Atlas Mooched

[Joe Steel]

This story has been around for a few weeks but I just noticed it. It seems especially interesting in light of the Republicans focus on cutting and gutting Social Security and Medicare at the insistence of teabaggers and other libertarians.


Ayn Rand was not only a schlock novelist, she was also the progenitor of a sweeping “moral philosophy” that justifies the privilege of the wealthy and demonizes not only the slothful, undeserving poor but the lackluster middle-classes as well.Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and "moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes' labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was Frank O'Connor).

...

Her ideas about government intervention in some idealized pristine marketplace serve as the basis for so much of the conservative rhetoric we see today. “The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand,” said Paul Ryan, the GOP's young budget star at a D.C. event honoring the author. On another occasion, he proclaimed, “Rand makes the best case for the morality of democratic capitalism.”

Ayn Rand Railed Against Government Benefits, But Grabbed Social Security and Medicare When She Needed Them (http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits%2C_but _grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_nee ded_them/)

[Kathianne]

This story has been around for a few weeks but I just noticed it. It seems especially interesting in light of the Republicans focus on cutting and gutting Social Security and Medicare at the insistence of teabaggers and other libertarians.

Joe, you and the left got it wrong. IF people are forced to pay for entitlements, they will use them. the hypocrisy is on those that are wealthy on the left, that also use them, leaving fewer resources for those they feel for.

[revelarts]

I came to read the post and this ad pops in below it.
http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=COLm3cyQjdLeUhDUAxgxMgj7-TJdOdRKeQ

No clear thinking person wants parasites or to be one.

Rand had a few critical things wrong IMO but I don't understand why the left chucks everything she said.
Joe, Do many on the left think anyone should work? (maybe create a job rather than have 1 provided.)
This was one of the big Complaints of Rand in Atlas Shrugs, the belief of the left that everyone should get taking care of, feed and housed no matter how lazy and shiftless they were.
That it was a right like sunlight. That food, housing clothes etc. some how comes without someone working for it. And is taken without thanks, like picking a dandelion.

I don't want to start rambling here so I'm done.

[Palin Rider]

Do many on the left think anyone should work? (maybe create a job rather than have 1 provided.)
This was one of the big Complaints of Rand in Atlas Shrugs, the belief of the left that everyone should get taking care of, feed and housed no matter how lazy and shiftless they were.
That it was a right like sunlight. That food, housing clothes etc. some how comes without someone working for it. And is taken without thanks, like picking a dandelion.

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?

[revelarts]

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?

If they don't want to work when there's options available, they can panhandled.

the state doesn't have to give to them, the state doesn't have kill them?

All answers are not in the state.

[Palin Rider]

If they don't want to work when there's options available, they can panhandled.

the state doesn't have to give to them, the state doesn't have kill them?

All answers are not in the state.

So your position is that a lack of humane living conditions for its citizens is not the state's problem. That mindset invariably leads to a police state.

[Little-Acorn]

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?

It's always fun to see the leftists try to pretend there are only the options THEY want to make available.
Amazing how hard they try to manipulate and cover up the truth. :lol:

If a person is hungry but "has no interest" in doing what it takes to eat, why is that someone else's problem?

[revelarts]

Lack of people workin leads to lack of good living conditions. the state doesn't build most homes or provide most jobs (at least they don't have to) or food.

When people are working /self sufficient you always have a minority that falls through the cracks but it doesn't have to lead to a Socialist or a Police state (which are one in the same most of the time).

[Little-Acorn]

Govt takes people's money for an unconstitutional program by threat of force, and little joesteal thinks small-govt advocates should NOT want to get it back.

I use the word "thinks" here, with significant exaggeration.

[Palin Rider]

It's always fun to see the leftists try to pretend there are only the options THEY want to make available.
Amazing how hard they try to manipulate and cover up the truth.

If a person is hungry but "has no interest" in doing what it takes to eat, why is that someone else's problem?

Last edited by Little-Acorn; Today at 03:42 PM.

I didn't call them the only options, genius. I called them the only humane options. Unless, of course, you want to point out a humane option I omitted (but I doubt you could be humane if you tried).

[Missileman]

I didn't call them the only options, genius. I called them the only humane options. Unless, of course, you want to point out a humane option I omitted (but I doubt you could be humane if you tried).

You forgot the option of offering this lazy person a job...more than humane. If they don't take advantage, it's on them, not society.

[Mr. P]

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?
There's really only one humane option.

Don't give them anything and allow THEM, the elements and hunger build the interest in holding a job. No need for the state to enable them.

[Psychoblues]

Ayn Rand and many of you are assuming reasons yet undetermined for the poverty of others and their available options for the relief of the same. For me, living in a country where many of it's veterans are living on the streets, under bridges, etc. says plenty about attitute of those whose responsibility it is to put those shattered minds back together again once they get back home. Living on this Mississippi delta I see the lives of poor illiterate black people as deplorable, impossible and hopeless for any real change. I've posted often here about how these Mississippi farmers and businessmen get tons of government subsidies to the point there is just nothing left for the truly needy. Although I'm not a religious person, I think Jesus Christ would be very ashamed of most of what calls themselves christians nowadays on the issue of poverty alone. And then we get into all that judge not yet ye be judged stuff. It boggles the interested mind sometimes.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?

Why is making them and their children a virtual slave to the state a humane option.


Ayn Rand and many of you are assuming reasons yet undetermined for the poverty of others and their available options for the relief of the same. For me, living in a country where many of it's veterans are living on the streets, under bridges, etc. says plenty about attitute of those whose responsibility it is to put those shattered minds back together again once they get back home. Living on this Mississippi delta I see the lives of poor illiterate black people as deplorable, impossible and hopeless for any real change. I've posted often here about how these Mississippi farmers and businessmen get tons of government subsidies to the point there is just nothing left for the truly needy. Although I'm not a religious person, I think Jesus Christ would be very ashamed of most of what calls themselves christians nowadays on the issue of poverty alone. And then we get into all that judge not yet ye be judged stuff. It boggles the interested mind sometimes.

Psychoblues

Did Rand, and "many of us", argue against subsidies or for them?

Why do you assume reasons for poverty are undetermined?

[Palin Rider]

Why is making them and their children a virtual slave to the state a humane option.

They're not slaves unless they don't have the freedom to leave. If someone else (inside or outside the state) chooses to take them in, fine.

[Psychoblues]

Did Rand, and "many of us", argue against subsidies or for them?

Why do you assume reasons for poverty are undetermined?

Subsidies for who? Are we on the same subject? I'm talking about reality as opposed to anything Ayn Rand or the dittoheads here are demonstrating as their beliefs about how government subsidies operate on the Mississippi Delta. In the case of the OP, Ayn Rand depended very heavily on the very programs she despised and condemned so thereby proving without doubt her hypocrisy and shallow thinking in this respect.

I said many of YOU are assuming undetermined reasons for poverty and I stand by that. I gave a few examples and I'm certain you can think of a few more.

Psychoblues

[Little-Acorn]

If a person is hungry but "has no interest" in doing what it takes to eat, why is that someone else's problem? And especially, why is it government's problem?

[revelarts]

Psych you've ignored what we're talking about. I was very specific.

Someone with the ability to work but its to lazy too.

That person deserve Zero assistants. Even the apostle Paul said if a Man "does not work neither should he eat".

God doesn't reward laziness.

As far as people that are hardship through no fault of there own. Then there is an obligation to help those who cannot help them selves. However it is not a "state" function. There's no christian mandate to take money from everyone , believers and non believers, give it to the state leaders and have them divide it up between those they think that need it, after they take their cut of course.

It seems that once you start passing out Subsidies that way the rich seem to find a way to get their unfair share, which doesn't seem to help the people your rightly concerned about does it?

Basically it's my understanding that the bible teaches us the family then charity (and gleaning) are suppose to provide for those that CANNOT take care of themselves. Those that fall on hard times are suppose to get up with a hand up and take care of themselves and their family. Family is the 1st safety net then the local community and the church not taxes taken via the state and federal gov'ts.

It's an everyday occurrence for christian orgs and churches to help the poor, sick and people in trouble.

If you read my post you'd notice that i said that I believe that Rand has some CRITICAL flaws in her philosophy but IMO shes got some thing very clearly correct.

[Psychoblues]

Psych you've ignored what we're talking about. I was very specific.

Someone with the ability to work but its to lazy too.

That person deserve Zero assistants. Even the apostle Paul said if a Man "does not work neither should he eat".

God doesn't reward laziness.

As far as people that are hardship through no fault of there own. Then there is an obligation to help those who cannot help them selves. However it is not a "state" function. There's no christian mandate to take money from everyone , believers and non believers, give it to the state leaders and have them divide it up between those they think that need it, after they take their cut of course.

It seems that once you start passing out Subsidies that way the rich seem to find a way to get their unfair share, which doesn't seem to help the people your rightly concerned about does it?

Basically it's my understanding that the bible teaches us the family then charity (and gleaning) are suppose to provide for those that CANNOT take care of themselves. Those that fall on hard times are suppose to get up with a hand up and take care of themselves and their family. Family is the 1st safety net then the local community and the church not taxes taken via the state and federal gov'ts.

It's an everyday occurrence for christian orgs and churches to help the poor, sick and people in trouble.

If you read my post you'd notice that i said that I believe that Rand has some CRITICAL flaws in her philosophy but IMO shes got some thing very clearly correct.

revelart, I refuse to believe in all the bullshit that I hear all the time from the reichwingers about poor people and the obligations of society, such as it is, to help them by giving them a hand up, a little hope, a better understanding or whatever it takes help them help themselves. For the vastly most part I think the needy people do what they can and are embarrassed to even ask for help. Some that actually can do better abuse the system and gives all the rest a bad name for the jerks that refuse to see the truth.

Take the statement by lilacurn above, if a person is hungry but "has no interest" in doing what it takes to eat, why is that someone else's problem? And especially, why is it government's problem?

Is that a serious question or observation? I think not for any seriously minded individual. I have never met anything like the person that la is concerned about and if I ever did it would absolutely indicate a very serious medical or psychiatric phenomenon. In fact, just a statement like that would not come from any sane or reasonable source IMHO.

You really do make a number of ridiculous assumptions about lefties in your post, revy, and I'll let you work all that our for yourself. You are smart enough, are you ambitious enough?

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

They're not slaves unless they don't have the freedom to leave. If someone else (inside or outside the state) chooses to take them in, fine.

What freedom do they have if you've enabled them to become completely dependent on the state for their basic needs?


Subsidies for who? Are we on the same subject? I'm talking about reality as opposed to anything Ayn Rand or the dittoheads here are demonstrating as their beliefs about how government subsidies operate on the Mississippi Delta. In the case of the OP, Ayn Rand depended very heavily on the very programs she despised and condemned so thereby proving without doubt her hypocrisy and shallow thinking in this respect.

YOU brought up corporate subsidies for businesses and farmers in the delta. I'm pretty sure most conservatives here are against the corporate subsidies that they receive. How did she depend on them more heavily than others of her generation?


I said many of YOU are assuming undetermined reasons for poverty and I stand by that. I gave a few examples and I'm certain you can think of a few more.

What are we assuming? If you ask me, many times government is a major reason for poverty.

[Psychoblues]

YOU brought up corporate subsidies for businesses and farmers in the delta. I'm pretty sure most conservatives here are against the corporate subsidies that they receive. How did she depend on them more heavily than others of her generation?



What are we assuming? If you ask me, many times government is a major reason for poverty.

I understand that the subject is beyond you and most like you, fj. I don't know where you're getting hung up and I just can't go back to 2 plus 2 and a,b,c don't you know?

I agree there are governments that are responsible for the poverty of those they govern. By the same token, that same government is responsible for the overwhelming wealth of the typical top 2 to 3 percent of their populations. What to do with all that disparity is the question. President Dwight D. Eisenhower thought a 92% tax rate for our wealthiest citizens was the correct solution. Even though poverty was not eliminated then maybe we need to go back to that era when fairness was more like fair.

We would not have any national debt or deficit and our country could get about making all our lives a bit better through common infrastructure, coordinating services from a federal level, eliminating joblessness, producing better students, better schools, better reseach and development, better factories and better products. It's a win/win thing from my viewpoint and if it weren't I could not and would not support it. I can make up my own mind about that. I don't need the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann telling me whether something is win/win or not.

Later, Alligator

Psychoblues

[revelarts]

revelart, I refuse to believe in all the bullshit that I hear all the time from the reichwingers about poor people and the obligations of society, such as it is, to help them by giving them a hand up, a little hope, a better understanding or whatever it takes help them help themselves. For the vastly most part I think the needy people do what they can and are embarrassed to even ask for help. Some that actually can do better abuse the system and gives all the rest a bad name for the jerks that refuse to see the truth.

Take the statement by lilacurn above, if a person is hungry but "has no interest" in doing what it takes to eat, why is that someone else's problem? And especially, why is it government's problem?


Is that a serious question or observation? I think not for any seriously minded individual. I have never met anything like the person that la is concerned about and if I ever did it would absolutely indicate a very serious medical or psychiatric phenomenon. In fact, just a statement like that would not come from any sane or reasonable source IMHO.

You really do make a number of ridiculous assumptions about lefties in your post, revy, and I'll let you work all that our for yourself. You are smart enough, are you ambitious enough?

Psychoblues

If you refuse to believe what people say AND call them names how do expect to have a real conversation. AND Are you any better than those you accuse of stereotyping or miscasting the poor when you do the same Psych?


But i'm not sure how I've made assumptions, the post that started this off , and you yourself, Bash Ayn Rand and anyone who 's been influenced by her. It was a general across the board slam that didn't give her or those that agree with some of what she says ANY credit. there where no caveats, no "howevers" no "except fors". Just blanket SLAMS.

what else am i suppose to assume but that they really don't like much or ANY of what she says. Niether you or Joe or PRider have said anything good about her or what she's said. so why should i be disabused of my opinion created by the clearly stated smears against her by 2 resident lefty's.

If we stay on point and not make sweeping statements we may find some common ground, until then.

[fj1200]

I understand that the subject is beyond you and most like you, fj. I don't know where you're getting hung up and I just can't go back to 2 plus 2 and a,b,c don't you know?

Not able to hold a conversation without the invectives I see. YOU brought up corporate welfare; I, and many here, do not support it so your original comment is a non-starter. Now if you want to talk about poverty and what I do understand we can go from there capiche?


I agree there are governments that are responsible for the poverty of those they govern. By the same token, that same government is responsible for the overwhelming wealth of the typical top 2 to 3 percent of their populations. What to do with all that disparity is the question. President Dwight D. Eisenhower thought a 92% tax rate for our wealthiest citizens was the correct solution. Even though poverty was not eliminated then maybe we need to go back to that era when fairness was more like fair.

Did you intentionally misread my post? Government can CAUSE poverty. The Great Depression was massive poverty and it was CAUSED by government intervention. Government is NOT responsible for wealth created by its citizens. What does it matter what Ike thought about tax rates?


We would not have any national debt or deficit and our country could get about making all our lives a bit better through common infrastructure, coordinating services from a federal level, eliminating joblessness, producing better students, better schools, better reseach and development, better factories and better products. It's a win/win thing from my viewpoint and if it weren't I could not and would not support it. I can make up my own mind about that. I don't need the likes of Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann telling me whether something is win/win or not.

Newsflash dude, it's not the 50s anymore and we're not 5 years removed from bombing the crap out of our global competitors; would you like us to destroy our global competition and jack up the income tax rates to get back to that nirvana? And poverty wasn't eliminated with 92% tax rates? The F' you say, maybe that's pretty much proof that high tax rates are not the answer.

[Palin Rider]

What freedom do they have if you've enabled them to become completely dependent on the state for their basic needs?

I told you already. They have the freedom to leave.

[fj1200]

I told you already. They have the freedom to leave.

How so with only the bare necessities?

[Psychoblues]

If you refuse to believe what people say AND call them names how do expect to have a real conversation. AND Are you any better than those you accuse of stereotyping or miscasting the poor when you do the same Psych?


But i'm not sure how I've made assumptions, the post that started this off , and you yourself, Bash Ayn Rand and anyone who 's been influenced by her. It was a general across the board slam that didn't give her or those that agree with some of what she says ANY credit. there where no caveats, no "howevers" no "except fors". Just blanket SLAMS.

what else am i suppose to assume but that they really don't like much or ANY of what she says. Niether you or Joe or PRider have said anything good about her or what she's said. so why should i be disabused of my opinion created by the clearly stated smears against her by 2 resident lefty's.

If we stay on point and not make sweeping statements we may find some common ground, until then.

I try my best to listen closely to what you say, revy, as I think you are one of the more critically accurate and pleasantly conversational on the board. Reading back through I repeat that I belive you are making some entirely unfair assumptions on the parts of the poor and disadvantaged in this country. I don't want to get hung up on that as this particular thread is about Ayn Rand, her hypocrisy and how you and I might feel about that. Everything is not necessarily a debate. I am not trying to beat you in any way and I hope you the same.

Others here make similarly unfair and totally inaccurate statements and assumptions concerning those with little ability to do better than they are doing. If the churches were doing what churches and the bible say to do then we wouldn't be having this conversation about the government, would we? Instead, churches contain the most judgemental, evil minded, downright hateful, fearful, bigoted and stingy people I have ever met in this country or any other.

You may call that painting with a broad brush but I generally qualify my broad brush statements to not include "all" as you allude. I have never started any thread about Ayn Rand. I will participate when I see an Ayn Rand circle jerk happening. I find them hilarious. So far I have not met a single person on this board that I beleive has the chops to get into any elementary conversations about Ayn Rand philosophy, or lack thereof, much less any comprehensive look at her self loathing, neediness and psuedo intellectualisms and how any of that corelated to her overall psyche.

Psychoblues


Not able to hold a conversation without the invectives I see. YOU brought up corporate welfare; I, and many here, do not support it so your original comment is a non-starter. Now if you want to talk about poverty and what I do understand we can go from there capiche?

I've said what I wanted to say in that respect. I hope you're intentionally misunderstanding me as, like I said, have no intention of going back to 2 plus 2 and a,b,c.

Did you intentionally misread my post? Government can CAUSE poverty. The Great Depression was massive poverty and it was CAUSED by government intervention. Government is NOT responsible for wealth created by its citizens. What does it matter what Ike thought about tax rates?

I've read many theories concerning the causes of the Great Depression, fj. Governmental intervention is but one of them and not accepted by most economists with whom I maintain respect. Government creates and maintains the atmosphere from fire protection, educated workforce, healthy population, etc. that creates and protects wealth, dumbo. That's why it's only fair for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage in taxes as they expect more in services, protections, an educated, healthy and qualified workforce, etc. Living in the USA doesn't have to be all the doom and gloom that reichwingers want for us, don't you know?


Newsflash dude, it's not the 50s anymore and we're not 5 years removed from bombing the crap out of our global competitors; would you like us to destroy our global competition and jack up the income tax rates to get back to that nirvana? And poverty wasn't eliminated with 92% tax rates? The F' you say, maybe that's pretty much proof that high tax rates are not the answer.

Newsflash, dude. We're in a much better position now to understand what went wrong in the 50's and we don't have the cold war, mutual world annilation by nuclear bombing on 8 separate worldwide platforms, a multi trillion dollar nationwide expressway system going in, oh why do I even try with these morons? We, you and me, can do better. I'm willing to try if you are. That's all I care to say at this time.

Psychoblues

[GUBMINT Cheese]

Why is making them and their children a virtual slave to the state a humane option.

It's not.....
The problem lies in rewarding uncontrolled breeding......

[Psychoblues]

It's not.....
The problem lies in rewarding uncontrolled breeding......

Procreation is the natural condition of the human being. Good luck changing that.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

I've said what I wanted to say in that respect. I hope you're intentionally misunderstanding me as, like I said, have no intention of going back to 2 plus 2 and a,b,c.

Sure thing. ;) Wouldn't want you to own up to your comments.


I've read many theories concerning the causes of the Great Depression, fj. Governmental intervention is but one of them and not accepted by most economists with whom I maintain respect. Government creates and maintains the atmosphere from fire protection, educated workforce, healthy population, etc. that creates and protects wealth, dumbo. That's why it's only fair for the wealthy to pay a higher percentage in taxes as they expect more in services, protections, an educated, healthy and qualified workforce, etc. Living in the USA doesn't have to be all the doom and gloom that reichwingers want for us, don't you know?

Again with the name calling, try having a conversation without it. I thought we had come to an understanding a few weeks back.

So, what are those theories that you buy into? We wouldn't want you to agree with anything that doesn't fit your world view. And most of your post above has little to do with poverty.


Newsflash, dude. We're in a much better position now to understand what went wrong in the 50's and we don't have the cold war, mutual world annilation by nuclear bombing on 8 separate worldwide platforms, a multi trillion dollar nationwide expressway system going in, oh why do I even try with these morons? We, you and me, can do better. I'm willing to try if you are. That's all I care to say at this time.

Not to many posts ago and you were extolling the virtues of the '50s. How could anything have gone wrong with the wonders of 90% marginal tax rates?

We were doing better until you trot out the "reichwinger" nonsense.

[Psychoblues]

Sure thing. ;) Wouldn't want you to own up to your comments.

Is your misunderstanding intentional or are you polishing up your Vegas act?

Again with the name calling, try having a conversation without it. I thought we had come to an understanding a few weeks back.

So, what are those theories that you buy into? We wouldn't want you to agree with anything that doesn't fit your world view. And most of your post above has little to do with poverty.

Here you are exactly correct, fj. We did come to an understanding and I have failed to live up to the expectations that we agreed upon and I sincerely apologize for that. I hope you will accept it. I get caught up in others being vile and hateful to me on this and other threads and get confused as to who I should or should not be likewise with. Really, it happens so much it seems that everyone on this board is vile, mean and hateful except me.

The theories that I buy into concerning the Great Depression involve pretty much the same things we have recently experienced and continue to experience in large ways. Lack of regulation, market manipulations though short selling, hidden agenda's, false and misleading accounting methods, misleading lending practices, dark banking and market transactions, all things involving a terrific failure of the free-market system collectively caused the Great Depression. This is not just my opinion. These simple explanations are taught in universities nationwide and to get more information I suggest attending one or at least reading a book or maybe two for comparative purposes. I haven't formed my world-view as nonchalantly and irresponsibly as you seem to surmise, fj.

Weren't we discussing the slothful and niggardly tactics of the industrious and poor/middle class hating Ayn Rand? The Virtues Of Selfishness,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,indeed says a lot to me. She died a poor and very much crazier than before woman and depended entirely on the very institutions that she had made a fortune defiling and condemning. Did I mention that her fortune was eaten up by her healthcare expenses? That's relavent to this conversation, isn't it?


Not to many posts ago and you were extolling the virtues of the '50s. How could anything have gone wrong with the wonders of 90% marginal tax rates?

I continue to extoll the virtues of the 50's and the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. My father and mother got better educations and jobs than would ever be available to them now and they made enough salary to support a family of 7 even though my father was a hardcore alcoholic and many times when he got paid on Friday we didn't see him until Sunday or sometimes Monday. The rest of that story with him is also sad except that he did earn enough money to adequately support his family. My mother worked as a professioal by choice and not as any necessity to the family. The nation grew by leaps and bounds and President Eisenhower continued in motion the desegragation and mending of race relations begun by his predecessor, President Harry Truman. I could go on and on about the virtues of the 50's but I think you get my drift, I hope, I hope! Not to ignore your question about the 90% tax rates but it seems I remember an awful lot of filthy rich people back then and they weren't leaving the country with their wealth. I guess people were just better Americans then in a number of ways.

We were doing better until you trot out the "reichwinger" nonsense.

I reserve my right to use the reichwinger moniker for a number of reasons. Many, nay, most on this board use far more hurtful and hateful namecalling for anyone they may deem a "lefty" of sorts or even of each other if they disagree. You just can't break the locked goose-step, can you? It's in them before they are born!!!!!!!!! And besides, I'm polishing up my Vegas act as well!!


Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

Psychoblues

As you give, you will receive. Rather than focusing on the few, you might be better focused on the reasonable?

[Palin Rider]

How so with only the bare necessities?

The fact that they're given the bare necessities doesn't preclude them from doing things to earn enough to pay for other goods and services, including travel expenses.

[Kathianne]

The fact that they're given the bare necessities doesn't preclude them from doing things to earn enough to pay for other goods and services, including travel expenses.

Then they don't need to be 'given' anything.

[BoogyMan]

If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job, there are only two humane things to do with them.
1. Give them the bare necessities only, or
2. Euthanize them.

Which are you going to pick?

A man will only remain lazy and shiftless while he is pampered and handed the bare necessities. When such necessities are removed the choice will be in the hands of the individual, where it should be, not on the government.

[Psychoblues]

As you give, you will receive. Rather than focusing on the few, you might be better focused on the reasonable?

We can play the visa versa game from here on out, Kath. I mainly come here for entertainment and if focusing on an idiot or two isn't available periodically then I might not find it so entertaining. And that's not to mention those that seem to know better but are so appalled at the very sight or sound of a "lib'rul" they lose all pretense of intelligence and objectivity!!!!!!! They're my favorites but it pisses off others that don't get the nuances, satire, ironies, etc. and then they seem to get mad at me for their own shortcomings. Que Sera Sera.

If you haven't noticed, Kath, I am trying to better approach other posters, issues and the board in general. Like you, Kath, I hope that approach catches on. We'll all probably have less heartburn if it does.

Psychoblues

[Kathianne]

We can play the visa versa game from here on out, Kath. I mainly come here for entertainment and if focusing on an idiot or two isn't available periodically then I might not find it so entertaining. And that's not to mention those that seem to know better but are so appalled at the very sight or sound of a "lib'rul" they lose all pretense of intelligence and objectivity!!!!!!! They're my favorites but it pisses off others that don't get the nuances, satire, ironies, etc. and then they seem to get mad at me for their own shortcomings. Que Sera Sera.

If you haven't noticed, Kath, I am trying to better approach other posters, issues and the board in general. Like you, Kath, I hope that approach catches on. We'll all probably have less heartburn if it does.

Psychoblues

I see more sense in your posting, but not less bias via partisanship. You call names and group by labels. It's your right, but we differ. Drastically. You fail to see it, but then again, you don't seem to be looking. I'm not alone, then again, neither are you.

I like my road, it's a tad higher. Like the Rockies and Adirondack's.

[Psychoblues]

I see more sense in your posting, but not less bias via partisanship. You call names and group by labels. It's your right, but we differ. Drastically. You fail to see it, but then again, you don't seem to be looking. I'm not alone, then again, neither are you.

I like my road, it's a tad higher. Like the Rockies and Adirondack's.

What do we have here? Perhaps an entirely different point of perception? Elitism, perhaps? I like my road too, Kath.

Psychoblues

[fj1200]

The fact that they're given the bare necessities doesn't preclude them from doing things to earn enough to pay for other goods and services, including travel expenses.

Just not getting it are you?

[texastom]

psycho, you are psycho and you're extremely immature and childish.

[Psychoblues]

psycho, you are psycho and you're extremely immature and childish.

Wuzza matta, lil' tommy turdlicker? Can't take a little right back at you? You ain't the first and I hope you ain't the last. jerks like you are more entertaining than sensible, but ain't that what entertainment is all about?

For the life of me I'll never understand why anyone would attempt in any way to slur me by calling me psycho or Psycho. My damned screen name is Psychoblues and that or most any variation of that is fine with me.

Anytime you want to get that tommy turdlicker ilk straightened out all you gotta do is say something. Until then, you made that bed and I like that moniker for you.

Psychoblues

[Palin Rider]

Then they don't need to be 'given' anything.

What if their work doesn't pay them enough to buy the basic necessities? You of all people should be familiar with this situation.


A man will only remain lazy and shiftless while he is pampered and handed the bare necessities. When such necessities are removed the choice will be in the hands of the individual, where it should be, not on the government.

Bull. Everyone wants cars, big-screen TVs, and whatever else.


Just not getting it are you?

There is no "it" coming from you, just empty questions.

[Kathianne]

What if their work doesn't pay them enough to buy the basic necessities? You of all people should be familiar with this situation.

Then they can't buy a ticket either. Simple reasoning there. If they work enough to be able to buy such 'extras' they don't need the give aways.

Bottom line, if all give a ways were non-existent, prices would be more affordable. The entitlements are killing the economy, which is already in bad shape.

[Palin Rider]

Then they can't buy a ticket either. Simple reasoning there. If they work enough to be able to buy such 'extras' they don't need the give aways.

Bottom line, if all give a ways were non-existent, prices would be more affordable. The entitlements are killing the economy, which is already in bad shape.

Sure, if enough paying work is available.

To your other point, the government on average is issuing a lot less in personal entitlements than it was 30 years ago, and yet basic expenses continue to climb. So that theory doesn't appear to hold up.

[Missileman]

To your other point, the government on average is issuing a lot less in personal entitlements than it was 30 years ago, and yet basic expenses continue to climb. So that theory doesn't appear to hold up.

:link:

BTW, what do you suppose happens when the government raises the minimum wage AND floods the country with cash. Hint...it rhymes with INFLATION!

[Kathianne]

Sure, if enough paying work is available.

To your other point, the government on average is issuing a lot less in personal entitlements than it was 30 years ago, and yet basic expenses continue to climb. So that theory doesn't appear to hold up.

I'm with MM, link to less entitlements than 30 years ago. Or do you mean there are less in the past year, than over the previous 29?

[fj1200]

There is no "it" coming from you, just empty questions.

The questions are not empty, they are very telling when you can't/won't answer them.


If someone is truly so lazy and shiftless that they have no interest in holding a job...


What if their work doesn't pay them enough to buy the basic necessities?

You're not even doing a good job of changing the subject.


Here you are exactly correct, fj. We did come to an understanding and I have failed to live up to the expectations that we agreed upon and I sincerely apologize for that. I hope you will accept it. I get caught up in others being vile and hateful to me on this and other threads and get confused as to who I should or should not be likewise with. Really, it happens so much it seems that everyone on this board is vile, mean and hateful except me.

Sometimes we just need to rise above it. And sometimes I fail miserably. :laugh:


The theories that I buy into concerning the Great Depression involve pretty much the same things we have recently experienced and continue to experience in large ways. Lack of regulation, market manipulations though short selling, hidden agenda's, false and misleading accounting methods, misleading lending practices, dark banking and market transactions, all things involving a terrific failure of the free-market system collectively caused the Great Depression. This is not just my opinion. These simple explanations are taught in universities nationwide and to get more information I suggest attending one or at least reading a book or maybe two for comparative purposes. I haven't formed my world-view as nonchalantly and irresponsibly as you seem to surmise, fj.

I've read plenty of books on the subject and I note that your list (and quite an impressive list of populist phrases it is) happens to avoid any mention of the massive intervention by the government from the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act which coincided with the October crash (over 1000 economists signed a letter urging Hoover to veto), the constant raising of taxes throughout the GD, the over-regulation of everyday business transactions by the NIRA, the implementation of the Undistributed Profits Tax, etc. This doesn't even mention the work by Friedman and Schwartz, Nobel work BTW, which details the monetary failures by the Fed during that time. I'm sure you'll also discount the work by some UCLA economists that note that the New Deal programs actually lengthened and deepened the severity of the GD. Others I've talked to on the subject like to dismiss any new work critical of FDR and the ND as revisionism; would that include you?


Weren't we discussing the slothful and niggardly tactics of the industrious and poor/middle class hating Ayn Rand? The Virtues Of Selfishness,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,indeed says a lot to me. She died a poor and very much crazier than before woman and depended entirely on the very institutions that she had made a fortune defiling and condemning. Did I mention that her fortune was eaten up by her healthcare expenses? That's relavent to this conversation, isn't it?

It's relevant to her views on the subject but not mine. The growth of government has been an encroachment into the everyday for the seeming purpose of creating entitlement/dependence by the citizens who by very rights should really have no dependence beyond a safety net. I have no issues with a safety net but we've gone well beyond that haven't we?


I continue to extoll the virtues of the 50's and the presidency of Dwight D. Eisenhower. My father and mother got better educations and jobs than would ever be available to them now and they made enough salary to support a family of 7 even though my father was a hardcore alcoholic and many times when he got paid on Friday we didn't see him until Sunday or sometimes Monday. The rest of that story with him is also sad except that he did earn enough money to adequately support his family. My mother worked as a professioal by choice and not as any necessity to the family. The nation grew by leaps and bounds and President Eisenhower continued in motion the desegragation and mending of race relations begun by his predecessor, President Harry Truman. I could go on and on about the virtues of the 50's but I think you get my drift, I hope, I hope! Not to ignore your question about the 90% tax rates but it seems I remember an awful lot of filthy rich people back then and they weren't leaving the country with their wealth. I guess people were just better Americans then in a number of ways.

Going back to the "glory days" of the 50's would crush the US in the global economy. Would you like to bomb the rest of the world to oblivion so we can recreate them?


I reserve my right to use the reichwinger moniker for a number of reasons. Many, nay, most on this board use far more hurtful and hateful namecalling for anyone they may deem a "lefty" of sorts or even of each other if they disagree. You just can't break the locked goose-step, can you? It's in them before they are born!!!!!!!!! And besides, I'm polishing up my Vegas act as well!!

The use of "reichwinger" is ignorant and more telling of the one who uses it than the one who it is used against. The same thing goes for the other side as well.

[Palin Rider]

I'm with MM, link to less entitlements than 30 years ago. Or do you mean there are less in the past year, than over the previous 29?

Okay, here's something to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif

And by the way, don't bother trying to counterclaim that Medicare and SS have gone up in the same time period. That's simply dishonest, given that these are mandatory entitlements (in fact, the only two mandatory ones), and are therefore almost impossible to cut.


The questions are not empty, they are very telling when you can't/won't answer them.

Still no "it," to get, I see. Just more chest-beating.

[Missileman]

Okay, here's something to get you started:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Welfare_Benefits_Payments_Graph.gif

And by the way, don't bother trying to counterclaim that Medicare and SS have gone up in the same time period. That's simply dishonest, given that these are mandatory entitlements (in fact, the only two mandatory ones), and are therefore almost impossible to cut.

I know you'd like to only consider just the one entitlement that went down to make your argument, but that dog don't hunt.

From: http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/federal-spending-by-the-numbers-2010

Since 2000, spending has grown across the board. Entitlement spending has reached a record 14 percent of GDP.

Don't see how we're at a 30-year-low if we're breaking a record.

[fj1200]

And by the way, don't bother trying to counterclaim that Medicare and SS have gone up in the same time period. That's simply dishonest, given that these are mandatory entitlements (in fact, the only two mandatory ones), and are therefore almost impossible to cut.

Considering welfare benefits aren't entitlements, don't be silly.

[texastom]

Considering welfare benefits aren't entitlements, don't be silly.

LOL I can't believe he was so careless to try and use a chart on welfare benefits to try and bolster his claim about entitlements. d'oh!

[Mr. P]

LOL I can't believe he was so careless to try and use a chart on welfare benefits to try and bolster his claim about entitlements. d'oh!
You'll get use to his uselessness.

[Palin Rider]

LOL I can't believe he was so careless to try and use a chart on welfare benefits to try and bolster his claim about entitlements. d'oh!

Benefits and entitlements are distinctions without a difference, Cartman.

[texastom]

Benefits and entitlements are distinctions without a difference, Cartman.Wrong. But it's not worth my time to dig through all the definitions to lay it out for you. If you don't know the difference, you're too ignorant to bother with having a discussion.

[Abbey Marie]

So your position is that a lack of humane living conditions for its citizens is not the state's problem. That mindset invariably leads to a police state.

Can you please connect the dots for me? I'm not seeing how one would logically, let alone invariably, lead to the other.

[Palin Rider]

Can you please connect the dots for me? I'm not seeing how one would logically, let alone invariably, lead to the other.

I would have thought it was intuitive, but sure.

What happens to a culture that places a very low value on human life? Democracy?

China is a perfect example of this, as is Singapore.

[fj1200]

What happens to a culture that places a very low value on human life?

You mean like abortion?

[Palin Rider]

You mean like abortion?

When a culture decides, "we'll protect you in utero, but after that, you're on your own," that's hardly placing a high value on life.

[fj1200]

When a culture decides, "we'll protect you in utero, but after that, you're on your own," that's hardly placing a high value on life.

Thank goodness our society doesn't do that.

[Abbey Marie]

I would have thought it was intuitive, but sure.

What happens to a culture that places a very low value on human life? Democracy?

China is a perfect example of this, as is Singapore.

Not making the State responsible for everyone's living conditions is not the same as not caring. There is poverty in just about every Democracy in the world. Are they all really totalitarian governments in disguise? There is no sine qua non about this, though you try to make it so.

The fact is, there will always be a small percentage of people who are too physically or mentally disabled to fend for themselves. These should be helped, and charitable organizations do a good job of it.

However, for many, poverty is self-induced, usually by ignoring their education, behaving poorly with drugs or alcohol, and/or having sex before being able to afford children. Avoid all of these (which, btw, the Bible advises), and you can earn a living and care for yourself.


When a culture decides, "we'll protect you in utero, but after that, you're on your own," that's hardly placing a high value on life.

For the first 18 years at least, that is the parents' job, no?

[Palin Rider]

For the first 18 years at least, that is the parents' job, no?

And yet the state rarely does much when parents don't do that job.

[Kathianne]

And yet the state rarely does much when parents don't do that job.

Really? I'm betting tens of thousands of individuals would disagree with you. Many of which have legitimate grievances against the state.

[Palin Rider]

Really? I'm betting tens of thousands of individuals would disagree with you. Many of which have legitimate grievances against the state.

You're not suggesting that it's easy to for the state to take children away from abusive parents, are you?

[Kathianne]

You're not suggesting that it's easy to for the state to take children away from abusive parents, are you?

Easy? Not necessarily. Often wrong? Yes. On that point, both ways. Often return children to abusive parents. Too often leave good parents in limbo regarding their children. Why? Perhaps personalities of abusers?

No proof, not saying such. But it's a degree of separation with parents dealing with in school. The most obnoxious and aggressive will tie you up with legalities, until the administration gives in. Those with kids being bullied, will often cave, moving their child to another school rather than trying all the remedies available to the bully and their supportive parents.

[texastom]

I would have thought it was intuitive, but sure.

What happens to a culture that places a very low value on human life? Democracy?

China is a perfect example of this, as is Singapore.Singapore? Are you serious? You've obviously never been to Singapore! lol You haven't a clue.

[Palin Rider]

Singapore? Are you serious? You've obviously never been to Singapore! lol You haven't a clue.

Singapore has a death penalty, Cartman, and they use it for nonviolent crimes, too.

[logroller]

Attn: all u turdlicking libby reichwingers! I enjoy a good intellectual debate, anybody have one? Just kidding,:beer:
I love to discuss and analyze markets and politics, ideally with objective evidence and solid arguments; but its equally important to remember the real-life conditions which actually existed, rather than through the historical fiction - which best describes Atlas Shrugged. Not to take anything away from these stories, but they are intended, first and foremost, to entertain.
I would like to share a story. My grandfather went to work in a mine at the age of 13 to help support the family. At the age of 15, he was fired for coughing up blood during a company physical. During this time the family received welfare rations like potatoes and shoes, maybe a bed. You see, his mother was half cherokee and viewed as a leach on the society; you know-- not having jobs and mooching off welfare provisions. They then emigrated west, to which these "rednecked okies" received little better treatment. He, like most men of his generation, served during wwII, as a transmission man in N Africa, to which he received a purple heart(2X) and severe burns. Returning home, thanks to a decrease in working population, he found work in the booming PetroIndustry. He worked and invested in the stock of the company he worked for and retired with a house he bought cash. I remember as a young child when I was told I couldn't sit on Gpa's lap because "it hurt him", come to find out later, it was cancer, operable, but the pain in his abdomin would remain unbearable for the next 15yrs until he would finally succumb. I can't help but wonder, despite all the social ills which exposed him to heavymetals and prejudice, he persevered, and that without the social support systems so despised today -- my grandfather likely would have starved to death. So when people say conservative policies and a free market sort out the details best without gov't handouts and regulatory interference, I can reasonable infer, I would not exist by this standard. Social entitlements be damned, I'm still happy to be here.