Bernie Sanders is a bad ass

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I think we can all agree on this ^^

The question is: how do we get there?

Learning is an internal process and abating penalties for bad decisions denies the party the opportunity to learn and reinforces the behavior.

hey buddy! Thought I should help you in you quest to get to the greater good thingy you're after.. as in whats the right thing to do?

Ok first of all, one should know that this stuff has been debated by those in control of the goverments of continents, thousands of years ago!

So there has been a lot of trial and error in the arena heh, were not onto something new here is all Im saying.

Second of all, it has been evdient that societies that help the weaker, overall become stronger.

Societies that dont, suffer and deteriate.

The simplest reasoning is, if you dont feed the poor, they will figure out a way to take your food.

That is a scaleable concept that goes all the way up to housing, medicating, entertaining etc.

Now another thing you should think about is how the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy, in all capitalist systems. In all systems really, you can bet that you cant get rich, unless you're taking money from someone else, and you cant take money from someone else, without making a few people poor.

So, what do you do when everyoen is poor? theres nobody left to take money from!... deteriation.

By taxing the rich, giving money to the poor, the rich are able to create more jobs, more outlets for the poor spend money, make more $$

The economy works in a huge circular effect. It's not like the wild kingdom, it's entirely different.

Now all that said, there are a few things that WE DO for our nation, like make it a friendly place to visit, contribute with every paycheck, go to war in defense of it, hell, we BUILT it.

Because of all that, we are OWED something in return and what that is, is a safe place that protects our civil liberties and helps us grow.

The government pay for that through taxes, it's the price to enter the park. Nobody is immune from them nobody has that right, no matter who they are... right now the rich think they are however.

You don't get to walk into disneyland and ride everything for free, no mater how famous and rich you are. You want the park to yourself? Well guess what, you either buy the whole thing, or you pay to rent it out for the day. Both of which cost A LOT of money.

Why should the rich be able to rent the whole country for the day, or buy the whole thing, for virtually nothing?

No, they need to pay their taxes, and the amount of space you want to occupy or time you want the park to yourself (metaphors for how rich you want to be) increases parallelly.

Remember, the rich cannot be the rich without the poor. You cannot be a Job Creator, if there is nobody that wants to do the work. The poor, are more valuble than the rich by a LONG shot... Stop living in fear of 1-2% of the world.

[One Tin Soldier]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

you cant get rich, unless you're taking money from someone else, and you cant take money from someone else, without making a few people poor.

How exactly do rich people "take" money from people? The only entity which takes money from people (legally) is the government.

When a business sells a product they are not forcing people to buy it. It's a voluntary act on the part of the purchaser to buy said product. Does MacDonalds round people up at gunpoint and herd them into their resturaunts and force them to buy Big Macs?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by One Tin Soldier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

How exactly do rich people "take" money from people? The only entity which takes money from people (legally) is the government.

For one thing, the rich people currently own the government.

Originally Posted by One Tin Soldier [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

When a business sells a product they are not forcing people to buy it. It's a voluntary act on the part of the purchaser to buy said product. Does MacDonalds round people up at gunpoint and herd them into their resturaunts and force them to buy Big Macs?

The government currently cuts their corporate patrons tax breaks, subsidies, antitrust protection, deregulation, and bailouts in exchange for campaign contributions aka bribes.

It really manifests less as them 'taking money from people' and more as class warfare and wage depression. Corporate interests (represented by both democrats and republicans) go through great lengths to diminish unions, block labor laws, and depress wages.

It's really apparent with real estate, with wealthy investors buying up large amounts of housing and renting it out, completely refusing to build affordable medium-income housing (in cahoots with municipal governments), resulting in both housing prices and the cost of rent being stupidly inflated. We're basically in another bubble already. The skyrocketing rent and mortgage payments siphon away huge amounts of disposable income and dampen spending, retarding GDP growth in a manner similar to how excessive gas prices helped precipitate the 2007 meltdown.

As more and more wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of a few, their ability to capture an even larger share of both existing wealth and newly generated wealth increases, due to the fundamental reality of economics: that wealth is conducive to more wealth, and no free market force exists to correct for inequality.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

...due to the fundamental reality of economics: that wealth is conducive to more wealth, and no free market force exists to correct for inequality.

This is true and the reason why individual wealth ought to be regulated as a matter of pragmatism. There will always be those who wildly outperform the rest of the population and unchecked, that can be detrimental to the group depending on its composition.

What of those who regularly underperform or habitually err? Why should the rest of society pay for their failures?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is true and the reason why individual wealth ought to be regulated as a matter of pragmatism. There will always be those who wildly outperform the rest of the population and unchecked, that can be detrimental to the group depending on its composition.

What of those who regularly underperform or habitually err? Why should the rest of society pay for their failures?

What is it you think we are doing for underperformers? Do you have any idea what welfare is actually like in the United States? It's not a glamorous existence.

One of the reasons it's in our best interest to try to help them is because of how profoundly poverty is heritable, and all the ways that growing up impoverished stunts an individual. Punishing somebody for being impoverished, or leaving them to die, may feel good and just, but it does little to solve the problem. And this is less about just giving them money, and more about providing opportunity. (Affordable tuition, affordable housing, decent wages)

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Lune [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What is it you think we are doing for underperformers? Do you have any idea what welfare is actually like in the United States? It's not a glamorous existence.

One of the reasons it's in our best interest to try to help them is because of how profoundly poverty is heritable, and all the ways that growing up impoverished stunts an individual. Punishing somebody for being impoverished, or leaving them to die, may feel good and just, but it does little to solve the problem. And this is less about just giving them money, and more about providing opportunity. (Affordable tuition, affordable housing, decent wages)

Of course it isn't glamorous. By funding it you perpetuate misery. It is literally subsidy of failure, which is endemic. Those who rise from poverty rise from it whether given aid or not. Those who do not, do not whether given aid or not. Offering aid is self-serving but praiseworthy for the bold embrace of compassion in the cold face of reason. Beseeching the government to offer aid at the expense of others who have succeeded isn't even commendable on those grounds because you are only alleviating the personal cost of your moral crusade by spreading it across others who have overcome and may or may not share your sensibilities.

Suggesting normal people might somehow revel in allowing others to die is really quite inane. To the contrary, humans are social creatures who generally share a profound desire to help their fellow man even when not in their own interest. The problem of course arises when your chosen recipient fails to reciprocate your efforts.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Those who rise from poverty rise from it whether given aid or not. Those who do not, do not whether given aid or not.

This is just not true, and represents such a fundamental lack of understanding about the forces that go into play regarding social mobility.

Yes, exceptional individuals will often improve their station. However, the presence of opportunities, support, and pathways out of poverty not only make it easier for someone to climb out, but also help negate the deleterious effects poverty has on human capital. If you consider the opportunities I had being born rich, to my nephew who was born to a fat white trash druggie mother (drank alcohol while pregnant) and abusive absentee father, who the fuck do you think is going to grow into a more capable person 9 times out of 10? I had a fucking godlike education, excellent nutrition, an extensive support network, great healthcare, my parents paid for my bachelors. I would have to have been completely retarded not to "succeed". Compare that to if I grew up in poverty, and it would have been much more difficult.

Consider the US military, which is in many ways a welfare program for young males. All the myriad benefits that come from military service, including the GI bill, veterans preference points for countless occupations, professional development, occupational training, VA healthcare, etc etc, end up being a springboard out of poverty for many individuals.

I'm not saying I'm even in support of direct welfare. We shouldn't just cut people a check. But things like affordable healthcare, affordable housing, and affordable tuition are not subsidizing stupidity, they are investing in human capital.

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by iruinedyourday [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

hey buddy! Thought I should help you in you quest to get to the greater good thingy you're after.. as in whats the right thing to do?

Ok first of all, one should know that this stuff has been debated by those in control of the goverments of continents, thousands of years ago!

So there has been a lot of trial and error in the arena heh, were not onto something new here is all Im saying.

Second of all, it has been evdient that societies that help the weaker, overall become stronger.

Societies that dont, suffer and deteriate.

The simplest reasoning is, if you dont feed the poor, they will figure out a way to take your food.

That is a scaleable concept that goes all the way up to housing, medicating, entertaining etc.

Now another thing you should think about is how the poor greatly outnumber the wealthy, in all capitalist systems. In all systems really, you can bet that you cant get rich, unless you're taking money from someone else, and you cant take money from someone else, without making a few people poor.

So, what do you do when everyoen is poor? theres nobody left to take money from!... deteriation.

By taxing the rich, giving money to the poor, the rich are able to create more jobs, more outlets for the poor spend money, make more $$

The economy works in a huge circular effect. It's not like the wild kingdom, it's entirely different.

Now all that said, there are a few things that WE DO for our nation, like make it a friendly place to visit, contribute with every paycheck, go to war in defense of it, hell, we BUILT it.

Because of all that, we are OWED something in return and what that is, is a safe place that protects our civil liberties and helps us grow.

The government pay for that through taxes, it's the price to enter the park. Nobody is immune from them nobody has that right, no matter who they are... right now the rich think they are however.

You don't get to walk into disneyland and ride everything for free, no mater how famous and rich you are. You want the park to yourself? Well guess what, you either buy the whole thing, or you pay to rent it out for the day. Both of which cost A LOT of money.

Why should the rich be able to rent the whole country for the day, or buy the whole thing, for virtually nothing?

No, they need to pay their taxes, and the amount of space you want to occupy or time you want the park to yourself (metaphors for how rich you want to be) increases parallelly.

Remember, the rich cannot be the rich without the poor. You cannot be a Job Creator, if there is nobody that wants to do the work. The poor, are more valuble than the rich by a LONG shot... Stop living in fear of 1-2% of the world.

What of the people allowed free (or worst yet, paid) admission to the park for stubbing their toes, shitting their pants or walking into a wall. Declaring free admittance for those activities only serves to line the pockets of podiatrists, Hanes and radiologists while encouraging foolish behavior.

A lot of other interesting material in your post that could take us in all kinds of different directions, but I do not want to stray too far at the moment ^^

[iruinedyourday]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What of the people allowed free (or worst yet, paid) admission to the park for stubbing their toes, shitting their pants or walking into a wall. Declaring free admittance for those activities only serves to line the pockets of podiatrists, Hanes and radiologists while encouraging foolish behavior.

A lot of other interesting material in your post that could take us in all kinds of different directions, but I do not want to stray too far at the moment ^^

not quite sure what you're talking about exactly but the examples you give, are like, well... Let me give it a shot: In this scenario you give, all those people with the literally pathetic excuses as to why they should be allowed to enter the park for free, will be outed as frauds and go to jail for collecting unemployment or welfare while working under the table for example (something that happens A LOT.. its not as easy to scam the system as the conservative may try to make you think).. or they are being truthful and in which case wont actually be trying to get into the park, because they are full blown crazies and will spend there time shitting in their pants at the hospital where they are taken care of.

Or lastly, they will be very intelligent but have not so good morals, and you just will get annoyed with them the way you do anywhere else in the world.

as if going to every starbucks or driving on every freeway or crossing every crosswalk, you DON'T get frustrated with the myriad of contributing good people, who just don't seem to know how to operate without being a fucking incredible nuisance to everyone else.

[Lune]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What of the people allowed free (or worst yet, paid) admission to the park for stubbing their toes, shitting their pants or walking into a wall. Declaring free admittance for those activities only serves to line the pockets of podiatrists, Hanes and radiologists while encouraging foolish behavior.

A lot of other interesting material in your post that could take us in all kinds of different directions, but I do not want to stray too far at the moment ^^

The idea that welfare has some Pavlovian effect on people and creates a welfare underclass is a myth largely created out of right wing contempt for impoverished blacks, who would have been an underclass anyway.

That said, having a system of universal single-payer healthcare that takes care of people if they get cancer or break a bone after they just got laid off by their employer who shipped their job overseas isn't rewarding stupidity, it's providing a basic social safety net in an effort to make a capitalist world slightly less shitty to live in than it otherwise could be.

As long as "Fuck you I got mine" is the prevailing ideology in the US, we're going to continue to fall further and further behind the rest of the developed world, as popular contempt for the concept of government makes it increasingly easier for Democrats and Republicans to serve the interests of the elite instead of you.