New Monopoly Board

[Aradhus]

It's a reflection of an entitlement society.

It's a reflection of the Conservatives battle with reality. And it's largely a reality that they have created themselves. Conservative states receive more of this federal "entitlement" money than the liberal states do. And as I said, state-run welfare is not Obama's fault.

You think it matters one iota who uses more? I got news for you, when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it and it doesn't fucking matter what their politics are!

Just because you're a filthy greedy douche, that doesn't mean everybody else is. Stop generalising about people based on your failings and inadequacies.

[Phatscotty]

It's a reflection of an entitlement society.

It's a reflection of the Conservatives battle with reality. And it's largely a reality that they have created themselves. Conservative states receive more of this federal "entitlement" money than the liberal states do. And as I said, state-run welfare is not Obama's fault.

You think it matters one iota who uses more? I got news for you, when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it and it doesn't fucking matter what their politics are!

Just because you're a filthy greedy douche, that doesn't mean everybody else is. Stop generalising about people based on your failings and inadequacies.

the blame game never solved anything. Keep trying though, maybe it will work one of these times.

[Night Strike]

Actually, it says that because in America every person, even the poor, has the ability to better their standing in society. They have the ability to prosper in America, which is not something that was available in the rest of the work. It is not an indication that the government will take care of them. It is an indication that entering the land of the free means you have the opportunity to succeed.

Yeah, but think about that from the poor's perspective for a second. Have you ever heard that expression that you can tell how great a society truly is by how it treats it's meekest members? How about we cross that expression with this Conservative cartoon and with the New Colossus promise. What we have is a cartoon that reflects how the Conservatives of this country are constantly attacking the weakest members of our society. They're attacking the poor, the disabled, and don't forget that they always attack immigrants. Immigrants don't even have the ability to vote... Meanwhile Democrats attack big business and the rich, and they're the ones who are actually in power. It's no small coincidence that Blacks, Latinos, Hispanics, and Native Americans are an unnatural crutch that the Democrats can always count on. Startlingly, even though Hispanics and Blacks agree are typically overly religious and agree with Conservatives on many issues, Republicans never seem to get past 25% support from either community. And that's because they are also typically poor and Republicans scapegoat them for it. How can Conservatives have the balls to call the Republican party "the Party of God" while simultaneously picking on the poorest and politically weakest groups this country has? It doesn't take an Atheist to say that Jesus would never behave like this. And don't forget, Conservative states are typically welfare states... they receive more federal dollars than they pay in through taxes. What an unbelievable hypocrisy.

Going backwards through your post:

Jesus would not use the government for handouts to the poor. He instructed individuals to go help other individuals in need. That's what liberals don't understand every time they try to claim that Jesus is on the side of big-government handouts.

Republicans don't get more than 25% support from those minorities because they have been tricked into believing that all the Republicans are simply racists and that the Democrats will take care of them. They argue that Republicans want to remove government support from them while the Democrats will just give them more "free money" via the government. The truth is that Republicans want to spur economic growth so that all people can work for their money instead of relying on government handouts.

When people come to America and see that phrase on the Statue of Liberty, do you think they say to themselves "I'm so glad I'm coming to a country that will give me free money whenever I want it."? No. They say "I'm glad I'm coming to a country where I will have the opportunity to better my stature and the future for my family.". A good society is made up of individuals who work hard for what they have and help those around them when someone is in need. A good society is not one that takes money from one group of people in order to hand it to another group of people for political power. Those immigrants that you think Republican denigrate actually have values that line up with Republican ideals of hard work and helping each other. Most of them get mad when they realize that this country is becoming more and more like the big-government, socialists states they left behind. And when an immigrant becomes a citizen and gains the right to vote in our elections (and should NEVER be able to vote prior to that), they know that they have been able to achieve what they set to when they left their old countries.

By the way, I'm guessing those conservative states are receiving so much money because Democratic lawmakers are making sure their Democratic colleagues who won districts in those states bring home enough bacon to get re-elected.

[Phatscotty]

When you dumb down education, you get dumb results. All because those damned conservatives took over education in the 60's!

[Aradhus]

It's a reflection of an entitlement society.

It's a reflection of the Conservatives battle with reality. And it's largely a reality that they have created themselves. Conservative states receive more of this federal "entitlement" money than the liberal states do. And as I said, state-run welfare is not Obama's fault.

You think it matters one iota who uses more? I got news for you, when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it and it doesn't fucking matter what their politics are!

Just because you're a filthy greedy douche, that doesn't mean everybody else is. Stop generalising about people based on your failings and inadequacies.

the blame game never solved anything. Keep trying though, maybe it will work one of these times.

wut? You claimed when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it. "People" includes you. In other words, because you will gladly accept something for free, (whihc people normally have to work to recieve) everybody else will too. Which is something you can't prove and is also wrong as I know lots of people who have, you know, self esteem and shit.

[Juan_Bottom]

By the way, I'm guessing those conservative states are receiving so much money because Democratic lawmakers are making sure their Democratic colleagues who won districts in those states bring home enough bacon to get re-elected.

Welfare distribution is actually census-driven. As much as I've read on this issue, everyone seems to agree that politics don't play into this.... The most powerful states politically receive the least amount of Federal Money. Yes, Democratic lawmakers are the ones who banded together to push through all the bills to help our poor and downtrodden, but yes they also get the least amount of this money back from the Federal Government. It's basically Democratic charity towards their red neighbors.

Jesus would not use the government for handouts to the poor. He instructed individuals to go help other individuals in need. That's what liberals don't understand every time they try to claim that Jesus is on the side of big-government handouts.

I agree with this statement completely but you misunderstood my position. It's not the Republican party as an entity that I'm calling counter-Christ or whatever, it's the individuals who make up the party. They're individually voting within the party line but also want to call themselves men of Christ. Those two things are mutually exclusive. And it's not even that they would deny federal help to the poor to become better tax-payers, it's the fact that they politicize the issue and attack the poor. Jesus would not tell an immigrant to go back to Mexico. He would want to help them.

Also, with all due respect to Jesus his political understanding is 2,000 years old. Just like how our Constitution shows the strain of being 235 years old.

Republicans don't get more than 25% support from those minorities because they have been tricked into believing that all the Republicans are simply racists and that the Democrats will take care of them. They argue that Republicans want to remove government support from them while the Democrats will just give them more "free money" via the government. The truth is that Republicans want to spur economic growth so that all people can work for their money instead of relying on government handouts.

Think about this: You're saying that 75% of the minority population is easily manipulated by the Democratic party. Arizona and Alabama are both in the national spotlight for legalizing racial profiling and chasing out Hispanics. Most of these people also live in Red States, which is something to consider.

Most of them get mad when they realize that this country is becoming more and more like the big-government, socialists states they left behind.

WTF - dude, you're so out of touch with our immigration policy.
Over half of the legal immigrants to this country come from Mexico and Latin American Countries. Just wait till you see the numbers when you tack in the undocumented workers. Why would anyone want to leave a Socialist country where they can make more than 4X the wages they would make here and retire by the age of 50?
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/imm ... s-wor.aspx

And when an immigrant becomes a citizen and gains the right to vote in our elections (and should NEVER be able to vote prior to that), they know that they have been able to achieve what they set to when they left their old countries.

This myth is as old as our Constitution. It was true then, but it's not true now.

The truth is that Republicans want to spur economic growth so that all people can work for their money instead of relying on government handouts.

Then why have Republican states received the most Welfare money since the dawn of time? Why can't they spur this growth? I literally believe the opposite that you do. The Republican States want to keep minorities down and isolated. They don't want these people to have any political power, because they vote Democratic. I've made many posts about voter fraud in the south (1 in 8 black votes spoils, 1 in 5 Native American votes spoil).

the blame game never solved anything. Keep trying though, maybe it will work one of these times.

-Sully

[Juan_Bottom]

-Sully

[patrickaa317]

It's a reflection of an entitlement society.

It's a reflection of the Conservatives battle with reality. And it's largely a reality that they have created themselves. Conservative states receive more of this federal "entitlement" money than the liberal states do. And as I said, state-run welfare is not Obama's fault.

You think it matters one iota who uses more? I got news for you, when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it and it doesn't fucking matter what their politics are!

Just because you're a filthy greedy douche, that doesn't mean everybody else is. Stop generalising about people based on your failings and inadequacies.

[Aradhus]

My insults are said with affection.

[Juan_Bottom]

Uncle Sam is like 2 seconds away from seductively sucking on that finger. Mmmm.


-Sully

[Aradhus]

Nah, I reckon he rubbed his asshole and is now having a good long sniff.

[jay_a2j]

All that money goes to help minorities and the poor to lift themselves out of poverty.

Do you REALLY believe that?

[jay_a2j]

Then why have Republican states received the most Welfare money since the dawn of time? Why can't they spur this growth? I literally believe the opposite that you do. The Republican States want to keep minorities down and isolated. They don't want these people to have any political power, because they vote Democratic. I've made many posts about voter fraud in the south (1 in 8 black votes spoils, 1 in 5 Native American votes spoil).

Can we be honest for just a second?

It is the Democrats and their "helping minorities out" programs that KEEP MINORITIES DOWN. A poor person will almost always vote Democrat because they are LED to believe that the Democrats are the party who "fights for them". However, a look at how these democratic programs are designed it is blatantly obvious that they are DESIGNED to KEEP them down. Thus, keeping them voting DEMOCRAT! Because we all know that once you start doing well for yourself and see the amount of taxes the government is taking from you, you BECOME a Republican.


(1 in 2 Ron Paul votes spoil) You can bet they are not about to let a man who would DO THE RIGHT thing, become president. Did you want to talk about voter fraud??????

[GreecePwns]

Okay. So are we going to ignore the effects of (especially in these economic conditions) ending unemployment benefit payments and other welfare?

You see, when these people are receiving no income, they pay no taxes at all. No income tax, probably little to no sales tax or anything else. It is as if these people have left the economy altogether, which is bad for the government's bottom line. What welfare is meant to do, when done right, is to keep people from falling out of the economy altogether. The money is meant to be spent, because money circulating is what keeps an economy going (and is what gets it out of the shitter).

In an ideal world, these people would all be both willing and able to find their own jobs and whatnot. But in the real world, no economy ever in the history of the world has ever had full employment nor does any economy want full employment. That would cause massive inflation, something I'm sure conservatives wouldn't want.

Here's a hint: In order to get a government out of a recession, a government must institute a more progressive tax rate (meaning, lowering taxes on the poor while raising taxes on higher classes by the same amount). This gives the majority of economic actors an increased purchasing power which spurs the circulation of money in an economy.

[rdsrds2120]

Okay. So are we going to ignore the effects of (especially in these economic conditions) ending unemployment benefit payments and other welfare?

You see, when these people are receiving no income, they pay no taxes at all. No income tax, probably little to no sales tax or anything else. It is as if these people have left the economy altogether, which is bad for the government's bottom line. What welfare is meant to do, when done right, is to keep people from falling out of the economy altogether. The money is meant to be spent, because money circulating is what keeps an economy going (and is what gets it out of the shitter).

Not to mention the societal effects of this -- crime rates and looting would soar, poverty would perpetuate (that's economical, I suppose), and less people could afford a decent standard of living. Also, with no income, it would be that much harder to keep the resources to acquire a job even more difficult. That is, lack of money for transportation costs to get back and forth from work, internet access (incredibly helpful in our information age), and the displacement of any other residual costs caused by a sudden shortage of income.

BUH, scary.

-Sully

[BigBallinStalin]

Seems on-topic!

[BigBallinStalin]

Helping poor people is bad durr, they should get on the bandwagon and make some moola!

My good intentions to help the poor are morally justifiable, but I won't take seriously the consequences. HOO YA!

[PLAYER57832]

Helping poor people is bad durr, they should get on the bandwagon and make some moola!

My good intentions to help the poor are morally justifiable, but I won't take seriously the consequences. HOO YA!

Yeah, like corporate stockholders taking profits that might otherwise have to go to pay employees wages.

[BigBallinStalin]

Helping poor people is bad durr, they should get on the bandwagon and make some moola!

My good intentions to help the poor are morally justifiable, but I won't take seriously the consequences. HOO YA!

Yeah, like corporate stockholders taking profits that might otherwise have to go to pay employees wages.

If you weren't serious, then you can join Lootifer and BBS's Cool Kid's Club.

[Lootifer]

iLold (TM)

OT: BBS reply to Greecepwns last paragraph

[BigBallinStalin]

iLold (TM)

OT: BBS reply to Greecepwns last paragraph

Yeesh, how do I condense the literature of fiscal and monetary policy and its accompanied knowledge and incentive problems into CC-standard format (<50 words)?

... I think I'd have to sum up:

(1) Keynesianism, the neoclassical synthesis, monetarism, and post-Keynesianism
(2) throw in the quantity theory of money: MV = PQ
(3) explain business cycles (Austrian theory and Keynesian),
(4) then mention how purchasing power, consumer price index, producer price index, inflation, real v. nominal value, output, long term v. short term, etc. etc. etc. relate to 1, 2, and 3.
(5) then there's finally the knowledge and incentive problems which constrain ideal central planning.

Then I conclude that he's wrong.

Many mainstream economists would frown at the GP tax policy. Even Keynes would be like, "wtf, man, you increase taxes during a boom phase--not during the bust."

(the above is 110+ words)

[patrickaa317]

Helping poor people is bad durr, they should get on the bandwagon and make some moola!

My good intentions to help the poor are morally justifiable, but I won't take seriously the consequences. HOO YA!

Yeah, like corporate stockholders taking profits that might otherwise have to go to pay employees wages.

Employees aren't getting paid wages?

[Lootifer]

iLold (TM)

OT: BBS reply to Greecepwns last paragraph

Yeesh, how do I condense the literature of fiscal and monetary policy and its accompanied knowledge and incentive problems into CC-standard format (<50 words)?

... I think I'd have to sum up:

(1) Keynesianism, the neoclassical synthesis, monetarism, and post-Keynesianism
(2) throw in the quantity theory of money: MV = PQ
(3) explain business cycles (Austrian theory and Keynesian),
(4) then mention how purchasing power, consumer price index, producer price index, inflation, real v. nominal value, output, long term v. short term, etc. etc. etc. relate to 1, 2, and 3.
(5) then there's finally the knowledge and incentive problems which constrain ideal central planning.

Then I conclude that he's wrong.

Many mainstream economists would frown at the GP tax policy. Even Keynes would be like, "wtf, man, you increase taxes during a boom phase--not during the bust."

(the above is 110+ words)

[Phatscotty]

It's a reflection of an entitlement society.

It's a reflection of the Conservatives battle with reality. And it's largely a reality that they have created themselves. Conservative states receive more of this federal "entitlement" money than the liberal states do. And as I said, state-run welfare is not Obama's fault.

You think it matters one iota who uses more? I got news for you, when people are handed money they didn't earn, they are going to take it and it doesn't fucking matter what their politics are!

Just because you're a filthy greedy douche, that doesn't mean everybody else is. Stop generalising about people based on your failings and inadequacies.

What makes me greedy?

[Lootifer]

The fact you assume everyone will take handouts implicitly.