Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

What Does it Mean to Be a Liberal?Follow

#52 Aug 09 2012 at 3:56 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Gbaji, you really need to get a life. Or a different, more productive hobby. There are real issues with someone who spends hours and hours arguing asinine points that absolutely no one reads through.
#53 Aug 09 2012 at 4:06 PM Rating: Good
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
While we can presumably agree in the abstract that if I normally beat you 10 times each morning, but then decide to only beat you 5 times today, that you are better off with the reduced beating, it's still wrong to view that as me actually helping you. I'm hurting you less.

That's still an absolutely horrible comparison. I have to wonder if you're deliberately picking these examples because you're substituting emotional impact ("Theft!", "Beatings!") for a realistic comparison because you know a real comparison wouldn't stand up or if it's because you honestly think your point is a rational one.

I suppose, assuming that you're sincerely making these comparisons, in your mindset paying taxes is a de facto "negative effect" akin to mugging and torture as opposed to being something that potentially provides for a number of positive benefits if properly administered. This brings us back to a point of having such different mindsets that it's not really worth debating and, in fact, ties right back into the "goverment as shadowy 'Other'" mindset I see so often in conservatives.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#54 Aug 09 2012 at 5:27 PM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It's not about whether it's "theft", or "taxes", or "donations".


Yeah, it kinda is. I see paying taxes as part of being a good citizen. It's how we finance the common weal. You, apparently, see taxes as governmental pickpocketing.

This point of view, as much as anything, separates liberals and conservatives.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#55 Aug 09 2012 at 7:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
While we can presumably agree in the abstract that if I normally beat you 10 times each morning, but then decide to only beat you 5 times today, that you are better off with the reduced beating, it's still wrong to view that as me actually helping you. I'm hurting you less.

That's still an absolutely horrible comparison. I have to wonder if you're deliberately picking these examples because you're substituting emotional impact ("Theft!", "Beatings!") for a realistic comparison because you know a real comparison wouldn't stand up or if it's because you honestly think your point is a rational one.


I wasn't the person who picked taxes as the one example to focus on though. If you recall, I gave several examples of liberals confusing positive vs negative effects. Failing to provide free health care is equated to denying access to care. Failing to fund ESC research is equated to banning stem cell research. Failing to provide as much funds for student loans is denying students and opportunity for an education. ****. Simply opposing schemes to forgive those loans is labeled as doing so as well.

Like I keep saying, you're getting too caught up on the specific words used, and attempting to posit some kind of emotional action or something. That's not my intent. My intent is to get you to realize that liberals tend to not a difference between actions which reduce harm versus those which create help. Similarly, they tend to not see a difference between actions which fail to help and those which cause harm. It doesn't matter what sort of examples we use, or what labels we apply. That inability to differentiate between those sorts of things is a common trait I've observed among liberals. It's certainly a trait that you have shown consistently for years.

Quote:
I suppose, assuming that you're sincerely making these comparisons, in your mindset paying taxes is a de facto "negative effect" akin to mugging and torture as opposed to being something that potentially provides for a number of positive benefits if properly administered. This brings us back to a point of having such different mindsets that it's not really worth debating and, in fact, ties right back into the "goverment as shadowy 'Other'" mindset I see so often in conservatives.


You're still missing the point. I'm not trying to create some emotional connection between "taxes" and "theft". I'm making the simple statement that in both cases, someone else takes something you own away from you. It's not about whether you or I or anyone else thinks one is justified or not. The core issue really is how we view those things and therefore make a decision about justification in the fist place. How can you decide what sort of actions are justified in the first place if you can't distinguish between positive and negative? If you can't determine a starting point (X is mine, Y is yours), but rather think in relative terms, then where is the base point? So on taxes, if you decide that the Clinton rates are the base we should use, then you can conclude that the rich have gotten richer because we weren't taxing them enough, so if we raise the taxes back, to that level, we're not hurting them, we're just removing an unfair advantage they've had. But if you decide that the Bush rates are the base, then everything is fine and the Clinton rates were too high and unfair. Also, if you raise the taxes back up to Clinton levels then you are harming the rich.


Isn't that completely arbitrary though? You are determining if something is harming someone, or merely removing undeserved help by setting an arbitrary point at which you think things should be. But that point could be anything you decide it to be. That makes it meaningless. I prefer that we set out baseline at what people actually have prior to *any* government involvement (within a given area anyway, since I don't want to be dragged into a side argument). If I earn X dollars, then those are mine. Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect. Any taxes I pay represents a negative effect on me. Period. Increasing those taxes increases the negative effect. Decreasing them decreases the negative effect. But those things don't ever represent some thing I'm gaining, much less gaining unfairly.

On the flip side, every benefit the government provides me is something that does help me. So when they build roads, that helps me. Schools help me. Police and fire help me. Food stamps, unemployment, disability, etc all help me (me being whomever is receiving them of course). If the government reduces the amount of funding for those things, it is not hurting me. It's simply helping me less. You can't "take away my welfare". It was never mine to begin with. You cannot own something someone else has to constantly give you. I suppose that's getting a little bit off the point, but it's somewhat related. If you can't understand base concepts of property ownership, then I suppose you can't establish those base points, and then you can't really determine when someone is helping you or hurting you less, or if they are hurting you, or helping you less. And it just seems like the entire political left has been infected with an amazing amount of confusion regarding this issue. I can only assume this is so they will more easily accept social policies which they might otherwise reject. After all, it's much easier to argue for increased funding for something if you're convinced that you're hurting people if you don't.


And yes, I happen to think that this difference is one of the core differences between modern liberals and conservatives. It is at the heart of nearly every single political difference. Pick an issue and you'll find that somewhere in there is a liberal saying "if we don't do this, it hurts group X", and a conservative saying "if we do this, we'll be helping group X at the expense of group Y". And while there often is a lot of fair and reasonable debate which can be had in these issues, I've found they are often muddled simply because both groups are almost speaking different languages. The conservative is looking at costs versus benefits, while the liberal is looking at harm done by failing to act.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#56 Aug 09 2012 at 7:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
And yes, I happen to think that this difference is one of the core differences between modern liberals and conservatives

Well, no argument there. Not that I agree at all with your philosophy or assessment but I'm complete certain that YOU believe it. Guess that's why I'm not a conservative.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#57 Aug 10 2012 at 7:13 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#58 Aug 10 2012 at 7:25 AM Rating: Good
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?


That's gbaji's one redeeming quality: he really tees 'em up like that. Smiley: lol
____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#59 Aug 10 2012 at 7:39 AM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?

Ooh, that's a "bingo"!

ITT: conservatives don't want infrastructure or any public services.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#60 Aug 10 2012 at 9:21 AM Rating: Excellent
What a bizarre perspective.
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#61 Aug 10 2012 at 6:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Debalic wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Every single dollar I pay in taxes is a dollar that was taken from me. That is always a negative effect.
Conservatives are selfish and are only concerned with themselves?

Ooh, that's a "bingo"!

ITT: conservatives don't want infrastructure or any public services.


Completely false. The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive. I can then assess whether the negative's are worth the positives when making decisions. Liberals muddle them together and treat each internally as relatively positive or negative. So if taxes go up that may be negative if they think taxes are at a high enough level right now. Or they make think it's positive if they think they are too low. Similarly, funding increases or decreases may arbitrarily be considered positive or negative effects depending pretty much entirely on an arbitrary decision about what they should be.

Conservatives make a clear distinction between when someone does something that helps you versus something that hurts you. Liberals don't. They base those things on relative values compared to what they arbitrarily think they should be. So while a conservative will look at a program that gives people $200/month in food stamps as helping them. A liberal might think that it should be $300/month, so we're hurting them by denying them $100 worth of food. And if you stop and think about it, you should easily be able to think of examples of this going on around you all the time. ****. Just think about the language surrounding Obamacare when it was being pushed.


As I sated earlier, I think that the liberal approach is problematic because it provides no "real" starting point from which to measure something. If you start with zero taxes and zero spending, you can look at how much is taxed and how much we get for those taxes and make an assessment. But if your starting point is "everyone should have health insurance paid for them", or "everyone should have the best education possible", you don't have a starting point. You have an end goal, but no real means to measure whether the end goal is worth the cost. Worse, the absence of that calculation means that costs will almost certainly be higher than they should be. So we not only have a government that attempts to do more things than it should, but it does so every inefficiently.

Kinda like what's happened over the last 3.5 years.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Aug 10 2012 at 7:38 PM Rating: Good
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#63 Aug 11 2012 at 3:04 PM Rating: Decent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
When I see taxes taken out of my paycheck, I see:
- Curiosity getting sent to Mars
- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement
- ******* 316 finally getting turned into the limited access road it should have been a decade ago
- Soldiers trying to raise families being able to afford decent housing in exchange for risking their lives
- Fellow students in my class being able to take out loans to get their master's degrees
- The kids next door finally getting a school bus route to come pick them up

The only theft I see under there was the massive bailout of Wall Street, to those who gambled with the economy and lost.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#64 Aug 11 2012 at 3:44 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,255 posts
catwho wrote:

- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement


Well there's her problem. She's banging inanimate objects. They can't pay her for her services.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#65 Aug 11 2012 at 4:00 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
TirithRR wrote:
catwho wrote:

- My boarder, who was laid off, being able to eat something besides the free rice we include in her rent, while she pounds the pavement


Well there's her problem. She's banging inanimate objects. They can't pay her for her services.


Smiley: lol

She's actually found a seasonal job that will get her through until November, at which point she'll coast along to a retail job for Black Friday, no doubt. She's trying desperately to finish her culinary degree so she can get something a bit more permanent (and enjoyable.)
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#66 Aug 11 2012 at 10:22 PM Rating: Decent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive.
Oh, like a child complaining about the price of candy. Got ya.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#67 Aug 12 2012 at 9:17 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
gbaji wrote:

Conservatives make a clear distinction between when someone does something that helps you versus something that hurts you. Liberals don't.

The distinction is more correctly as something that doesn't help me, the conservative, is viewed as hurtful.

Your complete lack of empathy continues to amaze me.

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#68 Aug 12 2012 at 9:46 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,586 posts
The difference is that I see the taxes taken to pay for those things as negative effects, and the services as positive. I can then assess whether the negative's are worth the positives when making decisions.

Of course you can't, little fella. You have absolutely no capacity for that sort of analysis. It's too complex. You just want free benefits without the burden of being responsible in any way for the cost. Let's not overcomplicate things, it lends an importance to your miniscule tax burden that's ludicrously inappropriate.

The idea that you have the time or ability to determine that the $11 per year of your tax load that goes to fund bullet purchases for the county sheriff is too much sn't really a plausible argument. You have, literally, no idea if you get more value from services that you outlay in taxes (hint: YOU DO). You just ASSUME you pay too much. Why? Because it's your money. Obviously it would be better if your services were funded by other people's money.

Conservatives fear change. The idea that taxes redistribute their wealth somehow to those less well off is terrifying to them. Since the prevailing common trait of political conservatives is flailing insecurity and skittish abject terror, it's an easy sell to convince then that the $20k they pay in taxes is being handed to Aunt Jamima who runs off to Rent A Center and buys 6000 refidergerators on installments. Or whatever the articulated fear is. I can't really see that point of view, what with not being a giant xenophobic douchebag terrified that my modest accumulated wealth pile I've built by masterful money management skills like paying by check and buying used Grand Ams might be eroded. I have marketable skills. If I found out tomorrow that Nexa sold all of our possessions and gave the money away...I'd just go make more money. I can sort of see how it would be scary if I was tied to a fixed salary working a job I fell into primarily because of my ability to show up at the same facility each day with an abject lack of ambition...but not really.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#69 Aug 13 2012 at 2:58 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#70 Aug 13 2012 at 3:16 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
The idea that you have the time or ability to determine that the $11 per year of your tax load that goes to fund bullet purchases for the county sheriff is too much sn't really a plausible argument. You have, literally, no idea if you get more value from services that you outlay in taxes (hint: YOU DO). You just ASSUME you pay too much. Why? Because it's your money. Obviously it would be better if your services were funded by other people's money.


Wrong way to look at it though. I don't have to know whether I'm getting a good value on every single thing in the huge list of things that government does to decide if my taxes are too high for what I'm getting than you need to know the exact gross cost of every ingredient in the meal you ate in order to decide if that cost was too high for what you got. People have this amazing ability to compare experiences over time and make judgments about them. It's what allows you to decide that burger joint A is a better deal than burger joint B even in the absence of a breakdown of their entire business.

You really went in this direction? Weak sauce.

Quote:
Conservatives fear change. The idea that taxes redistribute their wealth somehow to those less well off is terrifying to them.


Which is it? Do we fear change, or do we fear a government that redistributes our wealth? Cause I'm thinking you did a bit of bait and switch there.

Quote:
Since the prevailing common trait of political conservatives is flailing insecurity and skittish abject terror, it's an easy sell to convince then that the $20k they pay in taxes is being handed to Aunt Jamima who runs off to Rent A Center and buys 6000 refidergerators on installments. Or whatever the articulated fear is.


Which is an interesting counter argument when we do have rampant corruption and fraud in our welfare system, we do have rampant abuse of public funds by our unions, and we do have rampant overspending on services by people who seem to have honestly adopted the very same nutty economic arguments that you have espoused repeatedly yourself. Or do you not recall the times you've stated that it doesn't matter what the government spends money on as long as it spends a whole **** of a lot of it (your were paraphrasing Krugman at the time I'm sure)?

When people like you actively and continually say "we're going to take your money and waste it", forgive me if I don't buy the whole "false fear" counter argument coming from you.

Quote:
I can't really see that point of view, what with not being a giant xenophobic douchebag terrified that my modest accumulated wealth pile I've built by masterful money management skills like paying by check and buying used Grand Ams might be eroded. I have marketable skills. If I found out tomorrow that Nexa sold all of our possessions and gave the money away...I'd just go make more money. I can sort of see how it would be scary if I was tied to a fixed salary working a job I fell into primarily because of my ability to show up at the same facility each day with an abject lack of ambition...but not really.


Ah! I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning. I'd like mine with a side of bacon please! Let me see if I've got this right. So because it's possible for people with the skills to make money to make more of it, then there's no reason not to take all the money they've earned so far. This is really your argument? Do you see why when people like you make the mistake of saying stuff like that, it sorta weakens your earlier arguments about conservatives having no legitimate reasons to worry about what liberals would do with sufficient control of the country?



And for the record: Yes. I do fear a government which cavalierly redistributes the wealth of its citizens. But not out of a selfish fear of my own fortunes, but out of a fear of what that does to the opportunities of others. Meaningful employment is a function of wealth held by potential employers. Redistributing that wealth may provide temporary benefits to "the poor", but the cost (yes, there's that cost thing again) is the opportunities they might have had otherwise. Government doesn't help people by providing those sorts of services. General public services (like fire, police, etc) sure. But direct assistance is harmful, not just to the economy as a whole, but directly to those receiving the assistance. If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie. Wouldn't you agree?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Aug 13 2012 at 6:22 AM Rating: Good
Will swallow your soul
******
28,345 posts
Quote:
If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie.


If by "biggie" you mean "verifiable by a simple examination of history", sure.

____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#72 Aug 13 2012 at 7:09 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning

It does beg the question of why you were arguing with Smash at 2:15 in the morning.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#73 Aug 13 2012 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
Which is it? Do we fear change, or do we fear a government that redistributes our wealth?
Both.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#74 Aug 13 2012 at 9:12 AM Rating: Good
***
2,820 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
I love the smell of false dilemma in the morning

It does beg the question of why you were arguing with Smash at 2:15 in the morning.


I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it. Just trust me that it was AWESOME!
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#75 Aug 13 2012 at 9:30 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it.

"Don't post anything good"?

Zing!!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#76 Aug 13 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
***
2,820 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bigdaddyjug wrote:
I had a witty response to this, but then I realized it would be breaking one of the unwritten rules and now I can't make it.

"Don't post anything good"?

Zing!!


Don't make me Twitter spam you.
____________________________
Sir Xsarus wrote:
That's pretty much the best ninja edit ever.


World of Warcraft
Aggramar Alliance
Allizsah: 92 Human Paladin
#77 Aug 13 2012 at 4:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Samira wrote:
Quote:
If we're going to talk about easy sells, why not talk about how the left sells this fear that absent government to provide them with food, shelter, clothing, transportation, education, etc, that the people will have no hope of ever escaping abject poverty and starvation. Cause that's a biggie.


If by "biggie" you mean "verifiable by a simple examination of history", sure.


Correct. A simple examination of history shows that overwhelmingly, those claims from the left about how terrible things would be if the government didn't provide so many people with free stuff are massively overblown. In reality, the trend is that the larger those programs become the more people need them. We replace real opportunity to succeed with dependence on government handouts and in the long run hurt those we claim to be helping.


Or have we so soon forgotten the lesson of the welfare reform in the late 90s. The same reform that even Obama has admitted worked despite him believing that it wouldn't. The same fear mongers then predicted dire consequences if we tossed people off the welfare roles. But what actually happened was that nearly all those ejected from the roles by our heartless leaders of the day went out and got jobs. And while those jobs didn't pay much more than welfare initially, over the next 5-10 years they increased their relative pay. The end result is that had we not kicked them off welfare, 10 years later they'd still be poor and dependent on welfare. By kicking them off, 10 years later they were at an economic position that was much much much better.


But that's not historical enough for you, right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#78 Aug 13 2012 at 4:55 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,049 posts
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.

I don't weigh the importance of money itself greater than the goods and services they pay for. That's the purpose of money, after all. Conservatives are only worried about the total accumulation of wealth and bemoan having to part out any small amount.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#79 Aug 13 2012 at 5:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
Debalic wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Debalic wrote:
Do you face the same ridiculous dilemma when paying for goods or services outright? "I could order this steak and eat, but I'd have $20 less in my pocket. How will this affect my bottom line?"


Why is that a "ridiculous dilemma"? Don't you do that every time you purchase something? You're seriously suggesting that when you go to a store you don't look at the price tag and then determine if you think it's worth the asking price? It's just bizarre that you've labeled something that most people do many times every day as ridiculous. It's not. It's what normal people do. We make choices between things. And limited resources (time and money typically) drive most of those choices.

I don't weigh the importance of money itself greater than the goods and services they pay for.


Yes. Which means you weigh the "cost" of spending $20 on a steak versus what you could have otherwise purchased with that $20. That's not a "ridiculous dilemma". Like you said: The money itself has no value intrinsically. Its only value is based on what you *could* buy with it. So it's quite reasonable and normal to look at something you are spending money on and compare that to something else you could spend the money on. I'm not sure how you could think otherwise.

Quote:
That's the purpose of money, after all. Conservatives are only worried about the total accumulation of wealth and bemoan having to part out any small amount.


That's a separate question from whether it's legitimate to look at what you could have spent that money on instead though. And again, you get it wrong. Conservatives are making that same comparison I spoke of. We understand that money isn't valuable by itself. It's what you do with it. So when we look at the government wanting to raise taxes on a given set of money in our economy, we compare what the government will do with it, to what the people paying those taxes would do with it.

Liberals tend to ignore that. They think about what the government will do with it, and as long as it's something of value, conclude that we must spend that money. They fail to account for the cost. They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people. Since Y is greater than zero, it's a good thing to do, so they must do it. By failing to compare the cost to provide those foodstamps to anything else, they effectively create a meaningless argument for doing so. It's *always* good to spend more money on social programs no matter how much you are spending now, or where the money comes from. Or at least, that's what you'll believe if you fail to account for that cost.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#80 Aug 14 2012 at 7:24 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#81 Aug 14 2012 at 8:03 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
We should make seat covers out of poor people Smiley: nod
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#82 Aug 14 2012 at 8:21 AM Rating: Good
******
21,718 posts
Jophiel wrote:
We should make seat covers out of poor people Smiley: nod

Will they be offered in a shade of soylent green?
____________________________
R.I.P. Jessica M. 5/3/2010
This post brought to you by Carl's Jr.
gbaji wrote:
You guys keep tossing facts out there like they mean something.


#83 Aug 14 2012 at 8:27 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Every color in the rainbow from mottled pink to brownish-blackish.

Which would be the saddest rainbow ever.

Edited, Aug 14th 2012 9:28am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#84 Aug 14 2012 at 8:29 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
I want a set with a spiffy dragon design slash tattoo.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#85 Aug 14 2012 at 9:49 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
gbaji wrote:
That's a separate question from whether it's legitimate to look at what you could have spent that money on instead though. And again, you get it wrong. Conservatives are making that same comparison I spoke of. We understand that money isn't valuable by itself. It's what you do with it. So when we look at the government wanting to raise taxes on a given set of money in our economy, we compare what the government will do with it, to what the people paying those taxes would do with it.

Liberals tend to ignore that.


Thought of it more along lines of "this is still something we'd like to see happen even though it isn't profitable". I mean, if (insert social cause here) had a good return on investment, someone in the private sector would be doing it already. So you may only get $15 return on your $20, but that $5 loss is deemed 'to be worth' whatever change your affecting. Or something...


____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#86 Aug 14 2012 at 11:18 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,512 posts
That $5 lose of profit is the exact same as someone not giving you $5.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#87 Aug 14 2012 at 12:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
That's when you beat them up and take their lunch money.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#88 Aug 14 2012 at 12:30 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Poor people don't have lunch money. They have lunch stamps or something and Cadillacs full of government cheese.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#89 Aug 14 2012 at 12:37 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
Food stamp recipient in the house just got her grandmother's 1990 something Malibu with 250K miles on it, because the dealership was only going to give $500 credit for it.

I'm still waiting for the Welfare Fairy to come along and transform it into a Cadillac.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#90 Aug 14 2012 at 12:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Always a Welfare Princess, never a Welfare Queen Smiley: frown
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#91 Aug 14 2012 at 12:44 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
This one gets played a lot at my house.



Wake up, wake up, wake up it's the 1st of the month
To get up, get up, get up so cash your checks and get up

Hey my ***** we havin' a wonderful day and I won't @#%^ with me. Why?
'Cause it's the 1st of the month and now we smokin', chokin', rollin' blunts
And sippin' on 40 ounces thuggin' come come we got the blessed rum
From jumpin' all nights we high
Hit up the block to where? East 99
I get with my ***** to get me some yayo
Double up ***** what you need?
We got weed to get P.O.Ded
Fiend for the green leaves
Give it up it's the foe sure you better lay low
Cause the po-po creep when they roll slow
If you can't get away better toss that yayo
Keep your bankroll
Yeah we havin' a celebration, I love to stay high
And you better believe when it's time to grind
I'm down for mine crime after crime
Fin to creep to the pad cause mom's got grub on the grill
If we got the food, you know it's the 1st of the month
and my ***** we chills foe real

Wake up and I see that my sister is already dressed
She said "I'm gonna run and go get my stamps
Watch and make sure no one snatches my check" ***** that's the mailman
Sort through the mail and put it up in-a me pocket
So I be hittin' the 99 to get me a dub
Foe forty bucks but ain't nobody ride that rita
Hop on the 10 to the click
Ready to get 'em up with-a me thugs
And to cash that dum
I gotta get paid play player holla holla
Saint Claire got much to offer
Whether it be weed on 93
Or off on the glock glock for some dollars, so
Get a bag of dope and a quarter roll, oh
Most all of my niggas got the same, and we gonna roll it all up to smoke
Hittin' that reefer hydro, you know the cut, so @#%^ them po-po
Toss all that yayo, and we're gonna say no
Runnin' through the alley and into the melee
Up on the second the sundown
Those run from January,November,December remember the 1st of the month

It's the 1st of the month
Gotta grind gotta get mine
In the hood that I claim
I slang on that double 9-9
Gotta find them dubs
Gonna get a forty, can a thug get love?
What's up?
Try to stand on my corner
***** you'z a gonna Saint Claire niggas don't like that
And sellin' them dummies makin' that money come back ***** get pap pap
From the 1st to the 15th niggas smoke plenty weed
But I gotta save gotta come up
Put my rocks on the cut
When I get high ***** blaze that blunt, huh
Time to roll to the pad
Count up my profits and add it to the stash
Gotta watch my back see for niggas that's tryin' to rob me, fool
But never no shorts no losses
Dumpin' keepin' this niggas up off me see
Gotta search the whole block
Spend a couple of bills
Thugs smoke a lot of weed on the 1st

Wakin' up feelin' buzzed off up early mornin' stretchin'
I'm yawnin' lightweight bent chugga lugga take a fifth to the dome
Instead I kick it with my trues
But it's the 1st so I'm getting my hustle on
Hop on the phone, calling up Krayzie Bone
Wanna know did you O.G check come? (She put me down)
I'm a hop on the bus with Biz (Yo Brother let's get drunk)
And I'm coming with blunt after blunt
Of this skunk
***** T just put me down
Oh God how I love when the 1st come around
Now I'm feelin' black and mild, headed cross town
'Cause niggas the 1st to get celebrated
Rushin' to the block cause I wanna get faded
Lookin' all wild cause I'm getting me hair braided
We heavy off into this game
True to the 1st just call me that pro slang
Them nickels and dimes and 20's and 50's
The 1st be the day for the dopeman
Slangin' that cocaine fool, and I'm working late tonight
And all them fiends be lovin' them thugs
'Cause I got them rocks for them pipes
Come come with them ease
I gotta get paid on the 1st, gotta blaze up my spliff
Get live with the Bone Thugs, Poetic Hustlers in the graveyard shift
On the 1st


Edited, Aug 14th 2012 1:53pm by Guenny
#92 Aug 14 2012 at 1:27 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
12,071 posts
You can just link to a YouTube video with lyrics.

It's a ton of gangsta rap to scroll though on my phone.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#93 Aug 14 2012 at 1:47 PM Rating: Good
******
44,512 posts
I noticed you're pretty gangster. I'm pretty gangster myself.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#94 Aug 14 2012 at 2:25 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#95 Aug 14 2012 at 2:27 PM Rating: Good
Sage
****
4,041 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
You can just link to a YouTube video with lyrics.

It's a ton of gangsta rap to scroll though on my phone.


I wanted to cover both mediums in case there are some people at work this afternoon.

Plus, I linked the radio edit the first time. Smiley: frown
#96 Aug 14 2012 at 2:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,966 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Thought of it more along lines of "this is still something we'd like to see happen even though it isn't profitable".


Tell that to Nancy "We get $1.84 in economic growth for every dollar spent on foodstamps" Pelosi. Or tell that to Paul "It doesn't matter what we spend the money on as long as we spend a whole **** of a lot of it" Krugman.

I could accept (and respect even) an argument from the left saying that it's worth spending $350 billion dollars a year on welfare because we've fed/housed/clothed/etc X number of people. Because then we could make an assessment of the benefits to those needy people and the money we spend. What I don't accept is when they try to argue that this is somehow beneficial to our economy, so no assessment is needed. Which is what the left has been arguing for some time now (and especially in the last few years).


It's a totally BS argument.

Quote:
I mean, if (insert social cause here) had a good return on investment, someone in the private sector would be doing it already. So you may only get $15 return on your $20, but that $5 loss is deemed 'to be worth' whatever change your affecting. Or something...


Absolutely. Sell me on the value to society for spending that money. That's what I'm saying. It's a "cost". But don't try to argue that there's no cost at all, or worse, that somehow by spending billions of dollars on social spending we can actually make the economy grow. That's the lie that has been perpetrated for the last several years. And it's because of that lie that our economy is in the dumpster right now (well, partly at least). I'm asking that we call things by what they really are. Social programs cost us money. They reduce economic growth. We may (should even!) decide that some quantity of such programs are worth the cost. But we should never fool ourselves into thinking that we can spend money on them and not pay that cost. We should not accept, much less repeat, an economic case for that form of spending. Ever.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#97 Aug 14 2012 at 2:44 PM Rating: Decent
Sage
****
4,041 posts
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?



But what if you bought your seat covers and *surprise*, they were on clearance, and then catwho's roommate steals the difference while you pass her by in the wal-mart parking lot, and she goes and buys the same seat covers for herself, greatly improving her quality of life? I think this is what we call "killing two birds with one stone".
#98 Aug 14 2012 at 2:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
If she doesn't steal the money, you just MADE money! PROFIT!
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Aug 14 2012 at 3:13 PM Rating: Excellent
****
6,470 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I noticed you're pretty gangster. I'm pretty gangster myself.


Here's how I heard that in my head:

____________________________
Latest Articles:
Monaco: What's Yours is Mine Review

Follow me on Twitter!
#100 Aug 14 2012 at 3:37 PM Rating: Excellent
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?


Provided you want to make sure those sweat shop workers in China get plenty of work!
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#101 Aug 14 2012 at 4:17 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,255 posts
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
They look only at the fact that by spending X dollars on foodstamps, they can provide Y amount of food for people.
Heaven forbid that when gbaji can get new seat covers for his SUV.


Heaven forbid that my money be spent employing people who make and install seat covers when it could provide food for people who are unemployed because we taxed that money away instead. Kinda creating the problem we're trying to solve, aren't we?


Provided you want to make sure those sweat shop workers in China get plenty of work!


Solution?

Send poor and unemployed people to China to work in sweat shops

Edited, Aug 14th 2012 6:18pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 46 All times are in CST
Omegavegeta, r1ng0sc4rr, Samira, trickybeck, Anonymous Guests (42)