Sleeklsc
5,000+ posts
CarAudio.com Veteran
I give zero fucks abvout this thread..
Because I'm an idiot.
Because I'm an idiot.
Sleeklsc
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
Do I really need to explain each and every way socialist policies accomplish all these explicit goals of government laid out in the very first sentence of the Constitution?
Also, I also explained in what way I mean the government acts like a charity. Try reading that part.
You missed the point. I believe that charities are more efficient and meeting the needs of my community that the government. You can look at costs and outcomes to see for yourself.
I did not say the kid at McDonald's is living a better life than myself. I said that there are costs associated with my status that many lower income people are unaware.
I don't think many people believe that the government, straddled with its various rules, regulations, policies, and procedures, is more efficient to act as a charity than a traditional non-profit. Have you ever worked in a federal procurement office? Have you ever tried reading the Federal Aquisition Regulation? Lemme tell you this, if you need a bag of nails, it isn't like you can stroll into the local home depot.
In what ways? What needs, specifically, are not met by the government that can be better met by a much smaller, much less funded, much less influential charity?
(Not to belittle charities, of course). And where are the costs and outcomes documented?
Then why say it? you sure implied that the kid at McDonalds is lucky to have no to deal with tipping well because he's rich.
The cost of after-school programs on-campus are more expensive than the operating budget of the BCG and serves fewer students. You can find the cost of after-school programs in your city or county budget. It's usually a line item and sometimes it has a strange name. You can contact your county's budget director and they are usually upfront about the costs of such programs. As for the BCG, when you donate to the charity, they send you a budget document each year explaining their costs and expenses, how many students they serve etc. Because the BCG gets a lot of volunteers (as well as community service from juveniles), it saves a lot of money in ways that a local school couldn't.
The graduation rate of students who go to the BCG is higher than those who don't. Our local BCG uses graduation rates and crime as metrics of success.
Lastly, I didn't imply anything about the life of a McDonald's worker compared to mine except stating that there are expenses that upper middle class professionals incur (professional licensures included) that the McDonald's worker is not familiar with. I have been entirely consistent here and I never once indicated the McDonald's worker is better off because he doesn't have to leave $200 tips. I said he doesn't understand that cost of doing business. I know I was unaware of the responsibilies of the professional class when I was cleaning restrooms at a truck stop putting myself through college.
martiandancer31
10+ year member
Front Towards Enemy
yes, you really do need to explain. None of that has ANYTHING to do with being a charity.
Don't mind him. The pre-amble to the constitution is not a legally enforceable part of the constitution.
groundpound4200
5,000+ posts
Da fuq did I just read?
Neither is the rest of it apparently.
martiandancer31
10+ year member
Front Towards Enemy
true, but it does set the tone of the vision that the founding fathers had of what the government should look like and how it would play into our lives.
quite true.
I'm sure most of you have read this and I'm sure it is not actually true, but it a fairly good analogy of how socialism works.
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan." All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation
And here is one for taxes. I know there are several big words so Proximity might get lost, but we can fill in the blanks for him.
"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:
as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'
'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
"Let's put tax cuts in terms everyone can understand. Suppose that every day, ten men go out for dinner. The bill for all ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this:
the first four men, the poorest, would pay nothing;
the fifth would pay $1;
the sixth would pay $3;
the seventh would pay $7;
the eighth pays $12;
the ninth would pay $18;
and the tenth man, the richest, would pay $59.
"That's what they decided to do. The ten men ate dinner in the restaurant every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement --- until one day, the owner threw them a curve (in tax language a tax cut).
"'Since you are all such good customers,' he said, 'I am going to reduce the cost of your daily meal by $20. So now dinner for the ten only cost $80.00.
"The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes. So the first four men were unaffected. They would still eat for free. But what about the other six--the paying customers? How could they divvy up the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair share?'
"The six men realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody's share, Then the fifth man and the sixth man would end up being PAID to eat their meal. So the restaurant owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the amounts each should pay:
as before, the first four men paid nothing;
now the fifth man also paid nothing;
the sixth man now paid $2;
the seventh paid $5;
the eighth man paid $9;
the ninth man paid $12;
leaving the tenth man with a bill of $52 instead of his earlier $59.
Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to eat for free.
"But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their savings. 'I only got a dollar out of the $20 reduction,' declared the sixth man, but he, pointing to the tenth. 'But he got $7!'. 'Yeah, that's right,' exclaimed the fifth man, 'I only saved a dollar too; it's unfair that he got seven times more than me!'
'"That's true,' shouted the seventh man, 'why should he get $7 back when I got only $2? The wealthy get all the breaks!. 'Wait a minute,' yelled the first four men in unison, 'We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!'
"The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up. The next night he didn't show up for dinner, so the nine sat down and ate without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered, a little late what was very important. They were now Fifty-Two Dollars short of paying the bill. Imagine that!
And that, boys and girls, journalists, and college instructors, is how the tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up at the table anymore.
^ That one is too easy. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif
A) There aren't only 10 people in the world.
B) This isn't taking into account how the rich one gets rich. If he closes his business, then he's leaving a hole in the market (using the analogy) which someone else will pick up and then likely get wealthy themselves.
B) Taxes on the rich are a fraction of what they used to be. The top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s was 91%. This was when our economy was booming and our middle class was strongest. In the Great Depression and WWII it was over 70%. But then, rich people didn't pack up and move to Cambodia, did they? The world isn't what Ayn Rand writes in her books. So asking the rich to pay for SOME their tax breaks over the past 30 years won't wreck our economy. What WILL wreck it is what Romney wants, shouldering ALL of the burden on the working class. How can anyone be fore this approach?
And as for your socialism/grades analogy, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Just like no one is arguing for pure capitalism. Each would be equally catastrophic. A mixed economy, with some socialist policies that protect the worker/consumer, on a base of capitalism is the way to go. Is this so extreme?
And what does "just not show up at the table anymore" even mean, specifically? These things sound really good to stupid people who don't think about it, but if you think about it logically it completely falls apart.
It's funny, you have to use false WAY over simplified analogies to paint pictures of reality because there is no way to logically describe your false vision of the universe. If the conservative ideology was so slam dunk, you wouldn't need analogies. Try just using facts, that's what I do. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
A) There aren't only 10 people in the world.
B) This isn't taking into account how the rich one gets rich. If he closes his business, then he's leaving a hole in the market (using the analogy) which someone else will pick up and then likely get wealthy themselves.
B) Taxes on the rich are a fraction of what they used to be. The top marginal tax rate in the 50s and 60s was 91%. This was when our economy was booming and our middle class was strongest. In the Great Depression and WWII it was over 70%. But then, rich people didn't pack up and move to Cambodia, did they? The world isn't what Ayn Rand writes in her books. So asking the rich to pay for SOME their tax breaks over the past 30 years won't wreck our economy. What WILL wreck it is what Romney wants, shouldering ALL of the burden on the working class. How can anyone be fore this approach?
And as for your socialism/grades analogy, no one is arguing for pure socialism. Just like no one is arguing for pure capitalism. Each would be equally catastrophic. A mixed economy, with some socialist policies that protect the worker/consumer, on a base of capitalism is the way to go. Is this so extreme?
And what does "just not show up at the table anymore" even mean, specifically? These things sound really good to stupid people who don't think about it, but if you think about it logically it completely falls apart.
It's funny, you have to use false WAY over simplified analogies to paint pictures of reality because there is no way to logically describe your false vision of the universe. If the conservative ideology was so slam dunk, you wouldn't need analogies. Try just using facts, that's what I do. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/smile.gif.1ebc41e1811405b213edfc4622c41e27.gif
What do charities do, then? Give me a general description of one.
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...
Similar threads
- Started by Phoenix222
- Wiring, Electrical & Installation
- Started by Dave Rensberger
- Head Units
About this thread
