Advertisement

by RB Rebecca Black » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:04 pm

by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:09 pm
RB Rebecca Black wrote:I would put my money that most of the users on here are aged 12-35. That alone shows leftism.

by Sondstead » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:17 pm
The Reasonable wrote:1. I know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are white, and that welfare abuse is not that high of a percentage. However, it happens and a lot of it isn't caught. The trick is to disincentivize staying for extended periods of time on welfare without a good reason (economic recession, disability, illness, etc) while getting help to those that need it.
The Reasonable wrote:2. As for income disparity, some inequality is inevitable- not everyone has equal earning potential- and making sure everyone is equal isn't even fair. However, everyone should be entitled to education and healthcare- the former being important for social mobility and the latter because illness can happen to anyone. There's also a balance between complete inequality and equality- with complete inequality nobody has money, while with complete equality nobody has enough to create businesses of any significant size and scope to provide goods and services for large numbers of people.
Fartsniffage wrote:Poor analogy. A better one would be a high school american football team approaching a couple of kids quietly reading/writing during lunch hour, telling them to play with them and then stamping on their books/notepads if they refuse.
All with the teacher watching on from the sidelines nodding in approval.

by North Calaveras » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:26 pm
Selsada wrote:I really can't see the link between age and politics...

by Free Soviets » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:27 pm
Armenia Reborn wrote:Trotskylvania wrote:
Means tested aid is bureaucratically complicated, inefficient, and creates traps like this. If you want to make a social efficiency argument, people would be much more productive if everyone got a certain level of housing or food benefits regardless of their wealth. Not only would the bureaucracy and enforcement be simpler, it would also mean that no one would have a disincentive to earn more.
Hmmm. Wouldn't it also mean that no one would have a incentive to earn more if they are permanently assure certain things regardless of what they contribute to society?

by The Reasonable » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:33 pm
Sondstead wrote:The Reasonable wrote:1. I know that the vast majority of welfare recipients are white, and that welfare abuse is not that high of a percentage. However, it happens and a lot of it isn't caught. The trick is to disincentivize staying for extended periods of time on welfare without a good reason (economic recession, disability, illness, etc) while getting help to those that need it.
I apologize. I certainly did not mean to imply anything about you personally and I intended to make that clear but forgot to.
The Reasonable wrote:2. As for income disparity, some inequality is inevitable- not everyone has equal earning potential- and making sure everyone is equal isn't even fair. However, everyone should be entitled to education and healthcare- the former being important for social mobility and the latter because illness can happen to anyone. There's also a balance between complete inequality and equality- with complete inequality nobody has money, while with complete equality nobody has enough to create businesses of any significant size and scope to provide goods and services for large numbers of people.
Certainly. Really, that seems like a social democratic position in my view.

by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:42 pm
The Reasonable wrote:Sondstead wrote:
I apologize. I certainly did not mean to imply anything about you personally and I intended to make that clear but forgot to.![]()
Certainly. Really, that seems like a social democratic position in my view.
Another problem: too-high taxes on business owners will incentivize outsourcing and thus unemployment. Also, minimum wage has a role in causing outsourcing...this is where the minimum standard of living supplement should come in, if a government wants to reduce unemployment by abolishing minimum wage- not as much for the unemployed as for the working poor, who really should be receiving more benefits as opposed to the perpetually unemployed.
Wealth inequality by itself isn't a bad thing until people don't have any disposable income.

by The Reasonable » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:47 pm
The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:The Reasonable wrote:
Another problem: too-high taxes on business owners will incentivize outsourcing and thus unemployment. Also, minimum wage has a role in causing outsourcing...this is where the minimum standard of living supplement should come in, if a government wants to reduce unemployment by abolishing minimum wage- not as much for the unemployed as for the working poor, who really should be receiving more benefits as opposed to the perpetually unemployed.
Wealth inequality by itself isn't a bad thing until people don't have any disposable income.
I would say wealth inequality could be wholly forgotten about in exchange for thinking instead of what realistic options people have to advance.
Its one thing to be in a class, its an entirely different thing to be trapped there.
P.S. I think it was called social mobility, idk
PPS Im brainstorming on this one, so don't judge too hard.

by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:49 pm
The Reasonable wrote:The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace wrote:I would say wealth inequality could be wholly forgotten about in exchange for thinking instead of what realistic options people have to advance.
Its one thing to be in a class, its an entirely different thing to be trapped there.
P.S. I think it was called social mobility, idk
PPS Im brainstorming on this one, so don't judge too hard.
Hence my emphasis on education and healthcare. I guess I am of the US immigrant mentality- I don't care that I'm in the lower class right now, as long as I have opportunities to rise out of it...and if I do but don't take advantage of them it's my own damn fault. Maybe it's this emphasis on personal responsibility that leave me at odds with the social democrats around here...they seem to assume that people will want to improve themselves without some kind of incentive.

by Eaglehood » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:50 pm

by Chulainan » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:51 pm
Eaglehood wrote:We are here,
its just that if we say that we are conservative we automatically get shunned and get called racist and fascist .

by Agymnum » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:52 pm

by Maineiacs » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:52 pm

by North Calaveras » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:53 pm

by Constaniana » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:54 pm

Ameriganastan wrote:I work hard to think of those ludicrous Eric adventure stories, but I don't think I'd have come up with rescuing a three armed alchemist from goblin-monkeys in a million years.
Kudos.

by Cameroi » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:57 pm

by Chulainan » Wed Sep 05, 2012 6:58 pm

by North Calaveras » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:01 pm

by The Reasonable » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:01 pm
Agymnum wrote:North Calaveras wrote:
Same here u had fifty year old nazis, age dosnt mean correct but I will say that with age come wisdom, even then it depends
Age can bring wisdom, but too often it brings cynicism, which people confuse with wisdom.
Just because you spit at people and declare that 'life isn't fair, suck it up', doesn't make you wise. Makes you about as wise as half the coaches on my old school's sports teams. Hint: not many of them were that wise outside of sports.
A lot of young people tend to be idealists, which is why they're immediately dismissed as not knowing shit about the world. I find it sad that the only thing people seem to eat up nowadays as being wise or intelligent-sounding are the comments of bitter cynics who refuse to make the world better because they've decided the world doesn't deserve their help and now spend the rest of their days spitting and scorning it.

by Agymnum » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:04 pm
The Reasonable wrote:Agymnum wrote:
Age can bring wisdom, but too often it brings cynicism, which people confuse with wisdom.
Just because you spit at people and declare that 'life isn't fair, suck it up', doesn't make you wise. Makes you about as wise as half the coaches on my old school's sports teams. Hint: not many of them were that wise outside of sports.
A lot of young people tend to be idealists, which is why they're immediately dismissed as not knowing shit about the world. I find it sad that the only thing people seem to eat up nowadays as being wise or intelligent-sounding are the comments of bitter cynics who refuse to make the world better because they've decided the world doesn't deserve their help and now spend the rest of their days spitting and scorning it.
Cynics aren't necessarily people who spit and scorn at the world...and never have I said "life isn't fair, suck it up". What I am when I referred to myself as cynical is that I still want to make the world a better place, but those measures have to disincentivize any possible abuse by moochers.

by Chulainan » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:05 pm

by The Land Fomerly Known as Ligerplace » Wed Sep 05, 2012 7:06 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Aguaria Major, Dimetrodon Empire, Dtn, Fractalnavel, Heavenly Assault, Medoll, Pizza Friday Forever91, Uiiop
Advertisement