Trump orders FBI to target blacks and environmentalists

Post Reply New Topic

So you're fine when Donald Trump does it for himself and his rich friends. Only when it's poor people they're helping. This I think is very revealing. There is an interesting video on YouTube about how the right in general (and not just the alt-right) are fine with the government benefiting the rich:



(Go to 0:15 to get past the intro music. Captions available for those who have a hard time listening.)

Here is the video going more into what he's talking about:



(Captions available for those who have a hard time listening.)

I think everyone is entitled to what they are willing to work for. It's that simple. I made a list already of the circumstances in which I feel we are obligated to help. Then, it's the right thing to do. But if John Q. Public wasted his formative years terrorizing his teachers in school, misses his lessons, never realizes the error of his ways and ends up flipping burgers, that's not my box. However, if John Q. Public changes his ways, makes a sincere effort, etc... he should be able to get some assistance ( like say, a Pell Grant to go to college ). It's all about effort, in my opinion. If you aspire to be a leech, go be one. But, leave me out of it.

It seems quite simple to me. Those who work should not have to support those who are unwilling to. Big difference between unwilling and literally unable. I feel that most of us who are too severely disabled to work are willing. I know I am.

This man is an inspiration to me. Being in an iron lung did not stop him from becoming a practicing lawyer. Where there is a will, there is a way.

What is work to you? If someone works 3 well-paying jobs, is that good enough for you? If none of those jobs has health insurance and they need health care, would you support them getting health care via subsidy?

What about someone who goes around and tries different stuff that doesn't pay very much or at all? The person is still putting a lot of effort into what they do, and they have a health need. Would you favor them getting health care via subsidy?

I say this in all seriousness - - Florida is just about the most f*cked up state in the Union, so it's very atypical. And as far as Florida being blue, as I recall, it went with Trump the last election. But you would be hard pressed to find voter suppression in all the other sane liberal states.
I never said all white in red states were racists, but to deny that racism in those states doesn't exist in significant numbers, or that it hasn't infiltrated state government and policy is denying reality.

That's the best we can do, vote for someone who wants to let us keep our money.

Your relative was just being funny. He protects the property of others at night, which makes what he does important. People like him have lost their lives doing his kind of work.

I think I've made it clear that I respect effort. I would not stand in the way of what anyone can make happen in their own lives. If you are asking me if I would be willing to let go of my private healthcare and go to a single payer healthcare system, so that the person who works 3 jobs can have government subsidized healthcare, the answer would be 'no.' No one has the right to interfere with any other person's right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as they see it. And I know that I will not be roped into making my life sub par, so that someone else's like can be elevated from just sub, to sub par. Each able bodied man/woman is the master/mistress of their own destiny. They have no right to ask those things of another person. Thinking that they do have that right is what separates the right from the left. I would never dream of asking you, you would be fine with asking me. And if you were blessed with relative health all your years, but I came down with cancer 6 months after government subsidized healthcare and had to wait for treatment, which shortened my life, you'd be just fine with that. And you know you would...

The current way there is a qualification system for medicaid/medicare, or there is the ability to purchase healthcare. My grandparents had to purchase private healthcare their whole lives. They had a small business. Before medicare kicked in, they were paying $800/mo. When medicare kicked in they bought supplemental, they worked until they were both 83. He was a 2nd generation Polish immigrant, went to University of Pennsylvania after 4 years in the Air Force to become a Veterinarian. Paid back all student loans after the GI Bill by vaccinating cattle for the government, once he paid back that debt, he went into private practice. There were some lean years, but eventually they got the reward for hard work. So, I can't help the way I believe, I believe what I saw happen every day of my young life. All this, "I need my government to do X for me, or I can't take it," is foreign to me.

If you can wrangle government healthcare, do it. I'll be happy for you. But, I have my own plans so leave me out of it.

Americans - I think especially conservatives - like to say we are a Christian nation. If that's true, then we can't say it's each individuals responsibility to get along, or just go die if they can't. That's hardly the real Christian message, though many conservatives have attached themselves to very errant evangelical theologies such as the prosperity gospel which says God rewards the righteous with material wealth and curses the unrighteous with poverty. Trump's bought into that, hook, line, and sinker. It justifies not helping those in need, while magnifying the rich. Real Christianity means helping those down and out, not judging them, or putting them through a litmus test for if they're really deserving of help. And it goes beyond individual or church charity, and includes paying taxes for the well being of our fellow brothers and sisters in need if we're the Christian country we're supposed to be.

Last edited by Kraichgauer on 20 Aug 2019, 9:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.

This is straight from the right wing/conservative bible to justify reducing government expenditure on welfare. Classic stuff.

You cherry pick a man on a oxygen machine getting work as a lawyer - if he can do it doesn't that mean the other unemployed are just lazy and good for nothing? pretty stock standard....I've heard it before

It's a fact that the vast majority of people who are not working are the result of redundancy or long term unemployed who are very willing to find work but who get knocked back when applying for jobs.

Our Aussie conservatives (your republican equivalents) are usually recipients of trust funds or other financial benefits which put them through school and have nice cushy jobs waiting for them. These "privileged" folk who are the ones running the country are fond of criticising the unemployed and apply Darwinian principles of the survival of the fittest if a person can't find work.

They argue why can't an unemployed professional just swallow their pride and go and sweep streets or clean toilets? the fact is many do but many can't even get that work! the job market is super competitive. Welcome to the real world.

As somebody who has been unemployed for long periods I've had to do pretty sh***y jobs to make ends meet. I have little respect for millionaire trust fund babies who meteorically rise to positions of power and declare that the unemployed are lazy because they don't want to look for work - so ergo - lets cut welfare

This is like Marie Antoinette''s famous comment about the poor in Paris not having enough to eat. She famously declared "let them eat cake"....we know what the French people did to her....

Thanks! this actually accurately explains the historic mentality in America and fuelled the rugged individualism which is probably best epitomised by the 17th century Puritans and can be seen today in extreme form in the Amish.

Rugged individualism should have died with the 1929 stock market crash

So you're afraid that if we implement universal health care, it will necessarily worse than the health care you have now. You're 100% sure of that.

It comes from my own head, not any script. I look at it from the point of view as someone who is severely disabled, significant special needs - It is noteworthy that you left that out of the equation. The iron lung man is an inspiration to me personally as someone with severe disabilities. I imagine you want to leave that part out because it does not fit the stereotype of someone who believes that those who can work, should work.

My stipulation was someone who could work but was unwilling to work. None of your examples cover that. It seems any time this specific type of leaching, sponging, mooching is addressed - the counter argument is a bunch of false equivalencies and non sequitur examples.

Last edited by EzraS on 20 Aug 2019, 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

What Cyberdad is saying is that the outrage over moochers is way overblown, and that most of the people you think are moochers have other things going on.

Basically, he doesn't think your concerns are all that important, or relevant. And he thinks, also, that you're a bit intrusive and judgmental about how other people live their lives.

As someone who really needs disability money I object to those who receive it for flimsy reasons motivated out of laziness. They are stealing from us who are truly disabled. I am obviously talking about those who are taking advantage of the system and in essence taking advantage of me. If I do manage to get a career going, and I plan to give that my best shot, they will still be taking advantage of me. Yes I have a right to object to that.

The objection from the democratic side is that it needs votes and the wanton distribution of free stuff gets votes. Votes and dependency.

Last edited by EzraS on 20 Aug 2019, 9:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

I thought we were talking about taxation in general?

Also, what do you mean by "truly disabled"? Is meeting the SSA's definition not enough to you? Are you talking about people who fake their disability? What?