Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Wealth distribution and the USA's political right

Page 9 of 9 [ 144 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Previous topic | Next topic

iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Nov 2010, 3:57 am

Actually with the policies set up in the USA, the more children a person has the more taxation discounts and the more welfare services they qualify for.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Nov 2010, 3:58 am

bloodshot wrote:
Again with the strawman! You are putting words in my mouth by stating I suggest parents eat their young. Anyone can be tired with debating someone who consistently resort to the same kind of logical fallacy. But enough about you.

As much as I wish they re-sanction sterilization as a form of judicial punishment like in early 20th century, I prefer to ground things in reality. I suppose the most sensible thing the state should do with parasite parents is to revoke their parental rights - since bringing kids into this world you cannot feed constitute as child abuse - followed by labor service to pay for their crime. No welfare checks.

I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from the strawman technique you are so fond of. This might help:

Strawman Argument

Have a good day


Obviously, this is not a rational discussion. Your suggestions are merely material for black humor since no rational person would entertain such amusing nonsense.



auntblabby
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Feb 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 114,801
Location: the island of defective toy santas

02 Nov 2010, 3:58 am

ruveyn wrote:
The very poor cannot afford children so they should not have children.


the elephant in the room you conveniently ignore, is the fact that it is the children who are being punished here and not just the parents. the children didn't choose to come into this hellworld, so why punish them? as a scapegoat?



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Nov 2010, 4:00 am

auntblabby wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
The very poor cannot afford children so they should not have children.


the elephant in the room you conveniently ignore, is the fact that it is the children who are being punished here and not just the parents. the children didn't choose to come into this hellworld, so why punish them? as a scapegoat?


Think of the children?



bloodshot
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

02 Nov 2010, 4:11 am

Sand wrote:
bloodshot wrote:
Again with the strawman! You are putting words in my mouth by stating I suggest parents eat their young. Anyone can be tired with debating someone who consistently resort to the same kind of logical fallacy. But enough about you.

As much as I wish they re-sanction sterilization as a form of judicial punishment like in early 20th century, I prefer to ground things in reality. I suppose the most sensible thing the state should do with parasite parents is to revoke their parental rights - since bringing kids into this world you cannot feed constitute as child abuse - followed by labor service to pay for their crime. No welfare checks.

I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from the strawman technique you are so fond of. This might help:

Strawman Argument

Have a good day


Obviously, this is not a rational discussion. Your suggestions are merely material for black humor since no rational
person would entertain such amusing nonsense.


Paying additional welfare for each additional young you cannot rear is irrational. Reproduction is a choice, never mandatory. People demand rights but for every right comes a responsibility. The poor are not criminals. But anyone exploiting the system - rich or poor - are criminals. They need to be punished and suffer for their choices.

Rewarding their crime and defending their crime is irrational.



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Nov 2010, 4:14 am

bloodshot wrote:
Sand wrote:
bloodshot wrote:
Again with the strawman! You are putting words in my mouth by stating I suggest parents eat their young. Anyone can be tired with debating someone who consistently resort to the same kind of logical fallacy. But enough about you.

As much as I wish they re-sanction sterilization as a form of judicial punishment like in early 20th century, I prefer to ground things in reality. I suppose the most sensible thing the state should do with parasite parents is to revoke their parental rights - since bringing kids into this world you cannot feed constitute as child abuse - followed by labor service to pay for their crime. No welfare checks.

I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from the strawman technique you are so fond of. This might help:

Strawman Argument

Have a good day


Obviously, this is not a rational discussion. Your suggestions are merely material for black humor since no rational
person would entertain such amusing nonsense.




Paying additional welfare for each additional young you cannot rear is irrational. Reproduction is a choice, never mandatory. People demand rights but for every right comes a responsibility. The poor are not criminals. But anyone exploiting the system - rich or poor - are criminals. They need to be punished and suffer for their choices.

Rewarding their crime and defending their crime is irrational.



If you're really serious about that, the financial mafia on Wall Street s a much more appropriate target than the poor people suffering from erections.



Last edited by Sand on 02 Nov 2010, 4:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

bloodshot
Blue Jay
Blue Jay

User avatar

Joined: 29 Dec 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 94

02 Nov 2010, 4:36 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
bloodshot wrote:
Again with the strawman! You are putting words in my mouth by stating I suggest parents eat their young. Anyone can be tired with debating someone who consistently resort to the same kind of logical fallacy. But enough about you.

As much as I wish they re-sanction sterilization as a form of judicial punishment like in early 20th century, I prefer to ground things in reality. I suppose the most sensible thing the state should do with parasite parents is to revoke their parental rights - since bringing kids into this world you cannot feed constitute as child abuse - followed by labor service to pay for their crime. No welfare checks.

I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from the strawman technique you are so fond of. This might help:

Strawman Argument

Have a good day


It's not a strawman so much as it's taking keywords out of context and going haywire on a tangent.


Is there a term for that? :lol:



Sand
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 99
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

02 Nov 2010, 5:00 am

bloodshot wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
bloodshot wrote:
Again with the strawman! You are putting words in my mouth by stating I suggest parents eat their young. Anyone can be tired with debating someone who consistently resort to the same kind of logical fallacy. But enough about you.

As much as I wish they re-sanction sterilization as a form of judicial punishment like in early 20th century, I prefer to ground things in reality. I suppose the most sensible thing the state should do with parasite parents is to revoke their parental rights - since bringing kids into this world you cannot feed constitute as child abuse - followed by labor service to pay for their crime. No welfare checks.

I'm going to kindly ask you to refrain from the strawman technique you are so fond of. This might help:

Strawman Argument

Have a good day


It's not a strawman so much as it's taking keywords out of context and going haywire on a tangent.


Is there a term for that? :lol:


It's called humor.



Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

02 Nov 2010, 5:00 am

Orwell wrote:
Ignoring any debate over corporal punishment, the "percentage point or two" point was that the difference between the right and the left in terms of desired tax policy is sufficiently small that the sort of exaggerated response the right has to leftist tax policy is just absurd. A 37% top marginal tax rate is freedom and liberty, but 37.5% is socialism? :roll:

And please note that in all cases in this thread I am referring to the mainstream US political right, as represented by some intersection of the GOP and the Tea Party. I am not referring to the Libertarians Party, which is a fringe group that no one cares about. Thus references to libertarian positions are irrelevant to my claims.

I am not sure what we can determine from the right, as all of their efforts are going to be politically limited due to opposition. I know that a number of right-wingers have tried promoting a flat tax, but I don't know how relevant you'll consider those efforts given that the idea won't get off the ground any time soon. I don't think most right-wingers are really just seeking a 2% change though, Orwell. That's just what they get in practice.



DentArthurDent
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 26 Jul 2008
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,884
Location: Victoria, Australia

02 Nov 2010, 6:22 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:
Orwell wrote:
Ignoring any debate over corporal punishment, the "percentage point or two" point was that the difference between the right and the left in terms of desired tax policy is sufficiently small that the sort of exaggerated response the right has to leftist tax policy is just absurd. A 37% top marginal tax rate is freedom and liberty, but 37.5% is socialism? :roll:

And please note that in all cases in this thread I am referring to the mainstream US political right, as represented by some intersection of the GOP and the Tea Party. I am not referring to the Libertarians Party, which is a fringe group that no one cares about. Thus references to libertarian positions are irrelevant to my claims.

I am not sure what we can determine from the right, as all of their efforts are going to be politically limited due to opposition. I know that a number of right-wingers have tried promoting a flat tax, but I don't know how relevant you'll consider those efforts given that the idea won't get off the ground any time soon. I don't think most right-wingers are really just seeking a 2% change though, Orwell. That's just what they get in practice.


Like I said in a different post the idea that Obama is left wing is absurd. He and his party are very much on the same side as the 'right wing' just a little (almost imperceptible) more subtle.


_________________
"I'd take the awe of understanding over the awe of ignorance anyday"
Douglas Adams

"Religion is the impotence of the human mind to deal with occurrences it cannot understand" Karl Marx


Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Nov 2010, 6:46 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
His point still applies. You are not even remotely close to the top income brackets, and it's not terribly likely that you ever will be. You are not being discouraged in the least from working hard.


Of course, I'm not being discouraged from working hard. Just being rejected every bloodly place I go is a great motivation to work hard for free.

As for my not being rich, correct, so what? I'm not arguing for my own benefit, which is better than if I were rich and in which case you'd also hold that against me because that is all a debate opponent can do nowadays....

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If my money is just going to be taken away if I make "too much", why should I bother to earn it?

Why do you speak in the first person if you are arguing for someone else's beneft, rather than your own?


Why not? Has someone died and made you king of the English language? Most people online can't even spell, so why pester me about this?

Why not? Because you are saying something very different from what you claim to mean. Clear communication is rather important. I suspect what is actually going on is that you repeated a standard talking point, and when called out on the fact that it was complete BS attempted to retreat behind some rhetorical trick. No, no one made me king of the English language, but I am at least competent in the use of my native language and words do have actual meanings. I criticize you for this because I suspect dishonesty on your part more than I do simple linguistic sloppiness.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Nov 2010, 8:43 am

Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
His point still applies. You are not even remotely close to the top income brackets, and it's not terribly likely that you ever will be. You are not being discouraged in the least from working hard.


Of course, I'm not being discouraged from working hard. Just being rejected every bloodly place I go is a great motivation to work hard for free.

As for my not being rich, correct, so what? I'm not arguing for my own benefit, which is better than if I were rich and in which case you'd also hold that against me because that is all a debate opponent can do nowadays....

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If my money is just going to be taken away if I make "too much", why should I bother to earn it?

Why do you speak in the first person if you are arguing for someone else's beneft, rather than your own?


Why not? Has someone died and made you king of the English language? Most people online can't even spell, so why pester me about this?

Why not? Because you are saying something very different from what you claim to mean. Clear communication is rather important. I suspect what is actually going on is that you repeated a standard talking point, and when called out on the fact that it was complete BS attempted to retreat behind some rhetorical trick. No, no one made me king of the English language, but I am at least competent in the use of my native language and words do have actual meanings. I criticize you for this because I suspect dishonesty on your part more than I do simple linguistic sloppiness.


Clear communication requires both parties to be proficient. Criticizing which person I have spoken in might as well be a rhetorical ploy such as you have accused me of here or a sign of a lack of proficiency or at least selective hearing.



number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 9:28 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Actually with the policies set up in the USA, the more children a person has the more taxation discounts and the more welfare services they qualify for.


These additional funds no where near cover the expenses of the new child. No one gets ahead financially by having a kid.



iamnotaparakeet
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Jul 2007
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 25,091
Location: 0.5 Galactic radius

02 Nov 2010, 9:37 am

number5 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Actually with the policies set up in the USA, the more children a person has the more taxation discounts and the more welfare services they qualify for.


These additional funds no where near cover the expenses of the new child. No one gets ahead financially by having a kid.


Not even by being provided housing which is better than that in which my wife and I live for a third the cost? By being given additional monthly food stamps, of which all my wife and I qualify for is $39 per month but it would increase by hundreds if we had more dependents who didn't make money?



Orwell
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Aug 2007
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,518
Location: Room 101

02 Nov 2010, 11:22 am

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Orwell wrote:
His point still applies. You are not even remotely close to the top income brackets, and it's not terribly likely that you ever will be. You are not being discouraged in the least from working hard.


Of course, I'm not being discouraged from working hard. Just being rejected every bloodly place I go is a great motivation to work hard for free.

As for my not being rich, correct, so what? I'm not arguing for my own benefit, which is better than if I were rich and in which case you'd also hold that against me because that is all a debate opponent can do nowadays....

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
If my money is just going to be taken away if I make "too much", why should I bother to earn it?

Why do you speak in the first person if you are arguing for someone else's beneft, rather than your own?


Why not? Has someone died and made you king of the English language? Most people online can't even spell, so why pester me about this?

Why not? Because you are saying something very different from what you claim to mean. Clear communication is rather important. I suspect what is actually going on is that you repeated a standard talking point, and when called out on the fact that it was complete BS attempted to retreat behind some rhetorical trick. No, no one made me king of the English language, but I am at least competent in the use of my native language and words do have actual meanings. I criticize you for this because I suspect dishonesty on your part more than I do simple linguistic sloppiness.


Clear communication requires both parties to be proficient. Criticizing which person I have spoken in might as well be a rhetorical ploy such as you have accused me of here or a sign of a lack of proficiency or at least selective hearing.

Assuming that you mean what you say is a rhetorical ploy or a sign of misunderstanding on my part?

I don't think that's likely.


_________________
WAR IS PEACE
FREEDOM IS SLAVERY
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH


number5
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Jun 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,691
Location: sunny philadelphia

02 Nov 2010, 12:38 pm

iamnotaparakeet wrote:
number5 wrote:
iamnotaparakeet wrote:
Actually with the policies set up in the USA, the more children a person has the more taxation discounts and the more welfare services they qualify for.


These additional funds no where near cover the expenses of the new child. No one gets ahead financially by having a kid.


Not even by being provided housing which is better than that in which my wife and I live for a third the cost? By being given additional monthly food stamps, of which all my wife and I qualify for is $39 per month but it would increase by hundreds if we had more dependents who didn't make money?


Correct.