Understanding Leftist Mentality

[The Black Forrest]

Newsmax wishes they were as credible as Fox, just FYI. It would be a Fstep up for them.

Just so Black Forest gets it, Newsmax makes FOX look like the Associated Press.

Thanks guys. I had a recollection of them!

It's been awhile since I have seen them brought up as "proof"

[Alien Space Bats]

Right. Because a cat will grow up, get an education, pay taxes and generally play a part in ensuring the future viability of society. Suuuuure....the two are equivalent. Not.

A cat can't grow up to be (much of) a drag on the state, a threat to others, and a cause of social dysfunction either.

So you claim...

[Transhuman Proteus]

You're right. Initially a lot of people will suffer, but this is only necessary to rid them of their bad habits and their dependence while simultaneously encouraging new habits that create wealth. The answers I'm giving aren't instant pleasure or short term answers they're long term answers that are meant to be sustainable and profitable. In the long term people will learn to walk, but they can never learn to walk if they aren't allowed to fall.

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

[Svobodu]

You're right. Initially a lot of people will suffer, but this is only necessary to rid them of their bad habits and their dependence while simultaneously encouraging new habits that create wealth. The answers I'm giving aren't instant pleasure or short term answers they're long term answers that are meant to be sustainable and profitable. In the long term people will learn to walk, but they can never learn to walk if they aren't allowed to fall.

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

[Khadgar]

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

Shall we try this again? Do you have a source on the current status of welfare abuse in America? A state by state breakdown would be nice, but I'm not picky. I ask out of genuine curiosity as I was of the impression (possibly mistaken) that there's a time limit on how long you can be on welfare.

[Alien Space Bats]

A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, damn it!"
"Sure. So... do you think I could have a pair of boots?"

[Farnhamia]

A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, damn it!"
"Sure. So... do you think I could have a pair of boots?"

"Uhm ... What size? ... Hey! Wait a minute!"

[Svobodu]

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

Well yeah. The rich don't work, they just leech off of others. I agree, we need to solve that problem.

Prejudice is not cool. You know people work hard to become rich, in most cases. Even if they inherit the wealth, if they want to keep that wealth in their family, they have to work hard to be the best at what they do. What is rich? Do you hate anyone who makes more than $250,000 annually?

[Khadgar]

Prejudice is not cool. You know people work hard to become rich, in most cases. Even if they inherit the wealth, if they want to keep that wealth in their family, they have to work hard to be the best at what they do. What is rich? Do you hate anyone who makes more than $250,000 annually?

It's not prejudice, it's a fact. Rich people don't work. How many executives were working to clean up the oil spill they created? Exactly. They never worked a day in their lives, they just leech off of government issued corporate welfare.

You're taking the word Work to mean only physical labor. If that's the case only blue collar folks work at all.

[Svobodu]

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

Shall we try this again? Do you have a source on the current status of welfare abuse in America? A state by state breakdown would be nice, but I'm not picky. I ask out of genuine curiosity as I was of the impression (possibly mistaken) that there's a time limit on how long you can be on welfare.

Sadly, I do not have figures. I'm sure that the majority of people don't abuse it. But there are definitely people that do. That the system is open for abuse warrants its abolishment. Doesn't it piss you off that drug users can leech off your income? Not all welfare recipients are drug users, but lots are.

[The Black Forrest]

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

And yet study after study shows that simply salary increases are not a way to motivate and retain workers.

Your last comment shows rather large chasm of ignorance.

[Khadgar]

Shall we try this again? Do you have a source on the current status of welfare abuse in America? A state by state breakdown would be nice, but I'm not picky. I ask out of genuine curiosity as I was of the impression (possibly mistaken) that there's a time limit on how long you can be on welfare.

Sadly, I do not have figures. I'm sure that the majority of people don't abuse it. But there are definitely people that do. That the system is open for abuse warrants its abolishment. Doesn't it piss you off that drug users can leech off your income? Not all welfare recipients are drug users, but lots are.

Drug users are leeches on society even if they're not on public assistance. Well, drug addicts. Casual users, meh.

[The Black Forrest]

Shall we try this again? Do you have a source on the current status of welfare abuse in America? A state by state breakdown would be nice, but I'm not picky. I ask out of genuine curiosity as I was of the impression (possibly mistaken) that there's a time limit on how long you can be on welfare.

Sadly, I do not have figures. I'm sure that the majority of people don't abuse it. But there are definitely people that do. That the system is open for abuse warrants its abolishment. Doesn't it piss you off that drug users can leech off your income? Not all welfare recipients are drug users, but lots are.

I like your logic. It's almost on the level of "thought crimes"

Look someone abused the program! CANCEL IT!

[The Black Forrest]

A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, damn it!"
"Sure. So... do you think I could have a pair of boots?"

COMMUNIST! YOU ARE ADVOCATING BOOT REDISTRIBUTION!

[Farnhamia]

Sadly, I do not have figures. I'm sure that the majority of people don't abuse it. But there are definitely people that do. That the system is open for abuse warrants its abolishment. Doesn't it piss you off that drug users can leech off your income? Not all welfare recipients are drug users, but lots are.

I like your logic. It's almost on the level of "thought crimes"

Look someone abused the program! CANCEL IT!

Yes, but he also wants to cancel just about every government program simply because it exists. Once that's done, however, we can eliminate all taxes. See, if taxes go to zero, then charitable giving becomes infinite, everyone is happy, there are three or four jobs per person and puppies and kittens frolicking everywhere and scampering and pooping in your shoes and then you slip and fall and throw out your back but that's okay because the free health care at the ER room will cover you so you can go back to your life of wonderful invention and enterprise and everyone will be a millionaire and ... and ... sorry, I was tearing up there. What was I saying?

[Farnhamia]

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps, damn it!"
"Sure. So... do you think I could have a pair of boots?"

COMMUNIST! YOU ARE ADVOCATING BOOT REDISTRIBUTION!

Shoes for Industry!

[Khadgar]

You're taking the word Work to mean only physical labor. If that's the case only blue collar folks work at all.

Anyone can do logistics. It's not very difficult to take a country like say Germany and turn it from utter destruction into a prospering nation in a few years. Only blue collar folks do work honestly, without them the rich would have no means of production. Their industries simply couldn't be built.

Without paper pushers the "workers" wouldn't get paid.

[The Black Forrest]

Well yeah. The rich don't work, they just leech off of others. I agree, we need to solve that problem.

Prejudice is not cool. You know people work hard to become rich, in most cases. Even if they inherit the wealth, if they want to keep that wealth in their family, they have to work hard to be the best at what they do. What is rich? Do you hate anyone who makes more than $250,000 annually?

Ohhhhh the income envy argument.

Some do work hard; there are many who don't.

One of my best friends from high school had a rather large inheritance/trust fund(I think it was a trust fund). Basically he didn't have to work. I think he has doubled it though he won't say.

I have other classmates who had their lives basically handled. They really don't do anything of worth.

So to say all wealth works hard is not right.

[Khadgar]

Prejudice is not cool. You know people work hard to become rich, in most cases. Even if they inherit the wealth, if they want to keep that wealth in their family, they have to work hard to be the best at what they do. What is rich? Do you hate anyone who makes more than $250,000 annually?

Ohhhhh the income envy argument.

Some do work hard; there are many who don't.

One of my best friends from high school and a rather large inheritance/trust fund(I think it was a trust fund). Basically he didn't have to work. I think he has doubled it though he won't say.

I have other classmates who had their lives basically handled. They really don't do anything of worth.

So to say all wealth works hard is not right.

And to say those without wealth simply don't work hard enough is also not true. Generalizations rarely are.

[Alien Space Bats]

COMMUNIST! YOU ARE ADVOCATING BOOT REDISTRIBUTION!

Shoes for Industry!

Shoes for the dead!

<hugs Farnhamia>

I love old timers!

[Farnhamia]

Shoes for Industry!

Shoes for the dead!

<hugs Farnhamia>

I love old timers!

[Khadgar]

Without paper pushers the "workers" wouldn't get paid.

Not true. Money has no value. Workers got "paid" since the dawn of time. It was called food, shelter, etc.

Right. Good luck with that. I mean, just because it's failed every time it's been tried. Currency is the only basis for an economy beyond very small scale barter economies. By the time you reach actual industry level you need money.

[Svobodu]

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work. That being said, there are LOTS of cases of people who don't work because they don't want the alternative of trying to find work on their own, even if they are capable of it. Whether it's heroin addicts in Europe being given allowance by the government (not because they are addicts but because they are unemployed) or people in the US who don't want to milk the welfare system even though they have jobs, people are going to abuse anything that is free. You can't assume that welfare will only be given to the truly needy because it never is.

And yet study after study shows that simply salary increases are not a way to motivate and retain workers.

Your last comment shows rather large chasm of ignorance.

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

[Norstal]

Initially a lot of people would suffer. And then they would go on suffering indefinitely. Why? Because it would require a massive change to current society, and many levels. A policy of "cut them off and they'll all pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you'll see" is no policy at all, since it doesn't actually deal with why people aren't capable of that with support.

It is a recipe for disaster though.

And personal anecdotes aside there are no reports or studies that show the majority of people supported by some welfare system somewhere are irresponsible layabouts to lazy to get out of there own way.

You don't need reports or studies to know that if people are giving money for nothing, they have less incentive to work.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game ... ty_of_life

That's one example of a group of people not wanting to be employed because of working conditions, even though they get paid. A lot.

Yet, if you visit Newgrounds, there's a thriving number of developers who don't get paid as much, or even at all. But apparently they're all heroin addicts or something.

So yeah, you do need a report or a study.

[The Black Forrest]

And yet study after study shows that simply salary increases are not a way to motivate and retain workers.

Your last comment shows rather large chasm of ignorance.

You are sooo wrong. People move across the world for better salaries.

You need to talk to HR people about retaining workers. Money is not the sole motivator.