Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

The Republican case for the Universal Basic IncomeFollow

#1 Dec 24 2013 at 8:36 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
I find this argument from John Danaher interesting. He asserts that Utilitarian, Libertarian and Progressive ideologies aren't served well by a Universal Basic Income, but that Republican ideologies are. Basically, if every adult has a guaranteed economic independence, than every adult is freer to live life without other people's ideologies, morals or rules imposed upon them. Choice and therefore freedom is exponentially expanded.
http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/more/danaher20131223

John Danaher wrote:
The point is that, for the republican, freedom is not simply a matter of factual non-interference; it is a matter of institutions and power relationships too. Unless A is institutionally freed from B’s dominating control, A is not free in the morally important sense...
(1) The republican political goal is to ensure that all people are free from dominating control (i.e. that the ideal of freedom as non-domination is achieved).
(2) The UBI is an essential (or at least highly effective) means of ensuring freedom as non-domination.
(3) Therefore, the UBI helps to achieve the republican goal.

The second premise is the important one. Why might the UBI be so important in ensuring non-domination? Very simply: relationships of economic dependency, which are institutionally supported by regimes of contract and property law, can involve dominating control. Pettit gives two examples of this. The first is a case in which there are many employees but relatively few employers.

The employers can thus use their superior bargaining power to impose harsh or unfair working conditions on the employees, and the employees cannot step beyond the bounds of the working relationship due to their economic dependency. The second case is that of the woman who is economically dependent on her husband. Pettit notes that the husband need not be abusive or violent toward the woman for a relationship of dominating control to arise: the economic dependency is sufficient for that.

In both of these cases, provision of a UBI would free the people from dominating control. Furthermore, the argument on behalf of such a UBI would have to meet the adequacy criterion. The amount of the income provided would need to be enough to eliminate the relationship of economic dependency.
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#2 Dec 24 2013 at 8:59 AM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,307 posts
Just outlaw companies larger than 10 people.
#3 Dec 24 2013 at 9:33 AM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,558 posts
. Basically, if every adult has a guaranteed economic independence, than every adult is freer to live life without other people's ideologies, morals or rules imposed upon them. Choice and therefore freedom is exponentially expanded.

Noe of that is of interest to the Republican Party. Not really even in the abstract now, it's just maintenance of the rich white christian status quo in name and deed at this point.
____________________________
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.

#4 Jan 01 2014 at 2:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,134 posts
Aiiiight.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#5 Jan 01 2014 at 5:07 AM Rating: Good
Everyone's Oiran
Avatar
*****
15,923 posts
Demea, just how bored were you?
____________________________
<3

http://www.reddit.com/r/Forum4/
#6 Jan 01 2014 at 4:08 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,134 posts
Very. Also, drunk.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#7 Jan 01 2014 at 5:12 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
At least it's good for your postcount.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#8 Jan 01 2014 at 6:06 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,134 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
At least it's good for your postcount.

Indeed.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#9 Jan 01 2014 at 6:16 PM Rating: Good
******
44,484 posts
Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the keyboard.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#10 Jan 01 2014 at 7:24 PM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
You don't need any more +1's anyway.
____________________________
Theophany wrote:
YOU'RE AN ELITIST @#%^ AETHIEN, NO WONDER YOU HAVE NO FRIENDS AND PEOPLE HATE YOU.
someproteinguy wrote:
Aethien you take more terrible pictures than a Japanese tourist.
Astarin wrote:
One day, Maz, you'll learn not to click on anything Aeth links.
#11 Jan 01 2014 at 11:20 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,134 posts
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
You don't need any more +1's anyway.
Probably not.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#12 Jan 03 2014 at 6:23 PM Rating: Good
Drama Nerdvana
******
20,672 posts
Tested in Canada back in the 70's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/1970s-manitoba-poverty-experiment-called-a-success-1.868562
____________________________
Bode - 100 Holy Paladin - Lightbringer
#13 Jan 03 2014 at 6:40 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
I meant to respond to this back when it was first posted, but I forgot, then got distracted by holiday stuff. But, since it's been bumped (and I'm bored), here's my take.

First off, I don't think that the labels used in the accompanying sources directly translate to US political parties, so it's misleading to translate it that way. They specifically use the labels "Liberalist" and "Republican" to distinguish between two specific approaches to liberty (not being interfered with versus not having a dominating force controlling you). Those are subtle differences in otherwise very very similar positions, and not at all to be confused with modern US political differences between conservatives and liberals (much less Republicans and Democrats).

Secondly, there's a huge caveat that's being ignored here. The Republican position (as defined in the source articles) makes a case for UBI *if* it can be assured that such a thing does not involve a domineering power and danger of such a thing being used as a means of control. Which really shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. I've argued myself in the past that if we lived in some kind of future Star Trek world where scarcity was more or less eliminated (abundant/cheap power combined with replication technology in that case), then we absolutely could provide everyone with some basic level of living and allow their work to simply add to that as they wish. This is fine because absent scarcity, one person getting a free ride doesn't represent a "cost" to anyone else.


But in the real world in which we live, one person getting a free ride does come at a cost to others. We need a large percentage of our population to be productive workers in order to maintain ourselves. Thus, a UBI would always require some sort of domineering force to take from those producing to provide for those who are not. It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would continue working under a UBI system to provide for all, and almost certainly what would happen would be the same sort of thing we've seen every time something like this has been attempted: Forced labor and harsh penalties for those who don't work. So no free rides and less freedom. Ergo. Not a good solution.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#14 Jan 03 2014 at 8:19 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
gbaji wrote:
But in the real world in which we live,
Contrary to all evidence.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#15 Jan 04 2014 at 2:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,069 posts
Quote:
It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would continue working under a UBI system


UBI doesn't mean no income stratification. People would continue to work, although those with minimal talents would be disincentivised .
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#16 Jan 05 2014 at 6:41 PM Rating: Good
Lunatic
******
29,558 posts
It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would continue working under a UBI system to provide for all

Can you really not work out why that's basically impossible?
____________________________
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.

#17 Jan 06 2014 at 8:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
gbaji wrote:



But in the real world in which we live, one person getting a free ride does come at a cost to others.
Someone making money hand over foot also comes at a cost to other (beyond the cost of simply paying the 'price' of the good or service).

So, what's your point?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#18 Jan 06 2014 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
As someone who spent a year living with basic needs met but not much excess personal income, I can safely say that there would probably be enough people who get bored of living off the UBI and want to go out and make more money to keep society going.

I took a year off after I got married. I had shelter, I had food, I had a small allowance beyond that (which mostly went to FFXI fees.) I played video games all day. I wrote a novel (everyone here remembers my "pretend to be an author" phase.) My house was pretty clean.

I had no fun money for computer upgrades. I had only old clothes. I couldn't afford to give people presents. I was bored out of my skull.

Even though I was - and am - in the enviable position of not having to work, I discovered I was a lot happier working full time. The UBI is enough if you're content to be a basement dweller and not go anywhere or do anything and just watch TV all day. But if you want to have some sort of meaning in your life once all your basic needs are met, as well as have additional funds to do things like buy a winter wardrobe or a new laptop, you'll happily commit yourself to at least a part time job.

Edited, Jan 6th 2014 3:48pm by Catwho
____________________________
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
#19 Jan 06 2014 at 1:47 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
****
4,307 posts
It's funny reading Gbaji's response. He acts as if we don't already provide a UBI through social safety nets.
#20 Jan 07 2014 at 6:53 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would continue working under a UBI system to provide for all

Can you really not work out why that's basically impossible?


I'm sorry. Let me rephrase that: "It's unlikely that a sufficient number of people would produce sufficient labor of their own free will under a UBI system to provide sufficient goods and services for all".

Better? My point isn't that you can't do this (cause the Soviet model did work at providing those basics). It's that the cost to individual liberty is far greater than the benefit in the long run if you do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#21 Jan 07 2014 at 7:00 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
It's funny reading Gbaji's response. He acts as if we don't already provide a UBI through social safety nets.


What we do in the US is nothing remotely like a UBI. UBI means that everyone receives X goods and services deemed necessary to live a basic life. So you get a free place to live, free food, free clothing, free transportation, education, health care, etc. Everything you "need" to live. If you choose to work, you get a salary in addition to that UBI. You don't lose benefits if you work (which is how most social safety nets work). You get the same stuff, only you can augment it with additional things if you work.

While the system appears to be ideal because it eliminates the initial disincentive for work (losing benefits equal to pay) in a traditional safety net system, it also requires much lower pay per hour of work (to make up for the fact that a large portion of all pay is being consumed providing all that free stuff for everyone). So the benefits to working are decreased relative to the benefits for not working. There are additional problems with regards to markets for the "luxury" goods in this type of system, which may also price things out of reach for most to achieve.

It's a bad idea all the way around, unless your objective is to eliminate private property. Then it's a great idea.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#22 Jan 08 2014 at 9:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,307 posts
Your safety nets are exactly what a UBI is you've just convoluted the whole process to allow a few thousand people to stick their hands in that particular set of cookie jars and skim their cut. Unless you're letting people die in the streets you're already providing a UBI. If you guys would just pull your heads out of your asses and give everyone proper health care your costs would drop significantly, to use the most common example. The US has this horrible habit of reacting to domestic issues rather than preventing them and trying to give money to rich people for the privilege. Everything is a "wait until it explodes" situation so everything ends up being ridiculously expensive (emergency room visits instead of just paying for people's check ups to keep them healthy, the stupidity of that is unbelievable.) The US could feed the world with its pocket change if it wanted to and didn't half *** it, providing basic necessities for its less fortunate should be child's play.
#23 Jan 08 2014 at 9:08 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
Wait until it explodes, and then complain someone is trying to steal your freedom when someone mentions it.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#24 Jan 08 2014 at 8:46 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Yodabunny wrote:
Your safety nets are exactly what a UBI is ...


I just explained in precise detail how UBI and our existing safety net system are different (everyone's safety net system in fact, since no one on the planet currently implements a UBI system), and that's your response? Could you at least try to address what I just said?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#25 Jan 08 2014 at 9:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Scholar
****
4,307 posts
There's nothing to address. All developed nations provide various welfare programs that guarantee a basic level of income. Since we're all doing it and people still work your argument is demonstrably false. We're already doing it, and it works just fine, in fact we should do it more. The very society you live in has proven you wrong just by having the programs you speak out against so passionately...it's obvious.
#27 Jan 14 2014 at 8:31 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
January is super busy for me, so I'm just now getting around to responding:

Yodabunny wrote:
There's nothing to address. All developed nations provide various welfare programs that guarantee a basic level of income. Since we're all doing it and people still work your argument is demonstrably false.


Sigh. Some degree of welfare is *not* the same as UBI as talked about in the linked source. I'm not sure how much more clearly I can say this. They are speaking about a very specific form of social system that is currently not in existence anywhere on the planet. No one does it. Not as it's being discussed here.

Welfare programs in western nations all operate on the "need" mechanic. It's not universal. Only those who do not earn enough to support themselves receive assistance, and then only to the degree to which they are unable to provide it for themselves (health care being the one exception to this). A person earning $100k/year does not get a months supply of foodstamps every month. He does not receive a housing credit sufficient to pay for basic housing. He does not receive a free transit pass, nor do his children receive free college tuition. Only people who can't afford those things are provided them.

A true UBI means that every single thing deemed "necessary" is provided to everyone. That's what the Universal part of "Universal Basic Income" means. Everyone gets a housing voucher sufficient to pay for minimal housing, and a food voucher for sufficient food to live off of, and a transportation voucher, and eduction voucher, and clothing vouchers, etc. Everything you "need" to live is paid for whether you work or not. The key point is that this is provided as some form of "income" which you get even if you work. Any income you earn is added to the UBI value. Traditional welfare systems disqualify you for aid based on your income. A UBI does not.


Quote:
We're already doing it, and it works just fine, in fact we should do it more. The very society you live in has proven you wrong just by having the programs you speak out against so passionately...it's obvious.


Again. You clearly either failed to bother reading the linked information or failed utterly to understand what they were talking about. And despite me already clearly explaining this, and then telling you I'd explained it and you failed to get it, you responded a third time in a manner which clearly indicates you not only didn't bother to learn what UBI was the first time, but refused to do it again after I told you you'd gotten it wrong.

Want to try again? This time by trying to understand that UBI doesn't just mean welfare programs? Unless 100% of the citizens in your country receive the exact same benefits from the government regardless of their income levels, then you don't have a UBI. And guess what? No one does that.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Jan 14 2014 at 11:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,069 posts
It would be much better to conglomerate the existing welfare programs into a single subsidy that tapered cleanly based on income. I think this could potentially be sold as a Bipartisan bill as a way of reducing FWA and always incentivizing work, while protecting the subsidy from being undermined on multiple fronts.
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#29 Jan 15 2014 at 6:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
And it'd never see the light of day.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Jan 15 2014 at 7:12 AM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
Timelordwho wrote:
It would be much better to conglomerate the existing welfare programs into a single subsidy that tapered cleanly based on income. I think this could potentially be sold as a Bipartisan bill as a way of reducing FWA and always incentivizing work, while protecting the subsidy from being undermined on multiple fronts.


I believe that's being tossed around as a possible line in the Republican agenda. Give the states the money and let them determine the best way to spend it.

The problem is that if you hand a lump sum of money to the states and say "Here, figure out the best way to use this to help your poor people" - perhaps 10% will go for the intended use and the other 90% will end up in the general fund.
____________________________
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
#31 Jan 15 2014 at 9:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,011 posts
Catwho wrote:
The problem is that if you hand a lump sum of money to the states and say "Here, figure out the best way to use this to help your poor people"
I like it, in a playful Darwinistic way if nothing else.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Jan 15 2014 at 10:02 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
TANF money's are already doled out by the states.

I think Medicaid as a block grant program would be a disaster. I think you'd see people actually moving from state to state based on their health care needs. Need a state funded botox treatment - become a Californian.

More to the point though, TANF has shown that block grant programs react very slowly, if at all, to nationwide financial trends.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#33 Jan 15 2014 at 3:51 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Catwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It would be much better to conglomerate the existing welfare programs into a single subsidy that tapered cleanly based on income. I think this could potentially be sold as a Bipartisan bill as a way of reducing FWA and always incentivizing work, while protecting the subsidy from being undermined on multiple fronts.


I believe that's being tossed around as a possible line in the Republican agenda. Give the states the money and let them determine the best way to spend it.

The problem is that if you hand a lump sum of money to the states and say "Here, figure out the best way to use this to help your poor people" - perhaps 10% will go for the intended use and the other 90% will end up in the general fund.


I think the key point is about "handing money" to the states in the first place. Republicans would tend to argue that we should simply not take the money at the federal level in the first place and let the states spend their own money dealing with this. Problem solved. Get the federal government out of the business of welfare.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#34 Jan 15 2014 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
28,343 posts
That'd be cool and all if the Feds also cut off welfare to the states.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#35 Jan 15 2014 at 9:27 PM Rating: Good
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,540 posts
Problem is, those states would need to raise that revenue at the home level, which would mean stuff like implementing a sales tax or giving a tax hike to people.

Even if doing so meant people didn't have to pay any federal taxes, I can't see any state agreeing to give their citizens a 500% local state tax hike.
____________________________
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
#36 Jan 16 2014 at 3:57 AM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
*****
12,069 posts
gbaji wrote:
Catwho wrote:
Timelordwho wrote:
It would be much better to conglomerate the existing welfare programs into a single subsidy that tapered cleanly based on income. I think this could potentially be sold as a Bipartisan bill as a way of reducing FWA and always incentivizing work, while protecting the subsidy from being undermined on multiple fronts.


I believe that's being tossed around as a possible line in the Republican agenda. Give the states the money and let them determine the best way to spend it.

The problem is that if you hand a lump sum of money to the states and say "Here, figure out the best way to use this to help your poor people" - perhaps 10% will go for the intended use and the other 90% will end up in the general fund.


I think the key point is about "handing money" to the states in the first place. Republicans would tend to argue that we should simply not take the money at the federal level in the first place and let the states spend their own money dealing with this. Problem solved. Get the federal government out of the business of welfare.


We have decided as a nation to subsidize states that lack opportunity or have special challenges associated with them, and as a general rule, richer Northeast states subsidize poorer Southern states.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#37 Jan 16 2014 at 7:10 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
Those poorer states have no excuse for being poor. If they just worked harder there wouldn't be any problem at all. Instead of giving them money like the bleeding hearts like gbaji insist on doing, they should be cut off and have incentive to survive.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#38 Jan 16 2014 at 6:45 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Samira wrote:
That'd be cool and all if the Feds also cut off welfare to the states.


Done! Er, I'm totally for that, and reasonably sure that most Conservatives would be fine with that deal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#39 Jan 16 2014 at 6:56 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Those poorer states have no excuse for being poor. If they just worked harder there wouldn't be any problem at all. Instead of giving them money like the bleeding hearts like gbaji insist on doing, they should be cut off and have incentive to survive.


You (and others) say this as though that isn't exactly what I think we should do. It's funny that instead of actually discussing the idea, some people almost instinctively respond with the assumption that this isn't really something that conservatives would want because <insert some claim about which states get more or less benefit>. And I'm sure someone will pop in with the stereotypical "but red states get a better deal" bit.

Which is all irrelevant with regard to what we conservatives think we should be doing. Without getting into a long drawn out argument about why various states get more or less benefit from federal spending and to what degree that actually correlates with political parties (and those parties agendas), the reality is that if you actually put this up to a vote, it would be Democrats who would oppose eliminating the taxes and the spending and the GOP who would support it. So all the speculative dancing around the issue is just that: dancing around the issue.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#40 Jan 16 2014 at 7:06 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
How surprising that the conservative from California is okay with leaving the red states to wither on the vine Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#41 Jan 16 2014 at 7:10 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,484 posts
gbaji wrote:
<insert some claim about which states get more or less benefit>
Ha ha, some claims, like the data is made up on a whim. Oh, the lengths you go to to get attention.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#42 Jan 16 2014 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
15,230 posts
They'd be all for it, until it actually happened and the voters realized just how much they got from the Government without being aware of it.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#43 Jan 16 2014 at 7:29 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Jophiel wrote:
How surprising that the conservative from California is okay with leaving the red states to wither on the vine Smiley: laugh


If a bunch of conservatives from Idaho said the same thing, your response would be to ignore what they were saying they wanted and instead insisting that they don't really want that because their state would be on the losing end of things. At some point, it ought to occur to you that maybe conservatives don't base their decisions on the same criteria you do.

By your own argument, shouldn't liberals (or at least Dem voters) be in favor of eliminating the portion of federal taxes used to fund welfare and eliminating federal welfare payments to states? Since they don't, why insist on assuming that correlation must be true for Republicans? At some point you should realize that the whole "Republicans don't really want small government because red states get the best deal" argument is BS. Right?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#44 Jan 16 2014 at 7:30 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
TirithRR wrote:
They'd be all for it, until it actually happened and the voters realized just how much they got from the Government without being aware of it.


Wrong.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#45 Jan 16 2014 at 7:31 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
If a bunch of conservatives from Idaho said the same thing, your response would be to ignore what they were saying they wanted and instead insisting that they don't really want that because their state would be on the losing end of things.

Only one way to find out.

Quote:
By your own argument, shouldn't liberals (or at least Dem voters) be in favor of eliminating the portion of federal taxes used to fund welfare and eliminating federal welfare payments to states?

Which argument is that?


Edited, Jan 16th 2014 7:38pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#46 Jan 16 2014 at 7:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If a bunch of conservatives from Idaho said the same thing, your response would be to ignore what they were saying they wanted and instead insisting that they don't really want that because their state would be on the losing end of things.

Only one way to find out.


Sure. What would you say if a bunch of conservatives from Idaho said that they wanted to eliminate the federal involvement in welfare? I mean, I've seen your pattern of responses to this issue in the past (you're the one who brings up the whole "red states receive more aid per tax dollar" bit all the time), so is this really a surprise?


Quote:
Quote:
By your own argument, shouldn't liberals (or at least Dem voters) be in favor of eliminating the portion of federal taxes used to fund welfare and eliminating federal welfare payments to states?

Which argument is that?


The argument that Republicans don't really want to eliminate federal involvement in welfare (or even a broader "small government" angle) because red states receive more dollars from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. You've made this exact argument in the past Joph. But if that is true, then shouldn't it also be true that Democrats really do want smaller government? If we're to assume that which state gets the best deal reflects that majority party in that state's true intentions with regards to federal spending, then Democrats should be opposed to bigger government.


Since they very clearly aren't, we can assume that the entire line of reasoning is flawed.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#47 Jan 16 2014 at 7:39 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Although, really, if a bunch of conservatives from Idaho were working on this, I would point out that the Idaho state legislature is vastly Republican, its governor is Republican, its federal representatives and its senators are all Republican. If they actually wanted Idaho cut off from the federal teat, there's no better time than now to start that fight, begin refusing any federal monies and work language into the budgets exempting Idaho from receiving any more tax money than they contribute.

I'll be over here waiting for that to happen. Luckily, I bought a large soda.
Quote:
The argument that Republicans don't really want to eliminate federal involvement in welfare (or even a broader "small government" angle) because red states receive more dollars from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. You've made this exact argument in the past Joph. But if that is true, then shouldn't it also be true that Democrats really do want smaller government?

Erm, B doesn't really follow A there. Could be that both are actually fine with the status quo and just the "conservatives" have reason to lie about it to their easily led derps from CA Smiley: grin

Edited, Jan 16th 2014 7:41pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#48 Jan 16 2014 at 8:16 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,946 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Although, really, if a bunch of conservatives from Idaho were working on this, I would point out that the Idaho state legislature is vastly Republican, its governor is Republican, its federal representatives and its senators are all Republican. If they actually wanted Idaho cut off from the federal teat, there's no better time than now to start that fight, begin refusing any federal monies and work language into the budgets exempting Idaho from receiving any more tax money than they contribute.


And yet, if someone proposed a law to do that in the US congress, applying to all 50 states, you and I both know that the GOP would vote for it, and the Dems would vote against it. You're making a speculative argument which flies in the face of stated public positions by both parties. I can only assume you do this because it's easier to sidestep the question by insisting that Republicans don't really want small government, than defending your own party's position in favor of it. I could be wrong, of course, but I don't think so.

Quote:
Quote:
The argument that Republicans don't really want to eliminate federal involvement in welfare (or even a broader "small government" angle) because red states receive more dollars from the federal government than they pay in federal taxes. You've made this exact argument in the past Joph. But if that is true, then shouldn't it also be true that Democrats really do want smaller government?

Erm, B doesn't really follow A there. Could be that both are actually fine with the status quo and just the "conservatives" have reason to lie about it to their easily led derps from CA Smiley: grin


Yeah, that makes no sense though. The small government argument is so prevalent across the board on the conservative side of things, that it's hard to imagine how that could be the case. So all conservatives say they are for small government. And all Republicans say they support small government principles (to at least some degree). Conservatives largely vote for Republicans because of that small government position. Yet, we're supposed to believe that conservatives don't really believe in small government, but just claim they do? Which ones? All of them? Some of them? Just the politicians? Just the ones from "red states"?

It seems far more likely that this is the argument that liberals make because it's an easier argument to make than one in support of big government programs which have increasingly obviously been failures over the last 40 years. You can't tell me that during your lifetime (you're only a few years younger than me IIRC), you haven't noticed a shift on the left with regard to how they argue their positions. Back in the 70s and early 80s, flush with anticipation of all the wonderful results of the "Great Society" changes made in the 60s, liberals constantly gushed about their programs. They confidently insisted that only with the aid of government programs could hunger, poverty, racial inequalities, etc be eliminated from our society. But after a couple decades went by and it became increasingly obvious that all those magical wonderful outcomes weren't happening, and hunger, poverty, and racial inequality were just as bad (and actually worse in some cases), people started to think that maybe this Reagan guy was right and that government might just not be the solution, but might be the problem. OMG! Maybe we made a big mistake!!!


And somewhere around the early/mid 90s, the Dems switched tactics. They stopped talking about how great big government was and how it could solve all our problems. They changed instead to attacking Republicans for being heartless and cruel. They stopped insisting that their policies would make the lives of the downtrodden better, and instead focused on convincing people that they would be worse if the GOP had their way. They basically moved into damage control mode, and have been there for 20 or so years now.


So yeah, I don't buy that what you're saying is what conservatives actually believe or want, but it is what the left want's people to think conservatives want. Anything that can cast doubt on the truthfulness of conservative positions or ideology helps the side that's doing damage control. Because it's no longer about arguing *for* your own positions. It's entirely about attacking the other guy using any means necessary. And one of the tactics that I see all the time is the whole "GOP isn't really any different than the Dems on big government". It's the argument you're making when you point out the whole red/blue states and federal funding. It's the argument behind the whole "Obamacare is the same as Romneycare". ****. It's even the same argument behind the original post in this thread (trying to make people think that Republican political ideology is or should really be in favor of socialism).


Every time someone says that the Republicans are no better than the Democrats when it comes to big government, that's a "win" for the Democrats, right? So which "side" benefits by spreading this idea? It's not rocket science. When your own position's become unpopular, the only way to win is to convince the people that the other guy holds the same ones. And that's exactly what this entire line of reasoning is about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#49 Jan 16 2014 at 8:21 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Jophiel wrote:
Although, really, if a bunch of conservatives from Idaho were working on this, I would point out that the Idaho state legislature is vastly Republican, its governor is Republican, its federal representatives and its senators are all Republican. If they actually wanted Idaho cut off from the federal teat, there's no better time than now to start that fight, begin refusing any federal monies and work language into the budgets exempting Idaho from receiving any more tax money than they contribute.


And yet, if someone proposed a law to do that in the US congress...

And yet nothing. If those Idaho conservatives were serious about this, there's concrete steps they could be taking this very day that would ensure that they are balanced on federal tax dollars going in and out of the state and are off any sort of state "welfare".

When they do this, I'll believe that those Idaho conservatives really want this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#50 Jan 17 2014 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,011 posts
People in Idaho should be left to their own devices, just in general. Best not to get any of that on you.

Edited, Jan 17th 2014 8:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#51 Jan 17 2014 at 11:00 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,311 posts
gbaji wrote:

And yet, if someone proposed a law to do that in the US congress...

Idaho trade sanctions. Tariffs on potatoes. This is just a diabolical plan hatched by the Maine Potato Board.

I hear all the time about smaller government. What does it mean? I've asked the question of a few friendly republicans but have not yet gotten a satisfactory answer.

Is the goal of a smaller government fewer federal employees, less square feet devoted to government facilities, smaller military, fewer regulations, less tax dollars, a combination of all of these?

How 'small' is small?

What is the ideal 'size' of the government?

Should the size of the government be in respect to the number of citizens, the quality of life, the level of trade and/or technology?

'Smaller government' is just a frilly catchphrase with a barbed hook used to reel in unsuspecting doorknobs that can't see anything beyond the government taking money out of their paltry little paychecks.
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
« Previous 1 2 3 4 5
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST