluntary act of grace. Compulsory confiscation can only deaden charitable desires completely, as the wealthier grumble that there is no point in giving to charity when the State has already taken on the task. This is another illustration of the truth that men can become more moral only through rational persuasion, not through violence, which will, in fact, have the opposite effect."

- Murray Rothbard.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X