So why do (especially AT P&N) socialists think it's ok to take from those who rightfully earned?

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ebaycj
70% is too much. But I would say that 45-48% is not.

:shocked:

So the guy working at Burger King making $6.50/hr should be happy about only taking home $3.75/hr, because illegals' anchor babies need public schooling, free lunches, free transportation, free (universal) health care, and unfettered emergency room access? Heck, he might as well kick in another 5% so the illegals can stay..

FYI most fast food doesnt pay minimum wage anymore

 

[ZebuluniteV]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: ebaycj
70% is too much. But I would say that 45-48% is not.

:shocked:

So the guy working at Burger King making $6.50/hr should be happy about only taking home $3.75/hr, because illegals' anchor babies need public schooling, free lunches, free transportation, free (universal) health care, and unfettered emergency room access? Heck, he might as well kick in another 5% so the illegals can stay..

I believe ebaycj was referring just to the tax rater on higher income individuals (or at least that's what I gathered from reading the posts he was replying to).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the price you pay for living in a democratic society. Freedom isn't free.

No, it is the price we will pay if Hillary and the Communists get their way.

Until then, this is a Democracy.

And all the taxes and social programs have been passed and signed by people's elected representatives. Get over it.

What if the people's elected representatives decided that every 10th person should be put to death? Should we just get over that too? Or would you suddenly change your mind if it turned out you were one of the 10th?

I've been noticing an odd trend of highly conservative and authoritarian statements from you. I used to think it's because you are a troll, but now I'm just convinced that you're an idiot. Here's a tip: defending the status quo of the authority power structure isn't a liberal or progressive trait.

Wait, you are against the democratic system, yet you call me an idiot. Good one.
We have representative democracy which passed these laws, and we have an independent judiciary that upheld them. If representatives decided every 10th person should be killed, the USSC would overturn it as unconstitutional. So it's a completely idiotic red herring, as expected from your ilk.

Maybe you should start going after everyone that is complaining about the Iraq war, our representative democracy sent us over there. So there should be no complaining right?

 

[First]

I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the price you pay for living in a democratic society. Freedom isn't free.

No, it is the price we will pay if Hillary and the Communists get their way.

Until then, this is a Democracy.

And all the taxes and social programs have been passed and signed by people's elected representatives. Get over it.

What if the people's elected representatives decided that every 10th person should be put to death? Should we just get over that too? Or would you suddenly change your mind if it turned out you were one of the 10th?

I've been noticing an odd trend of highly conservative and authoritarian statements from you. I used to think it's because you are a troll, but now I'm just convinced that you're an idiot. Here's a tip: defending the status quo of the authority power structure isn't a liberal or progressive trait.

Wait, you are against the democratic system, yet you call me an idiot. Good one.
We have representative democracy which passed these laws, and we have an independent judiciary that upheld them. If representatives decided every 10th person should be killed, the USSC would overturn it as unconstitutional. So it's a completely idiotic red herring, as expected from your ilk.

Who said I was against the democratic system? Quit trolling. The red herring was when you tried to say that democracy justifies anything. Remember I already told you (and you ignored it), "Democracy without limits is mob rule." You can't come back after that with an example of a limit, not even with an inaccurate and hate-filled troll of "your ilk."

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

 

[First]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: senseamp
Are you rightwingers advocating we suspend democratic institutions because the populace is voting themselves too many benefits at the expense of other taxpayers?

So-called 'democratic institutions' are paid for by people who are literally forced to support the government before their own children, or future children. Hell, as it is now, the government gets more of your money than even your spouse.

Every tax the government collects has been passed by the people's elected representatives.
Are you against representative democracy?

Yes I am absolutely against 'representative democracy,' or any kind of democracy for that matter.

I couldn't give two f*cking s*its what other people think about how I should live my life or spend my money.

I'm not afraid of any terrorists that the neo-cons blather on about, nor am I afraid at all of any of the scary corporate 'private interests' and 'rich people' that the democrats blather on about. I'm not afraid because I'm ready to lock and load if someone is seriously threatening me or my family.

Therefore, to me the government is a s*hithole of an excuse for a 'fair' middleman for so-called protection from the world's evils.

In a nutshell: I am one of those rare birds who doesn't need anyone or any thing to 'represent' me anywhere at any time. And if someone does represent me on some matter, I will be paying them directly and they will answer to me directly regarding such matter. They will not be taking any phone calls from other 'concerned citizens,' and if they do, I will fire them.

Well, if you are against representative democracy, you are going to have a tough time, because you live in one. Too bad, so sad. You don't get to create your own form of government because you aren't happy with the current one.

As I have said in many other threads, I have plans for leaving.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

QFMFT. Just because you dont think the law is fair doesnt mean it's invalid. Our own government is ignoring this law, but again it doesnt mean its invalid.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the price you pay for living in a democratic society. Freedom isn't free.

No, it is the price we will pay if Hillary and the Communists get their way.

Until then, this is a Democracy.

And all the taxes and social programs have been passed and signed by people's elected representatives. Get over it.

What if the people's elected representatives decided that every 10th person should be put to death? Should we just get over that too? Or would you suddenly change your mind if it turned out you were one of the 10th?

I've been noticing an odd trend of highly conservative and authoritarian statements from you. I used to think it's because you are a troll, but now I'm just convinced that you're an idiot. Here's a tip: defending the status quo of the authority power structure isn't a liberal or progressive trait.

Wait, you are against the democratic system, yet you call me an idiot. Good one.
We have representative democracy which passed these laws, and we have an independent judiciary that upheld them. If representatives decided every 10th person should be killed, the USSC would overturn it as unconstitutional. So it's a completely idiotic red herring, as expected from your ilk.

Who said I was against the democratic system? Quit trolling. The red herring was when you tried to say that democracy justifies anything. Remember I already told you (and you ignored it), "Democracy without limits is mob rule." You can't come back after that with an example of a limit, not even with an inaccurate and hate-filled troll of "your ilk."

That pretty much sums it up. Very good point.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That pretty much sums it up. Very good point.

Actually, Vic is delusional. Democracy is by definition mob rule. Promoting 'limits' on democracy is like promoting a mob that has limits. Hmmmm.....

 

[KK]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

That's even sillier, how many people have broken the law by killing someone?

 

[Moonbeam]

We have a good angel on one shoulder and a bad one on the other, right? Or maybe we have a a divided self, a self that hates us and a self that retains some connection to God or whatever causes man to create Him.

A self that hates itself would hate everybody and feel resentment for anybody else's achievement. Such a self would hate the rich because of their success and lust to have what they have. It would also hate the poorer or those who try to take what one has to help them because having wealth would be the only road for such a self to feel better about himself, since the only thing of value to such a self would be money. Such a self hating person would have to feel that his money shows his self worth and his capacity to earn more of it would display how valuable a person he is.

The person who listens to his good angel, if reluctantly because of that other nagging voice, might hope to help others out of his own capacity and as an acknowledgment of that strange thing that seems so good one can feel within. But goodness and the administration of real help to others may be an art that requires deeper understanding. The best of intentions don't always translate into effective action.

How we do as a collective, then, I would guess, will depend on the average strength of each of these angels across our political spectrum and how much each is able to effect our actions.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: senseamp
It's the price you pay for living in a democratic society. Freedom isn't free.

No, it is the price we will pay if Hillary and the Communists get their way.

Until then, this is a Democracy.

Why is EVER tax or government program, no matter how minor, "communism". That's as ridiculous as the lefties calling every conservative position, no matter how moderate, "fascist". If you want to argue the merits of a particular issue, that's fine. But as long as calling the PATRIOT Act "fascist" is stupid (and it is stupid), calling ever government program "communism" is just as stupid.

You guys aren't morons, stop arguing like you are.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: blackangst1

That pretty much sums it up. Very good point.

Actually, Vic is delusional. Democracy is by definition mob rule. Promoting 'limits' on democracy is like promoting a mob that has limits. Hmmmm.....

Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

 

[Moonbeam]

I also want to know more about the implications and meaning of Vic's remark that welfare is a bribe. I don't understand why we aren't exploring that. Well I can maybe understand why, but I don't think it's a good idea to ignore something like that. If it's true it should revolutionize some people's thinking, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

bamacre, can we farm out our charity tax dollars to private groups based on tracking their competitive efficiencies in delivering actual help. Could such a thing even be measured on any meaningful way?

I know that people do not value what they do not earn and all real gifts are given, therefore, without any knowledge on the part of the recipient that they are a gift but as something that one has somehow earned. But such a notion is why beyond where we are at as a society, it seems to me. I saw a thing on some Sacramento non-profit, damned if I can remember the name, though it's on the tip of my tongue, that hires the disabled and still breaks even. Started up in a church and very impressive, in my opinion.

 

[CPA]

Originally posted by: jjzelinski

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

And of course people who think as you do strangle ferrets in their sleep. How many did you kill last night?

it's fascinating how self indulgent the sort of mentality that shiv possesses is. Not only do they bitch and moan about how our government doesn't accomodate their sense of entitelment (and yes, when you question how much you owe the gov that is a perfect example of an etitlement attitude) but then they besmirch everyone else's "inferiority" by claiming the entire world is just "jealous" of them. Talk about a circle jerk, that's mental masturbation if I ever saw it!

Oh, so it's an entitlement attitude that pushes our desire to keep the govt off of our earned dollars. This is an interesting spin by you libs.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
I wonder if these same people who argue that illegals take up everyone's social services even realize that at worst they comprise 4-5% of the US population, meaning everything else equal they literally couldn't physically have much of an impact on social service uses (which I agree, is unfair). And that, additionally, they commit crimes at a lower rate than legal American citizens.

But I guess if you're that far gone from reality, statistics don't really matter.

Link?

http://www.azstarnet.com/news/171109
http://www.ocregister.com/ocre...al/article_1592092.php
http://www.topix.com/forum/state/ca/TEQQK34APT5OULCUD

I don't see how they could have a lower rate when every single one of them broke the law. 100% rate for illegals is less than legals? Hmm....

That's silly. How many people have broken the law by speeding in their cars?

If you cant see the difference between speeding and entering a sovereign country illegally you have issues. I guess you might as well throw child rape in there too. Why not...violating the law is violating the law right?

So you have no argument, right? Actually, you sort of do...just for the wrong side. Obviously violating the law ISN'T violating the law, so that 100% law breaking rate for illegals isn't really relevant any more than the 100% law breaking rate for legal citizens should be part of the argument. The real issue is the IMPACT of breaking the law...which I don't believe you've made even the slightest attempt to argue. I'll submit that entering a country illegally is "worse" than speeding (although I've never almost been killed by an illegal alien), but there are also a lot of crimes much worse than illegal entry.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

Eliminate political authority. In other words, people should do whatever they want to do without worrying about what anyone else 'votes' for or thinks. And if someone has a problem with what someone else is doing, they need to take direct action with that person, instead of living in fear of these 'bogeymen' that the polticians have conjured up (i.e. 'terrorists' from 3rd world countries or 'robber barons' here at home).

So in a nutshell I promote direct individual and private action. No more taxes, no more regulations.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

Eliminate political authority. In other words, people should do whatever they want to do without worrying about what anyone else 'votes' for or thinks. And if someone has a problem with what someone else is doing, they need to take direct action with that person, instead of living in fear of these 'bogeymen' that the polticians have conjured up (i.e. 'terrorists' from 3rd world countries or 'robber barons' here at home).

So in a nutshell I promote direct individual and private action. No more taxes, no more regulations.

Then all we would have is a system where only the strongest (measured a number of different ways) survive. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think such a society would turn out very well...if only because there are too many people who are just generally assholes for that to work. Everyone for himself only works in Heinlein books.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Assuming that you are correct why is that a problem? Unanswered questions here, to my mind are, what is a mob and what are the problems with mobs, are there limit to mobs that limit whatever problems they may cause to an effective degree, say in comparison to other forms of government? If not, what alternative(s) do you suggest that you can express in ordinary everyday words?

Eliminate political authority. In other words, people should do whatever they want to do without worrying about what anyone else 'votes' for or thinks. And if someone has a problem with what someone else is doing, they need to take direct action with that person, instead of living in fear of these 'bogeymen' that the polticians have conjured up (i.e. 'terrorists' from 3rd world countries or 'robber barons' here at home).

So in a nutshell I promote direct individual and private action. No more taxes, no more regulations.

Then all we would have is a system where only the strongest (measured a number of different ways) survive. Call me a pessimist, but I don't think such a society would turn out very well...if only because there are too many people who are just generally assholes for that to work. Everyone for himself only works in Heinlein books.

So outside of government where are all of these so-called roving bandits? The vast majority of people are simply good people who want to live their lives, and of course they would band together, just as they have now under a state. The only difference is that they would no long arbitrarily send money off to anonymous bureaucrats, supporting things they would never otherwise support.

Read my lips: society won't collapse just because people are no longer forced or coerced into supporting things they wouldn't otherwise support.