I wasn't talking about you, burn the ships. I was talking about those defending racial based discounts.
What a deal!
by frozen one 76 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
BurnTheShips
Oh, it looked like your post was linked off of mine as a response.
BTS
-
funkyderek
sweetstuff:
Question is, who sets that statute? You, me or government?
Well, it's common sense really. People who weren't oppressed shouldn't be compensated at the expense of people who didn't oppress them.
Kind of reminds me of the WTS to be frank, sure we were wrong in the past but you are the wrong if you dwell on that or cry justice, accountability!
I don't see the similarity at all. The people you are blaming for past atrocities are not the people who perpetrated them, and the people you wish to see compensated are not the people who suffered.
IMHO, the extent of past atrocities has certainly by no means been rectified to the level of equality we currently see today. If so, why was Fema so bloody slow in responding to the crisis caused by hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, they were sure a hell of alot quicker in Midtown Manhattan on 9/11. Do you stop to ask yourself why?
Well, they were very different situations. Why do you think FEMA reacted slowly to Katrina? Do you really think they checked the demographics of the area and then decided not to bother doing all they could? Hell, maybe you do. But it all sounds a little like the familiar cry of the angry black man. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson were out in force to stir the pot. Hey, black people are affected by this; therefore, any inadequacy in the response must be due to racism.
Your right, that at some point the past needs to be layed to rest, but its delusional to think that many people are not still suffering from that past, currently! It not like we are talking thousands of years here Derek. In the long term of humanity's existance, those atrocities are extremely recent and still have effect on the minds and opportunities of people currently. And therefore, yes I do think that there is still room for rectification.
And I'm all for working to remove the last vestiges of those effects. But discriminating against innocent people is not the way to do it; that was the problem in the first place, remember. It would be like denying men a vote now because in the past women were denied the right to vote.
Until everyone is treated completely equal and has the same opportunities at birth, we are just burying our heads in the proverbal sand to say, get over it already and suck it up.
Well, that's never going to happen. But we are at (or very close to) the stage where a child's prospects at birth depend on his or her parents' choices, and later on his or her own choices, and not at all on the colour of their skin.
SixofNine:
I'm curious what you mean by this? Do you mean in essence "pays" out a number of rectangular paper bills and jangly coins and then gets fewer rectangular paper bills and jangly coins back, or do you use some other metric that assigns value beyond literal bills and coins?
The "paper bills and jangly coins" are just tokens representing an agreed-upon value system. I exchange my time for these notes and coins (or for the monetary value they represent) at a particular rate with my employer. The government takes a percentage of this transaction for various reasons. One reason is to protect the value of the money. Those paper notes won't be worth a thing without a government to back them up, so to save us all lugging bags of gold around, we allow the government to take a little off the top.
Unfortunately, they don't stop there. They decide we need roads and hospitals and schools and football stadiums and take whatever money they wish from us to pay for them. Understandably, they're very very inefficient at doing this as they have no real competition and little in the way of accountability. But most people need roads and hospitals and schools (and it's nice to have a football stadium) so we generally don't complain too much.
But at this point, the government has realised that money can solve almost any problem and start treating it accordingly with little or no regard to where it came from. So instead of getting a house because you worked hard and saved up the money and agreed a price with someone who was selling a house, the government gives you a house because - well, because you don't have one and don't look like ever being able to afford one, or because one or more of your ancestors may have been a victim of discrimination. Those who earn money have to pay twice, once for themselves and then once for those who have (for whatever reason) opted out of paying.
And that still works for a while, until the people who don't pay grow in number and demand - not request but demand - more handouts. So they get "free" houses and "free" transport and "free" clothes and "free" schoolbooks and "free" food, and a wage for doing no work. And always, always, they want more. And they keep getting it because that's what compassionate people do, right? They give to the poor. The government wants to appear compassionate so it takes our money and gives that to the poor.
So children grow up thinking that money is simply a right. Their existence must be paid for and why would it occur to them to pay for it themselves? That's what governmen is for, right?
-
BurnTheShips
But at this point, the government has realised that money can solve almost any problem and start treating it accordingly with little or no regard to where it came from. So instead of getting a house because you worked hard and saved up the money and agreed a price with someone who was selling a house, the government gives you a house because - well, because you don't have one and don't look like ever being able to afford one, or because one or more of your ancestors may have been a victim of discrimination. Those who earn money have to pay twice, once for themselves and then once for those who have (for whatever reason) opted out of paying.
And that still works for a while, until the people who don't pay grow in number and demand - not request but demand - more handouts. So they get "free" houses and "free" transport and "free" clothes and "free" schoolbooks and "free" food, and a wage for doing no work. And always, always, they want more. And they keep getting it because that's what compassionate people do, right? They give to the poor. The government wants to appear compassionate so it takes our money and gives that to the poor.
Attributed to several different sources:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can exist only until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse out of the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a dictatorship."
-
SixofNine
"I'm curious what you mean by this? Do you mean in essence "pays" out a number of rectangular paper bills and jangly coins and then gets fewer rectangular paper bills and jangly coins back, or do you use some other metric that assigns value beyond literal bills and coins?
The "paper bills and jangly coins" are just tokens representing an agreed-upon value system. I exchange my time for these notes and coins (or for the monetary value they represent) at a particular rate with my employer. The government takes a percentage of this transaction for various reasons. One reason is to protect the value of the money. Those paper notes won't be worth a thing without a government to back them up, so to save us all lugging bags of gold around, we allow the government to take a little off the top."
Perhaps I didn't make my question clear. I'm not looking for a primer on the opinions of Ayn Rand. What I'm looking for is just what you meant by "....taxation is a big deal for someone like me, who pays out more than he gets back."?
In exactly what sense do you "pay out more than [you] get back"? And how do you quantify what it is you get back, do you peg it back to money values for services somehow?
And just so I'm not being coy; for example, do you assign any value at all to living in a society where the base level of the poorest is still much higher than it is in say, Somalia, or Ecuador, and where those people have at least some opportunity? If you do, how exactly do you figure that amount of value into "what you get back"? If you don't, this is off-topic but, why not?
Also, how much do you figure in for roads? Does it vary if you go on a road-trip vacation?
What about libraries? (I'm very curious about this one). Has your view of libraries value to yourself (and society? or do you integrate yourself with society at all when assigning value?) changed since the internet?
You mentioned that governments do things to keep their currency valued. Does the relative "health" (and I mean to include literal, mental/moral, and fiscal health) of a society contribute to the value of currency for a 1st world country?
I really am curious how you think about these things Derek. I know we've butted heads on this a little in the past, but we've never gotten past the butting heads stage. For instance, when you say that government builds roads inefficiently, I'm just not sure what metrics you're using. Maybe you know something I don't; maybe they do it differently in Ireland? "Inefficient" compared to what? Doesn't the government hire private or public companies to build roads there, after recieving bids? And sure, there is corruption in that process, but at least in government, it can be weeded out. If it was done only by private companies, why should I believe there would be less corruption? History, and common sense, just does not bear that out.
-
beksbks
I have not read all the posts, so sorry if I repeat.
First of all, how can some of you discuss this woman's situation, when you couldn't possibly have all the facts? I am slightly familiar with programs like these, and there are definite restrictions. She will not walk away with the equity.
Second, as far as "handouts" to minorities, women, etc. The end is not to make these individuals happy, it is to promote a trend. To turn traditionally dependant and less contributory segments of the population into more productive tax paying citizens.
-
BurnTheShips
In exactly what sense do you "pay out more than [you] get back"? And how do you quantify what it is you get back, do you peg it back to money values for services somehow?
Economic calculations can only be quantified using money. Without reducing to "dollars and cents" it is impossible to calculate a benefit return value, and therefore it is impossible to rationally allocate resources. This is one of the downfalls of socialist planning.
BTS (who hopes to start on his Econ degree this Fall)
-
CoonDawg
I think non-profits like this are great! From what I read in the original post, this is a private charity that solicits funds from various sources to promote home ownership for those that meet a specific criteria set up by the charity's governing board of directors. Apparently this young working mother qualified, not only for the home, but for other incentives as well that no doubt give the charity certain cred with the government by offering them. I hope this girl takes this opportunity and runs with it, making a great life for her and her child.
I know that many get rankled and the thought of social programs being paid for by their tax dollars. Many feel forced to do it by their government and begrudge those who are recipients. However, it seems to me that many (and I'm not specifically saying "here on this forum"...but rather in my experience here in the US in general) seem to have the attitude of "I got mine...F**K everyone else." Sure there are charitable people, but by in large, I seriously doubt that in this age of self preservation in a struggling economy, that many would willingly part with their hard earned dollars to support programs for disadvantaged people on their own. So, someone has to do this. Of course, there is waste and fraud. My take on social programs is that while they can be effective, policing for fraud and waste should be made a priority. Some of these programs, given the chance, really do work and help to get people off of the welfare roles. Most people don't want to be forever dependent on the pittance they get from welfare. Given opportunities such as Clinton and the Republican congress legislated back in the 1990's, many take advantage of the programs and are able to make the move from dependent to self sufficient. I seriously do not mind my tax dollars being used for social programs ...FOR THOSE THAT NEED THEM. I'd rather they go to those that really are trying to change their lives than to Haliburton or Exxon's bottom line.
-
beksbks
I'd rather they go to those that really are trying to change their lives than to Haliburton or Exxon's bottom line.
Whoooooeeee! You said a mouthful there CoonDawg!
-
SixofNine
Economic calculations can only be quantified using money. Without reducing to "dollars and cents" it is impossible to calculate a benefit return value, and therefore it is impossible to rationally allocate resources. This is one of the downfalls of socialist planning.
How is it a "downfall of socialist planning"? If what you say is true, and I think it basically is, at least in the strictest sense, how is that more of a "downfall" for any one type of planning over another?
In fact, think the opposite is true, the downfall of pure capitalistic non-planning is that it completely ignores so many things which need to be given a monetary value - even though it may be impossible to quantify these things perfectly. Some things are somewhat subjective; if someone has dedicated their life to hiking everywhere they go, then FunkyD is right, government made the decision to build roads, and government puts the value on the road. However, the rest of us both need and want those roads to get around. But how nice do the roads need to be? How safe do they need to be? How many lanes should there be? All those things have more or less subjective value to us personally, but also, from a 1000' view, those things all make objective monetary difference to a society's economy.
And no "gotcha" there on that "perfectly", btw. Your side DOES have many things it doesn't quantify perfectly (and in fact often laughably, and/or with a steady, unrelenting disdain for history), and again, so very very many things it just simply refuses to make an effort to quantify at all, but which have real value, and w/o which, societies end up failing 95% of their citizens.