View Full Version : Democrats, I mean liberals.

08-01-2004, 10:35 AM
Why do democrats think people owe them something? Why was everyone at the democrat convention looking for a hand out? How come liberal forms of compassion cause more harm and dependency than good?

08-01-2004, 11:02 AM
Is giving away other peoples money charitable or is it stealing?

08-01-2004, 03:53 PM
What are you talking about?

When poor people are "given" money or charity (in the form of $ or programs), everything goes well in the nation. Poor people are usually poor because they have bad spending habits. These habits are usually the main factor in driving the economy up. Think back to Clinton to see what I mean.

Of course, this is a generalization but there are enough 'poor people' out there living comfortably to prove my point.

'Liberal forms of compassion' is basically forced charity from the rich. It sounds selfish but it is necessary to take/tax money from the rich to stabalize the economy.

Rich people are rich because they know how to SAVE AND INVEST. Both of those don't do NEARLY as much help to the economy as 'poor people' spending their tax breaks on random stuff.

08-01-2004, 09:31 PM
mlee2 you think poor people who spend randomly help the economy more than rich people? You sure do have your facts construed. Rich people have much more disposable income than a poor person. This disposable income pumps more money in the economy and thus helps it much more than any minimum paid worker's salary. Poor people aren't just poor because they spend alot, they are poor because they can't work, they don't want to work, they have no working skill...there are a plethora of reasons. Ignorance... Further, how is giving people money American? Sure, charity is good, but people should not be allowed to rely on American government handouts...this is rewarding terrible spending habits, not working. How is rewarding no putting out hard work American? In American you are supposed to be rewarded for hard work, not the other way around. Jerk, in my opinion some of the governement's handouts are charity, but I believe that most of it is stealing...think of it this way: you work hard for your money, regardless of how much money you make only to have the government take it and give it to someone who refuses to work.

08-01-2004, 10:13 PM
Coda what I really like to see is the woman across the street get gas money and free day care. I make to much for free day care, not that i would use it, my wife stays home and watches the kids. I've also noticed that all these politicians, especially democrats, are rich and want to tax income, not wealth. If a rich man can't hold on to his possessions what makes these sheople think poor people will ever be able to hold onto their possessions. The entire democrat platform seems to be based on envy. Even if rich people put their money in the bank, the bank doesn't just leave it there they invest don't they. I've heard this a few times "rich people just put their money in the bank. Didn't M. Moron just boast at the dem convention that he is waiting on the yacht he just ordered. What a ******* of virtue he is. He's almost rich enough to run as a dem.

08-01-2004, 10:30 PM
Jerk, I understand that you want her to get daycare for her children and such, but if she wasn't guaranteed support would she have even had this kids? I personally know a hispanic family in a hispanic town where they have had 4 kids all on gov. support, knowing they will get more money with more kids...do you support this? Caught between ensuring a good life for the kids and making sure people take responsibility. the democratic platform is based on envy....and others taking care of others...ie taxpayers supporting welfare recipiants. These people are going to vote for their politicians as long as the politicians keep getting the governement to give the people monetary support. I don't really see your point past the envy sentence, perhaps you would like to explain?

08-01-2004, 10:41 PM
Oh sorry, I guess you can't hear the dripping sarcasm in my type. I can't afford day care. What most people in poverty have in common is that most people in poverty come from broken homes. Single mothers almost insure poverty. These dependents of the state aren't free people. To be free one must support ones self, family, and sometimes friends. I have personally lived under bridges before because I wouldn't take handouts, my family didn't even know. I had to work 2 full time jobs and go to college full time. You can't say something is yours if you don't earn it, and you surely can't appreciate it as much. What ever happened to pride? If you have to vote for a certain party because you are afraid someone won't take care of you is a sure sign that you are not free. I'd like to hear somebody ask Kerry if he is allowed to tax his wife or atleast invest her money in companies in America. Kerry got his money from a republican too although he had to die before Kerry could marry his wife.

08-01-2004, 10:46 PM
completly agree jerk, we need to reduce the welfare system and create a few programs that will help people get jobs and be free....btw I've never really thought about actually being free like the way you've just described, thanks for that insight.

08-01-2004, 11:11 PM
Why don't all you anti-poor people just propose that all poor people-those who cannot, by themselves, support themselves and their families, be sentenced to labor camps. Gulags out in the Nevada desert, preferably near nuclear testing sites. If you have a BETTER solution for social welfare, then let's hear it.

You can't get rid of the problem, unless you just kill these people and that's not going to happen in the USA, now is it? The only difference between the democrats and republicans on the issue is the dems will, on occasion, talk about it while the republicans will not. Not talking about it does not make it disappear. Whether there's a republican or democrat administration, people will continue to receive welfare benefits. Sitting there and demonizing the poor isn't going to solve the problem. Those poor who CAN work, well what jobs are there in a "jobless recovery" as we're having? Most states try to find a way to put these people to work, despite the lack thereof. But again, what of the other group-you can't kill them like in the video games that you play at home. The solution is education, training and instilling a sense of ownership, patriotism and pride. Obviously, something has to be given back for the money that is spent by the taxpayers, but this solution is too complex and long-term for the elected official (or adolescent) brain to comprehend.

08-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Phil, noone suggested we kill them...guess you read in between the lines there...and noone said they were anti poor people. I even said we should make programs to help them get off their feet...guess you only read what you want. Maybe you should go ahead and give every dollar you make and send it off to someone who doesn't have a job?

08-01-2004, 11:39 PM
Maybe you should go ahead and give every dollar you make and send it off to someone who doesn't have a job?

Coda - That's called T-A-X-E-S, and I've been paying them for longer than you've been alive. The "Kill them" reference is sarcasm-I didn't suggest that anyone here actually said that. But I'm waiting...

08-02-2004, 12:14 AM
so you're just saying because it's a tax, it's alright?! give me my tax for being an "anti-poor" ...I guess that's okay because it's a tax. Just for the record kill the poors.

08-02-2004, 01:13 AM
I have no idea what you just said. Beyond English I don't do very well, so humor me and talk to me in my native tongue, Coda.

08-02-2004, 06:57 AM
Jerk, just because YOU refuse help from social programs doesn't mean you have the right to condemn everybody else from doing so.

You see it as self-pride, I see it as being foolhardy. But hey, to each his own. You're basically condemning the 'poor' for accepting money using YOUR standards and upbringing for their choices.

I myself, have been on both extremes of the income scale from growing up in a mansion to rooming in a small studio. The only REAL difference between someone rich and someone poor is financial discipline and ignorance. You can be in the cushiest 50K job and still be poor if you don't watch your money. I've also known a struggling immigrant make millions just from using some student loans to invest in the stock market.

I've made friends from all walks of life and from my experience, 'poor' people have bad spending habits. Of course, rich people have more disposable income but somewhere along the family line (or themselves) have earned it whereas someone implied in this thread: 'Poor people come from broken homes' so nobody has earned it and someone screwed it all up.

Poor people can turn their world around if they happen to save enough money to invest in the right way. Again, it's all about knowledge or lack of knowledge. There truly is no such thing as too tight a budget if you know your social program resources out there.

I myself, have lived under a $50 month food budget for several years to live VERY comfortably the way I am. Of course, I had help from social programs.
And that's basically where I take offense from Jerk as he implies I have no right to take pride in my financial discipline since it got cancelled out by me accepting help from federal resources.

You can still live in comfort or even luxury and still be poor. Thanks to credit cards and "handouts."

Camilio Pascual
08-02-2004, 07:11 AM
Jerk - All three of your questions in your initial post are complex questions, i.e. logically fallacious questions. When you can formulate a question that is not fallacious, I might answer it.

08-02-2004, 10:24 AM
Phil, I said "why don't you give every dollar away" you said, "I do it's called taxes, and I've been paying them longer than you've been alive." So you're saying just because it's a tax it's okay?

08-02-2004, 01:54 PM
Well "jerk" is exactly what he calls himself-a jerk.

08-02-2004, 04:03 PM
good thinking Chopin!!!

08-02-2004, 04:45 PM
Would you not give a starving man a hot meal and a warm bed? Would you not accept some level of dishonesty if you could feed hungry kids? Tolerance, charity and compassion are wonderful things, guys.

There will always be those who will game a system--any system--but that doesn't mean you don't try anyway.

God save you if you truly fall on hard times.

08-02-2004, 06:19 PM
morpheus I have no problem with helping people, it's the dependence on the system and abuse of the system that bothers me.

08-02-2004, 06:52 PM
I have given hot meals to the poor, in person. I don't feel good about just giving money blindly, I, however, don't do things just to feel good about myself. I happen to be poor and have family that are poor. My wife doesn't work and we have only one income because my kids are more important than being rich. I never wrote that there should be no social net. I am married to an immigrant and know many immigrants
that come here with nothing and know that many will never have anything because they become dependents. Some of these people even parrot the "republicans are for the rich" crap. I taught english as a second language also, and have met many people who came here from represive regimes. I also know many people who live here that can't get jobs or raises because they would lose tax funded programs in the form of food and/or insurance. I could have lived in a mansion when I was a kid too, but my step father, who is literally illiterate, couldn't keep his businesses going because of taxes. The government has noone to answer to because you liberals give them cart blanche in running these programs. What do you mean charity, if it is charity it is voluntary, giving away confiscated money, is not charity. I've only seen all this from one side, I don't need to feel false compassion for people I demand someone else take care of, I'm not a liberal. I have actually been out there helping these "poor" in person, I'm a conservative. George Bush will be the most liberal person I've ever voted for, I voted Libertarian last time, but I am not a lemming.

08-02-2004, 07:02 PM
I think I hear the soothing tones of a violin playing in the background.

08-02-2004, 07:31 PM
Yes, that's NPR, and I'll bet you that they didn't tell you about Sandy Burglar or the negative bounce that your Sunshine Boyz received from its public begging campaign. Say, I'll bet you can't wait for the Tommy Franks book to come out. Did your unliberal media have him on any of their shows yet. Oh I forgot, he's got to propogandize for the enemy to be a left wing hero.

08-02-2004, 08:15 PM
Sandy Burger/Tommy Franks = Straw men, i.e. logical fallacy. You're not making any sense now. Go back to your poor immigrant wife and give her some love.

08-02-2004, 08:20 PM
I used both of them to illustrate the ommisions of the media. Old lady is sleeping she has more important things to do in the morning than i do. I don't have to go "back" to her. Unlike Kerry, I'm not a divorced Catholic.

Camilio Pascual
08-03-2004, 03:40 AM
Jerk - Your poor people would starve if they had to rely on charity. Confiscated money will do just as well or better, there is more of it.

08-03-2004, 05:56 AM
thejerk and Coda are the only ones here making any sense. The rest of you prefer to take money away from hard-working Americans who deserve it, so a few honest disabled people can get money filtered down to them, among the dishonest baby factories and lazy, worthless wastes of space who are milking the system for all it's worth. It's people like that who make me second-guess the abortion issue.

Camilio Pascual
08-03-2004, 07:22 AM
thejerk and Coda are the only ones here making any sense. The rest of you prefer to take money away from hard-working Americans who deserve it, so a few honest disabled people can get money filtered down to them, among the dishonest baby factories and lazy, worthless wastes of space who are milking the system for all it's worth. It's people like that who make me second-guess the abortion issue.

Now you are exaggerating and hurting your credibility. I have never heard a proponent of a strong social welfare state say he/she prefers to take money away from hard-working Americans. I have heard some liberals say they prefer to take a lot of money away from people who have inherited fortunes, as they feel they do not deserve so much money for being born lucky. Large, inherited fortunes do seem to undermine a meritocracy.

08-03-2004, 11:56 AM
Actually, I think the trouble is that the U.S. does social services half way, giving unemployed people just enough to keep them from starving, but not enough to live on.

The biggest enemy facing the US right now is the fear people live in. We were camping and my father stopped me from going over and asking the neighbors to turn down their T.V. (they had a generator) because he said "You never know who has a gun these days." The man running the campground told me we couldn't bring another camper (my husband) onto the site because of 9-11, the FBI is watching the number of campers these days. This fear was everywhere - and that was scarey.

The fear also comes though from the economic stratification and the outcasting of the economically weak. If you could live well enough to feel you are a part of society on welfare, if your kids could attend decent schools, if you could get medical attention when you are sick, you would be less inclined to hurt the other members of your society, because you are a part of that society and you profit from it. Of course, some people choose to stay at the minimum and milk the system, but most use the resources available and get back into the working class.

Bit of a rant here, sorry, but I was really shocked at how tangibly the US has changed in the last four years.

One last bit about taxes - Property taxes to be exact - do you realise you can't own land in the US ? You pay a large fee to then rent it from the government. And if your property value increases faster than your income - tough luck buddy, you are no longer welcome in your own neighborhood. And when you sell - there are Capital Gains' to make sure you stay in your income bracket.

08-03-2004, 02:44 PM
If you guys look at the US government annual spending, then you will find the biggest domestic spending is neither to the poor like the conservatives claim nor to corporate welfare like the liberals claim. The middle class gets the lion shares of the government spending. But these are not welfare programs, they are call entitlements; same thing if you ask me.

The problem with taking a lot of money from the trust fund babies is that they will simply take their money elsewhere.
Overall, the US tax system already put a heavier burden on the wealthy Americans. While compare to the rest of the developed nations, it is still pretty fair, but if we continue to tax the rich, soon or later the rich will just move their money to places that are more hospitable.

The argument about whether the rich or the poor consume more thus has a more stimulating effect on the economy is irrelevant. Saving and investment are just as important as consumption. One of the biggest problems in the US economy is the low saving rate.