New Monopoly Board

[Phatscotty]

The fact you assume everyone will take handouts implicitly.

Who is likely to turn down free money? And what do my assumptions about other people have to do with my greed?

[patrickaa317]

The fact you assume everyone will take handouts implicitly.

That makes Scotty greedy?

[pimpdave]

It's all of a piece.

[Lootifer]

The fact you assume everyone will take handouts implicitly.

Who is likely to turn down free money? And what do my assumptions about other people have to do with my greed?

Well for starters it was a comment from Aradhus, so obviously it's going to contain some artifical sweetner bitterness.

Secondly its based on the slightly fallicious but empirically backed up idea that one projects their core beliefs onto how they anticipate the reaction of others (which is a pretty natural thing to do and we all do it). That is: because you would accept the money you assume everyone would.

You taking the money when you dont really need it to survive is greedy.

For example; if I had welfare available to me, I wouldn't take it. Proof: I have health insurance when we have state funded healthcare. Stupid? Possibly; avoiding being greedy? Yes.

[Phatscotty]

The fact you assume everyone will take handouts implicitly.

Who is likely to turn down free money? And what do my assumptions about other people have to do with my greed?

Well for starters it was a comment from Aradhus, so obviously it's going to contain some artifical sweetner bitterness.

Secondly its based on the slightly fallicious but empirically backed up idea that one projects their core beliefs onto how they anticipate the reaction of others (which is a pretty natural thing to do and we all do it). That is: because you would accept the money you assume everyone would.

You taking the money when you dont really need it to survive is greedy.

For example; if I had welfare available to me, I wouldn't take it. Proof: I have health insurance when we have state funded healthcare. Stupid? Possibly; avoiding being greedy? Yes.

Okay, well I also have health insurance and do not seek state funded healthcare. Are I not as ungreedy as you?

Also, am I correct in hearing that your view of trying to get a handout when you don't need one is greedy?

[pimpdave]

So are you saying the only reason one would support single payer insurance is due to not having any insurance?

I pay for private insurance but I think there should be a single-payer system to remove the huge incidence rate of fraud by insurance companies and to reduce the cost of health care for everyone, because I love America and I want a vibrant economy, which is hindered by health care related bankruptcies.

Does that make me greedy?

[Lootifer]

Okay, well I also have health insurance and do not seek state funded healthcare. Are I not as ungreedy as you?

Also, am I correct in hearing that your view of trying to get a handout when you don't need one is greedy?

Er I thought you guys didnt have universal healthcare? I thought everything was insurance based or whatever?

And yup, but greed isnt black and white of course. Some kinds of greed are very much in the "sensible" realm.

[Night Strike]

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.

That's because the federal definitions of poverty and other welfare transactions are strictly numerical income based and don't factor in such things as cost of living. It is much cheaper to live in most conservatives states and areas, so those people don't need as much money. However, the government then comes in and says they are poor, so it hands them money that they don't actually need.

And regardless, you act like this thing of conservative states getting more money back from the federal government somehow destroys the entire conservative premise. That is entirely false. Most of the time these conservatives have no say over what their elected politicians spend actual dollars on. And most of the time, the elected representatives aren't actually conservatives, which is why they keep spending money on their home states, even if their constituents want the government to stop spending so much. Furthermore, when conservatives DO get elected to governorships and try to turn down some of the spending and earmarks for their states, the spending by the federal government gets forced upon them anyway. They don't get to enact their conservative values because the federal government tramples on them.

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.

There's a difference between helping people and wanting them to follow the law. Just because an illegal immigrant comes to this country doesn't mean they should automatically be handed everything they want from the government. Legal immigrants ARE helped by society, but that doesn't mean they should be treated the same as citizens in terms of the government.

And you claim that you agree that Jesus instructed individuals to help others, but yet you continue to denigrate conservatives because they don't want the government to hand out that help. The roll of the government and the rolls of individuals are NOT the same thing. You can't just claim that because Jesus told individuals to help those in need, they then can't speak out against the government doing those things. The only ones politicizing immigrates and the poor are the Democrats who continually put them forward as justifications for enacting big-government policies. The government is NOT Jesus. The government's job is to provide a legal path for immigration and citizenship, not just open everything up and let everybody come and stay regardless of what laws we have in place.

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.

The strain on the Constitution is due to so many people trampling all over it as they look for every single way to expand the size and power of the federal government. And I guarantee you that Jesus knew what the political state of the US would be in 2012 just like he knew the political state of the Roman Empire in his day. That kind of goes with the omniscient territory.

Arizona and Alabama are both in the national spotlight for legalizing racial profiling and chasing out Hispanics.

This statement just proves that you have no understanding of what the laws REALLY mean, say, or do.

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.

If it was always a myth, how was it true then but not now? The only reason American citizenship may not seem so great now is because so many people in the political sphere want to confer the rights and privileges of citizenship on ANYBODY who comes, no matter how they come. That's a problem with progressives, not conservatives.

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 poorest regions of this country are in the inner cities of the biggest cities. Most of the people that live in these inner cities are black or other minorities. Which party has been in control of these cities for decades? Democrats. If Democrats REALLY cared about empowering minorities and if government handouts actually worked, why are these regions still so poor? Democrats oppress people. Government handouts keep people from achieving. Republicans empower people to get to work and care for themselves and their families. They don't promote the idea that the government will forever take care of everyone. The government cannot afford to do that, nor does the Constitution allow it to try. It doesn't matter what you believe when the proof of which groups are actually oppressed and are the oppressors completely disagrees with you.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, well I also have health insurance and do not seek state funded healthcare. Are I not as ungreedy as you?

Also, am I correct in hearing that your view of trying to get a handout when you don't need one is greedy?

Er I thought you guys didnt have universal healthcare? I thought everything was insurance based or whatever?

And yup, but greed isnt black and white of course. Some kinds of greed are very much in the "sensible" realm.

I can lie and get state health care for a while before they catch me and cut it off. Once you are on, from what I have seen from others, you can get away with it for almost 2 years.

We have thousands of different kinds of programs, private, public, prof-t, non-profit, charity, churches and probably many more than aren't on the tip of my tongue. It won't be long until we roll them all into one, and start hearing crazy things like this...

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/sebeliu ... on-mandate

Sebelius: Decrease in Human Beings Will Cover Cost of Contraception Mandate

and then....she repeats herself.

[Juan_Bottom]

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

Do you REALLY believe that?

Of course I do. What other option do we have? Isolate them in cities with no money?

EDIT: I can see by the Conservative posters in this thread that that is exactly what they all want.

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!

This poster sponsored by GE.

This statement just proves that you have no understanding of what the laws REALLY mean, say, or do.

I'm guessing that it means that you're a racist?
Yeah,.. the police can stop and detain anyone who is of Mexican or Spanish descent. Public services, like taxis, are required to ID non-whites before giving their services.





Dude, this thread has gotten insane. All these posts in opposition are just Conservatives blaming everyone else for how hypocritical they are. They have their own states but they blame mine for their problems. They're saying we're destroying them with the free money we gift them to fix their sh*t. WTF do you want us to do? You want me to come down there and tell you how to spend your money?


-Sully

[Phatscotty]

All it is is a simple statement that we are going too far with government programs and benefits and handouts and the exponentially increasing likelihood of more waste and abuse. We are now living in a world of downgraded credit ratings and a debt that is over 100% of GDP. Obama has the pedal to the metal on the way to lala-land, and in 2012 we the people are going to slam on the brakes.

[Juan_Bottom]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

[Night Strike]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

That is REALLY funny that you're giving Democrats that credit in 1996. It was only because Newt Gingrich helped lead the Republicans in retaking control of the House for the first time in 40 years that they were able to finally force Clinton to agree to any type of welfare reform. Nice try though.

And no, you can't just immediately take away welfare and unemployment from people. However, you can first stop expanding the length of time a person can be on unemployment. You then start cutting down the length of time people can get those payments until they are truly for emergency use instead of perpetually living off them. If unemployment and welfare were really safety nets, you wouldn't see people living off of them for most of their lives. Safety nets are designed to catch you when you fall and then have you roll off them to get back on your feet. The current welfare net just catches and keeps people.

[Phatscotty]

All it is is a simple statement that we are going too far with government programs and benefits and handouts and the exponentially increasing likelihood of more waste and abuse. We are now living in a world of downgraded credit ratings and a debt that is over 100% of GDP. Obama has the pedal to the metal on the way to lala-land, and in 2012 we the people are going to slam on the brakes.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

Ummm...my states unemployment? x a billion

I'm not sure we ever hit 8% in my state, and if we did, it was for about 2.2 seconds. Right now unemployment is 5.6% here, it's has not been as big a problem as in other states, as you for some reason assume

POINT OF ORDER!
I move to reconsider who is in lala-land.

p.s. We get some benefits too from living next to a state that has a 0% income tax, which boasts full employment. Anyone who wants to know how to boost job and stimulate the economy, be sure to ignore North Dakota.

p.s.s. you who will threaten violence, there are plenty of people who will defend their property, their money, their families, and their values and ethics from whatever violence you speak. We have known for sometime now the barbarians are at the gates, threatening violence for loot. Those are hollow threats and it's not news to anyone, as we have already seen violence at the Occupy Wall Street rallies, all over the country, must be about 10,000 arrests by now. People who would threaten violence if their handout is made more accountable or reduced in time is probably the #1 problem with our country today. Better to deal with it now than later.

[Lootifer]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

That is REALLY funny that you're giving Democrats that credit in 1996. It was only because Newt Gingrich helped lead the Republicans in retaking control of the House for the first time in 40 years that they were able to finally force Clinton to agree to any type of welfare reform. Nice try though.

And no, you can't just immediately take away welfare and unemployment from people. However, you can first stop expanding the length of time a person can be on unemployment. You then start cutting down the length of time people can get those payments until they are truly for emergency use instead of perpetually living off them. If unemployment and welfare were really safety nets, you wouldn't see people living off of them for most of their lives. Safety nets are designed to catch you when you fall and then have you roll off them to get back on your feet. The current welfare net just catches and keeps people.

Care to provide some [objective/peer-reviewed/f*ck any kind of verfication will do] data on the amount of people exploiting unemployment benefits vs the amount of people using them genuinely to better their lives?

[Night Strike]

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

That is REALLY funny that you're giving Democrats that credit in 1996. It was only because Newt Gingrich helped lead the Republicans in retaking control of the House for the first time in 40 years that they were able to finally force Clinton to agree to any type of welfare reform. Nice try though.

And no, you can't just immediately take away welfare and unemployment from people. However, you can first stop expanding the length of time a person can be on unemployment. You then start cutting down the length of time people can get those payments until they are truly for emergency use instead of perpetually living off them. If unemployment and welfare were really safety nets, you wouldn't see people living off of them for most of their lives. Safety nets are designed to catch you when you fall and then have you roll off them to get back on your feet. The current welfare net just catches and keeps people.

Care to provide some [objective/peer-reviewed/f*ck any kind of verfication will do] data on the amount of people exploiting unemployment benefits vs the amount of people using them genuinely to better their lives?

Welfare and unemployment aren't supposed to exist to "better their lives". They're supposed to be a safety net for when people fall on a hard time. And then, they are supposed to get OFF those payments quickly in order to resume contributing to society. Your thoughts that they should be using it to better their lives just show that you don't actually understand why they exist.

[Lootifer]

Nicely played, grab onto the poorly worded specifics and ignore the meta point.

Ok Im sorry Night Strike, you are right and I am wrong, I apologise for my poor wording.

Now that being said; care to provide some [verified] data on the amount of people exploiting welfare/unemployment vs the amount of people who have genuinely fell on hard times (through mostly no fault of their own) and are using the safety net to avoid poverty (and will soon potentially rejoin the workforce or otherwise add value to society)?

Thanks for your tolerance of my poor wording and grammar. But im sure an intelligent person like you can see the context of my question...

[Night Strike]

Now that being said; care to provide some [verified] data on the amount of people exploiting welfare/unemployment vs the amount of people who have genuinely fell on hard times (through mostly no fault of their own) and are using the safety net to avoid poverty (and will soon potentially rejoin the workforce or otherwise add value to society)?

I don't have anything immediately available and bookmarked to link you to. Plus, why do you care? New Zealand is irrelevant to the state of welfare payments in the US. I know Phatscotty has made posts regarding the number of people who return to work within a couple weeks of their unemployment checks running out. Which means they could get a job previously but chose not to. The better question is, why does the government keep expanding the number of weeks people get unemployment checks? Shouldn't they be the ones to prove that the payments are necessary and aren't just providing incentives for being unproductive? This country is going broke. We don't need to hand out money for indefinite amounts of time. Unemployment should have a hard cap of 3 months while welfare payments should decrease by a number of dollars for every month a person receives it until they run to zero. People should stop being dependent on the government for their income (unless they're actually doing work for the government). Of course, that's another thing. Why aren't people who draw unemployment checks forced to do something for the government to earn that income? Why can't they pick trash off the side of the road, clean parks, or do some other task as payment? Just a single 8 hour day every week is more than enough compensation for their free money while still allowing plenty of time to actually look for a job.

[Juan_Bottom]

Ummm...my states unemployment? x a billion

I'm not sure we ever hit 8% in my state, and if we did, it was for about 2.2 seconds. Right now unemployment is 5.6% here, it's has not been as big a problem as in other states, as you for some reason assume

Well, for starters we all know that the unemployment numbers are not exact. They're ball-park figures. But, I think that Minnesota receives something like $.70 back for every $1.00 they send in federal taxes. If unemployment or welfare is low in your state, then you have a problem with other state's unemployment or welfare. Obama doesn't run those programs, the individual states do. I don't understand what you expect Obama to do to fix your problem with the Southern and Western states.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe you're the one in lala land? You're blaming Obama for your state's unemployment and welfare problems. The Democrats already trimmed 30% of the people off of the dole in 1996. They put each state in charge of it's own welfare and unemployment. This is a state problem, not a federal one. If Obama somehow took these rights away from the states, and ended unemployment and welfare, there'd be national disaster. You can't take away money from 15% of the people without having a violent fight on your hands.

That is REALLY funny that you're giving Democrats that credit in 1996. It was only because Newt Gingrich helped lead the Republicans in retaking control of the House for the first time in 40 years that they were able to finally force Clinton to agree to any type of welfare reform. Nice try though.

And no, you can't just immediately take away welfare and unemployment from people. However, you can first stop expanding the length of time a person can be on unemployment. You then start cutting down the length of time people can get those payments until they are truly for emergency use instead of perpetually living off them. If unemployment and welfare were really safety nets, you wouldn't see people living off of them for most of their lives. Safety nets are designed to catch you when you fall and then have you roll off them to get back on your feet. The current welfare net just catches and keeps people.

I get it now. When something good happens that you like, then Conservatives are responsible. Like the welfare reform compromise that Clinton signed into law after vetoing other Republican attempts. That was surely the Republicans backing him into a corner, what with all those vetoes and such...
But when something bad happens, like the Conservative legislatures being unable or unwilling to fix poverty and dependance on welfare within their own states, that's the Democrats fault. That's Obama's responsibility. King Obama of America.

You actually sound a lot like Herbert Hoover here. "Those people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

p.s. We get some benefits too from living next to a state that has a 0% income tax, which boasts full employment. Anyone who wants to know how to boost job and stimulate the economy, be sure to ignore North Dakota.

Yeah but, like, I've never been to there but I think that this is what it looks like. If you don't work hard you will surely perish. They don't use money there, they trade in skins and foodstuffs.

Click image to enlarge.

[Night Strike]

I get it now. When something good happens that you like, then Conservatives are responsible. Like the welfare reform compromise that Clinton signed into law after vetoing other Republican attempts. That was surely the Republicans backing him into a corner, what with all those vetoes and such...
But when something bad happens, like the Conservative legislatures being unable or unwilling to fix poverty and dependance on welfare within their own states, that's the Democrats fault. That's Obama's responsibility. King Obama of America.

You actually sound a lot like Herbert Hoover here. "Those people just need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps."

Actually, yes, they do need to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and learn to take care of themselves. Life isn't fair, but that doesn't mean they can just throw in the towel and beg the government for handouts. And most welfare is mandated by the federal government, and most of the time, changes to the state systems must be approved by the federal government. So your nonsense about it being a state-run program is just a distraction from actually addressing the real issues behind why the number of people on government handouts keeps growing.

[Juan_Bottom]

So your argument continues to be that the Democrats, lead by King Obama, intend to exponentially increase the number of Black and Hispanic people on welfare until they all are, then continue from there until all of America is on welfare. This is a mandatory federal program. And they are doing this to keep control of black people. Are there any Southern or South Western Politicians who agree with you? Nope.

[Night Strike]

So your argument continues to be that the Democrats, lead by King Obama, intend to exponentially increase the number of Black and Hispanic people on welfare until they all are, then continue from there until all of America is on welfare. This is a mandatory federal program. And they are doing this to keep control of black people. Are there any Southern or South Western Politicians who agree with you? Nope.

Given that:
1. The goals of early 20th century progressives was to look for ways to oppress and ultimately remove black people (eugenics, birth control, segregation, etc.).
2. Major urban areas have been led by Democrats for half a century with no improvements in the state of living for the largely-minority populations.
3. It's always Democrats who fight against issues such as school-choice to allow poor people, largely minorities, to attend better schools instead of their failing government-schools.
4. Democratic politicians continually push relying on the government for support instead of looking to increase the ability of people to make money for themselves either through starting their own businesses or working for other people.
5. Democratic politicians push for open borders and giving amnesty to anybody and everybody who comes into this country, with some of them even pushing for voting rights even without any sort of citizenship.
6. The absolute HATE Democrats have for any black person who is a conservative (constant attacks of being uncle Toms, leaving the plantation, etc.).

A case can be made that yes, Democrats want to oppress minorities in order to secure their votes and gain more power to the big-government machine. They teach them from a young age that government-provided benefits are good for you and that if you need something, the government will be there to provide it for you. When they get older, they are taught that all the people who work hard and have done well are simply rich racists who the government needs to take money from to give to them. When any black person (or other minority) chooses to publicize conservative beliefs, they get utterly unleashed upon for not falling in line and promoting the government-complex.

Why do Democrats ALWAYS attack conservatives as being racists, no matter what topic is being discussed? In order to deflect attention to the actual racism inherent in progressive ideology.

Big government = oppression. Small government = freedom.

[Lootifer]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

[Phatscotty]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen.

[Night Strike]

Big conservative government = oppression. Small conservative government = freedom.

Fxt.

Conservatives don't want big government. There are plenty of Republicans who want a big government though, so I understand your confusion.