Ohio Chatter DEV

queencitybuckeye

isadore

queencitybuckeye

Dr Winston O'Boogie

O-Trap

isadore;1861177 wrote:Gosh a ruddies, "if I have $2 to spare," now there is the basis for a system to support those in need, your personal whim and your personal definition of what you can spare. While you may be personally benign and even charitable it is hardly the basis for providing aid needed for the survival of so many.

The "$2" amount was not the point. However, yes, I do think my personal definition of what I can afford to live on and give away is probably more accurate than a national organization who has attempted to do so by merely basing it off my income. Nobody from the IRS has asked me what debts I'm in, or where/why I got them. Nobody at the IRS asked me how much I am spending on groceries because someone in my home has a disease that requires a particularly specific diet. Nobody at the IRS has asked me about the additional expenses for preparing for a child who isn't here yet. Nobody at the IRS has asked me about the repairs that need done to our vehicle.

I, however, can reference all of those things, take them against my income, and tell you what I would have leftover. So yes, I have a much better idea what I can live on than a federal agency that oversees 150 million+ people and sees me as a line item.

But if you think my example is wrong, tell me how. Giving voluntarily allows for more of the money to be used directly for the cause, does it not? If not, how is it not so?

isadore;1861246 wrote:gosh a ruddies, sorry you think the operation of a representative democracy is a lie. I support people and programs to for a just society and

When two wolves and one sheep are voting on what's for dinner, then any sort of democracy is oppressive.

isadore;1861583 wrote:gosh a ruddies

Spake the one who believes in a Russian election-rigging coverup.

Dr Winston O'Boogie;1861843 wrote:

This is silly. Libertarianism = voluntaryism. Libertarianism != an inherent belief in everyone fending for themselves.

isadore

Depending on individual charity to support the survival of the needy is a recipe for disaster. Before the New Deal there was no safety net. When the Great Depression hit, it quickly overwhelmed the resources of private charities. One problem with reliance on private charity is that during times of prosperity when people have the most resources there is less obvious need for charity but during times of the greatest need people have the least resources.

It is sad O-Trap that you have see the voters in America as wolves whose only purpose in life but take your money from you.
Gosh a ruddies, Trumpites caught again an lies about contacts with Russian.

O-Trap

isadore;1861901 wrote:Depending on individual charity to support the survival of the needy is a recipe for disaster.

Ease up on the Chicken Little routine. Save that for the conspiracy theorists you poke with a stick.

isadore;1861901 wrote:Before the New Deal there was no safety net. When the Great Depression hit, it quickly overwhelmed the resources of private charities. One problem with reliance on private charity is that during times of prosperity when people have the most resources there is less obvious need for charity but during times of the greatest need people have the least resources.

The Great Depression overwhelmed private charities because it essentially overwhelmed everyone, whether they had previously had the means to support themselves or not.

During times of the greatest need, you have the least resources available anyway, whether you attempt to take them with threats of violence and imprisonment or not. You can't squeeze blood from an onion.

isadore;1861901 wrote:It is sad O-Trap that you have see the voters in America as wolves whose only purpose in life but take your money from you.

I assume you're not actually unfamiliar with the analogy I cited. You are aware of Tyranny of the Majority, yes?

In regard to taking money from me, there have indeed been federal, state, and local fiscal decisions made in the political arena that have, in fact, increased my taxes and taking more of my income, even when I really needed that income. But don't worry. It was all for the betterment of society. I was assured of that. I was just going to have to not pay those pesky bills or live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese, so I could pay the higher taxes instead.

Also, the meme is ludicrous. Socialism wouldn't be Jesus feeding the 5,000. Socialism would be Jesus commanding half the 5,000 to empty half their pantries and giving the food to the other half of the 5,000. And if they didn't do it, there was a threat of plagues or eternal damnation in hell.

Jesus feeding people of his own volition is ... <gasp> ... libertarian.

CenterBHSFan

O-Trap;1861918 wrote:In regard to taking money from me, there have indeed been federal, state, and local fiscal decisions made in the political arena that have, in fact, increased my taxes and taking more of my income, even when I really needed that income. But don't worry. It was all for the betterment of society. I was assured of that. I was just going to have to not pay those pesky bills or live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese, so I could pay the higher taxes instead.

We should all be forced to such circumstances, at all times, so that people like Isadore would be satisfied!

SportsAndLady

Memes

gut

O-Trap

Zunardo

O-Trap;1861918 wrote:
You are aware of Tyranny of the Majority, yes?

LOL - haven't seen that phrase bandied about on a forum for a few years. Reminded me of this:

O-Trap

Zunardo;1862013 wrote:LOL - haven't seen that phrase bandied about on a forum for a few years. Reminded me of this:

I was just a scosh surprised I hadn't seen it all over the web after the election, but prior to the actual vote tally.

Zunardo

And now we have come full circle:

isadore

O-Trap;1861918 wrote:

Ease up on the Chicken Little routine. Save that for the conspiracy theorists you poke with a stick.

The Great Depression overwhelmed private charities because it essentially overwhelmed everyone, whether they had previously had the means to support themselves or not.

During times of the greatest need, you have the least resources available anyway, whether you attempt to take them with threats of violence and imprisonment or not. You can't squeeze blood from an onion.

I assume you're not actually unfamiliar with the analogy I cited. You are aware of Tyranny of the Majority, yes?

In regard to taking money from me, there have indeed been federal, state, and local fiscal decisions made in the political arena that have, in fact, increased my taxes and taking more of my income, even when I really needed that income. But don't worry. It was all for the betterment of society. I was assured of that. I was just going to have to not pay those pesky bills or live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese, so I could pay the higher taxes instead.

Also, the meme is ludicrous. Socialism wouldn't be Jesus feeding the 5,000. Socialism would be Jesus commanding half the 5,000 to empty half their pantries and giving the food to the other half of the 5,000. And if they didn't do it, there was a threat of plagues or eternal damnation in hell.

Jesus feeding people of his own volition is ... <gasp> ... libertarian.

Despite your dismissive comments, real disasters happen which individual charities are unable handle. Some are produced by nature like the Irish Potato famine, some by man like the Great Depression. In both cases the suffering was worsened for a time by an overreliance on private charity over government intervention. With the coming of the New Deal the government was unable to create programs like the WPA that kept millions from starvation. They were able to finance with progressive taxation and deficit spending.
I am aware of what majoritarianism is. A Bill of Rights limits the threat of it. It protects those not in the majority. It allows them to try to persuade others that a particular tax or government program is not in their interest. And it protects them from unconstitutional seizure of their property. But every government action that does not go your way, or cost you money is not necessarily an exercise in the Tyranny of the majority. And your tax bill has not force you to “live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese.” Talk about “Chicken Little.” If you cannot accept that, if you see the operation of a democracy as two wolves attacking a sheep there are deserted islands in oceans for you.
Your view of the world

CenterBHSFan

isadore;1862209 wrote:I am aware of what majoritarianism is. A Bill of Rights limits the threat of it. It protects those not in the majority. It allows them to try to persuade others that a particular tax or government program is not in their interest. And it protects them from unconstitutional seizure of their property. But every government action that does not go your way, or cost you money is not necessarily an exercise in the Tyranny of the majority. And your tax bill has not force you to “live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese.” Talk about “Chicken Little.” If you cannot accept that, if you see the operation of a democracy as two wolves attacking a sheep there are deserted islands in oceans for you.
Your view of the world

Can you list those, identifiable on paychecks, that are not?

O-Trap

isadore;1862209 wrote:Despite your dismissive comments, real disasters happen which individual charities are unable handle.

It wasn't dismissive. It was merely going to the root of why charities are incapable of handling many disasters ... namely, that the disasters that cause need also prevent the ability of others to donate to said charities.

Essentially, to point to crises in which charities cannot compensate is to point to the very flaw in the system of forcible redistribution. That's not dismissive. It's merely more thorough than you're willing to address the subject.

isadore;1862209 wrote:Some are produced by nature like the Irish Potato famine, some by man like the Great Depression. In both cases the suffering was worsened for a time by an overreliance on private charity over government intervention.

Per Noam Chomsky, in Requiem for the American Dream, the difference between the Great Depression (where reliance on private charity existed more so than today) and the recessions we see now is that there was an understanding at the time that they would rebound.

Also, your notion that reliance on charity was a cause of the "worsened suffering" is 100% speculative. It has no substance other than already-formed conclusions.

isadore;1862209 wrote:I am aware of what majoritarianism is. A Bill of Rights limits the threat of it. It protects those not in the majority. It allows them to try to persuade others that a particular tax or government program is not in their interest. And it protects them from unconstitutional seizure of their property.

The Bill of Rights does aim to do this, but it was also subjective and not necessarily exhaustive. Appealing to it alone, without appealing to the philosophy behind what it may or may not include, is just kicking the can down the road.

isadore;1862209 wrote:But every government action that does not go your way, or cost you money is not necessarily an exercise in the Tyranny of the majority.

I didn't say it did. I was simply replying to your statement that I believe "the operation of a representative democracy is a lie." It's really not a lie. Lies are untrue, and the operation of a representative democracy exists.

I was merely pointing out that democracy is imperfect, and so there are grounds for objecting to representative democracy.

isadore;1862209 wrote:And your tax bill has not force you to “live off of ramen noodles and mac 'n cheese.” Talk about “Chicken Little.”

Actually, that wasn't a sensationalized hypothetical. That was a literal account. Yes. I would have had the means to make most ends meet had it not been for the inane tax burden. I spent about five months with a monthly grocery budget of about $30. I had no superfluous expenses. No entertainment budget. Cancelled home internet. Worked with my job to let me work from home a couple days a week (rigged my phone to allow unlimited tethering, which served as my home Internet) to cut down in gas. I had recently been unemployed, so I had credit card debt of about $9K that I still had to pay every month. Left us with about $90 for groceries. My wife has a disease that limits her diet pretty severely, so her groceries cost about twice what mine did.

So yes. It forced me to either live off ramen noodles or default on loans/wreck my credit. An extra couple hundred bucks off my tax bill would have made all the difference.

isadore;1862209 wrote:If you cannot accept that, if you see the operation of a democracy as two wolves attacking a sheep there are deserted islands in oceans for you.

And you called me dismissive. LOL!

isadore;1862209 wrote:Your view of the world

My view of the world, as it pertains to this topic:

queencitybuckeye

O-Trap

QuakerOats

gut

^^^LOL, took me a minute to get that one.

isadore

O-Trap;1862242 wrote:It wasn't dismissive. It was merely going to the root of why charities are incapable of handling many disasters ... namely, that the disasters that cause need also prevent the ability of others to donate to said charities.

Essentially, to point to crises in which charities cannot compensate is to point to the very flaw in the system of forcible redistribution. That's not dismissive. It's merely more thorough than you're willing to address the subject.

Per Noam Chomsky, in Requiem for the American Dream, the difference between the Great Depression (where reliance on private charity existed more so than today) and the recessions we see now is that there was an understanding at the time that they would rebound.

Also, your notion that reliance on charity was a cause of the "worsened suffering" is 100% speculative. It has no substance other than already-formed conclusions.

The Bill of Rights does aim to do this, but it was also subjective and not necessarily exhaustive. Appealing to it alone, without appealing to the philosophy behind what it may or may not include, is just kicking the can down the road.

I didn't say it did. I was simply replying to your statement that I believe "the operation of a representative democracy is a lie." It's really not a lie. Lies are untrue, and the operation of a representative democracy exists.

I was merely pointing out that democracy is imperfect, and so there are grounds for objecting to representative democracy.

Actually, that wasn't a sensationalized hypothetical. That was a literal account. Yes. I would have had the means to make most ends meet had it not been for the inane tax burden. I spent about five months with a monthly grocery budget of about $30. I had no superfluous expenses. No entertainment budget. Cancelled home internet. Worked with my job to let me work from home a couple days a week (rigged my phone to allow unlimited tethering, which served as my home Internet) to cut down in gas. I had recently been unemployed, so I had credit card debt of about $9K that I still had to pay every month. Left us with about $90 for groceries. My wife has a disease that limits her diet pretty severely, so her groceries cost about twice what mine did.

So yes. It forced me to either live off ramen noodles or default on loans/wreck my credit. An extra couple hundred bucks off my tax bill would have made all the difference.

And you called me dismissive. LOL!

My view of the world, as it pertains to this topic:

Gosh you use “Chicken Little” then claim you are not being dismissive. You claim that the great disasters that are beyond the scope of private charity resources prove that government aid is not Gneeded. That makes no sense. When government positivey intervenes suffering is sometimes alleviated and often diminished.
The capitalist economic system has a nataral cycle that produces economic disasters, sometimes locally, sometimes regionally, sometimes nationally, sometimes internationally. Yes capitalist economies have rebounded but the recovery can take several years. It is no longer a time when people can return to the farm as many did in economic downturns before the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And during that time people can go through enormous suffering as they lose their jobs, their homes and their food. Government programs provided a level of aid so that our recent Great Recession had nowhere near the level of suffering as the Great Depression. The idea that “rugged individualism” and private charity could save the needy served as excuse to let suffering continue until the New Deal. Oh Noam Chomsky is a traitorous pos, I do not care what he has to say about anything.
So the Bill of Rights does not go far enough in allowing you to do every selfish thing you want. Tough. I think it’s a great addition to the Constitution and works pretty well. That is my subjective view as yours was yours.

O-trap wrote: When two wolves and one sheep are voting on what's for dinner, then any sort of democracy is oppressive.

Your description of representative democracy as a truly despicable system. You should survey the world and permanently move to somewhere that is not one, please.
Reading your circumstances, it would be very simple to point out many different causes for your situation that are more significant your tax burden. On the positive side your tax burden must be reduced in particular national, state and local income tax and FICA taxes.
Hopefully your wife will be feeling better and you will find a job.
Penn Gillette is another pos.

QuakerOats

Free People did all that, not the government, in service to each other.

queencitybuckeye

O-Trap

I'm gonna try to keep this brief.

isadore;1862327 wrote:Gosh you use “Chicken Little” then claim you are not being dismissive. You claim that the great disasters that are beyond the scope of private charity resources prove that government aid is not Gneeded. That makes no sense. When government positivey intervenes suffering is sometimes alleviated and often diminished.

Good lord. You're not even reading what I'm saying if you think that's what I'm saying. My reference to Chicken Little was exclusively about your point that relying on charity is a recipe for "disaster." That's not being dismissive of your point. I suppose you could make the case that I was being dismissive of your sensationalistic language, but that's pretty much it.

And my point was not that aid isn't needed in crises. My actual statements said that when there are economic disasters, there's less money to be used in aid, regardless of who is giving it. Whether you're trying to collect it in taxes or donations, there's simply less of it during financial crises.

isadore;1862327 wrote:The capitalist economic system has a nataral cycle that produces economic disasters, sometimes locally, sometimes regionally, sometimes nationally, sometimes internationally. Yes capitalist economies have rebounded but the recovery can take several years. It is no longer a time when people can return to the farm as many did in economic downturns before the 20[SUP]th[/SUP] century. And during that time people can go through enormous suffering as they lose their jobs, their homes and their food. Government programs provided a level of aid so that our recent Great Recession had nowhere near the level of suffering as the Great Depression. The idea that “rugged individualism” and private charity could save the needy served as excuse to let suffering continue until the New Deal. Oh Noam Chomsky is a traitorous pos, I do not care what he has to say about anything.

Firstly, if you want to write a manifesto against capitalism, that's fine, but you're going to have to define what you think capitalism is before you take that trail too far, as it seems like a lot of people with views like yours tend to use a different description of it than others.

Second, Chomsky ultimately comes down on the same side as you regarding the virtues of a welfare state, so I'm really not sure what makes him a traitor. Because he doesn't agree with you on this matter? That seems short-sighted.

Third, you point to "suffering" during the Great Depression being significantly worse than in the more recent recession. To what are you referring, specifically, when you say "suffering?" The only negative statistic that notably increased was suicide, but the suicide rate during the Great Depression were lower than they were during the recession.

If you're going to pontificate about helping the suffering, at least use some specifics.

isadore;1862327 wrote:So the Bill of Rights does not go far enough in allowing you to do every selfish thing you want. Tough. I think it’s a great addition to the Constitution and works pretty well. That is my subjective view as yours was yours.

Excellent example of a straw man. Nobody said that the problem with the Bill of Rights was that it doesn't let people do whatever they want. If you're going to discuss this, please stay on the actual point. Replies are long enough as it is.

The Bill of Rights doesn't go far enough because it allows Person A to take Person B's property by gunpoint as long as Person A has a certain job.

isadore;1862327 wrote: Your description of representative democracy as a truly despicable system. You should survey the world and permanently move to somewhere that is not one, please.

That's cute. You think I have enough money to move to another country.

isadore;1862327 wrote:Reading your circumstances, it would be very simple to point out many different causes for your situation that are more significant your tax burden. On the positive side your tax burden must be reduced in particular national, state and local income tax and FICA taxes.

Fortunately, the circumstances I was in for that stretch of time are no longer the case. However, since you seem to be so insightful, I'd love to hear what else I could have cut out to make my situation better. My tax burden, between federal, state, and local, was about 35%, give or take.

So unless you can think of some ongoing expense we were incurring that was more significant than that, I call shenanigans on your dismissive statement about other causes for our situation that were more significant.

isadore;1862327 wrote:Hopefully your wife will be feeling better and you will find a job.

My wife's illness has no cure. She's required to eat this way for the rest of her life.

I now have a decent job. It's not phenomenal, but we've chosen to stay in our little house in a low-income neighborhood, so we're making ends meet, thank you.

isadore;1862327 wrote:Penn Gillette is another pos.

Doesn't matter what you think of him as a person. His statement is true.

isadore;1862327 wrote:

Roads predate governmental involvement. So does medicine, education, better irrigation systems, and improvements in sanitation.

What's more, when government mandates that they are the only ones allowed to do something, that doesn't mean it wouldn't have been done just as well without them.

I'll give you some of the public order part. I'm not an anarchist.

Archive

Post your favorite political memes/cartoons/etc.