What has Joe done to me?

[borrofburi]

I found myself posting these elsewhere...

grow the fuck up. I'm SO sick of every post being about you guys wanting to steal more money from these evil people who have more than you do. Everybody with more money than you (guess what, you're probably THAT GUY to the majority of America!) is NOT your enemy... quit being jealous and greedy.
...
People who argue for more taxes on people other than themselves so that they disproportionately benefit aren't capitalists, they're communists.

It's not a matter of "ooo he has more money than me". It's a matter of the utility of social and infrastructure spending (i.e., roads, teachers, police) for society as a whole. Part of the social contract involves paying for those things (in return you get to live in a nice place where you don't worry about murder and rape every day). The only remaining question is how much of this investment we should do, and who should pay what for it.

I cannot believe the amount of rampant jealousy I see here when it comes to wealth. What defines rich? Why should someone who worked hard their whole life be penalized just because they have more money then the average person?

You seem to be under the misapprehension that hard work is the primary determiner in individual economic prosperity. It's not. "Bootstrapping yourself up" doesn't actually exist, the people who do it (me for instance) were given something (for instance a supportive family who valued education and sought out the best free-for-them educational institution they could find).

You're a fool as long as you buy into this myth that the rich "deserve" their money because they worked so hard and that the poor "deserve" their suffering because they're lazy fucks.

When did I become a commie pig?

 

[Duvelthehobbit666]

You became an evil commie pig when they noticed that you are left to their views. Those kinds of people only see two sides, their side, and evil left commie pigs. But to me you will always be a fascist right uber capitalist bastard. :lol:

 

[Anachronous Rex]

I don't know. It kinda reminds me of the "You seem so angry" line that atheists often get hurled at them.

It comes from people who can't believe that there could possibly be any logic to any position other than their own, and therefore those who disagree are clearly irrational idiots driven by their basest emotions.

 

[ArthurWilborn]

Well, you're just wrong. The first response is a false response - you're arguing for taxes generally when the person was talking about progressive taxation.

Sure, there are the hereditary wealthy; but the largest correlation to money is age. People have more money as they get older. The top 5% most richest people in America is in constant fluctuation. I've known quite a few people who had a considerable amount of money, and they all earned it by hard work running their own businesses - but of course both of our experiences are anecdotal and have little meaning statistically.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

You've become a decent human being. When you see hateful, ignorant, anti-social scum railing against progressive values, you realize that they stand against human values... and you speak up about it. Taxation isn't theft, it is a foundation of civilization. No one is calling for progressive taxation because they are "jealous" but because it is better for the economic and social success of a nation. And the idea that ridiculously people actually work for their money is too stupid to even bother with. The first guy who makes the nest egg worked for it. The rest of the family turns the cash over to brokers, and are actually parasites on society who produce nothing while attempting to take everything.

Good for you, you've grown up!!

 

[televator]

Welcome, comrade!

Seriously though, it's not about weather or not you're a communist. It's just the way society has worked throughout history. You don't advance without social structure for leverage. If people didn't want it, they could always go it alone and be less successful than those who worked as a community with collective benefits.

 

[theyounghistorian77]

When did I become a commie pig?

About the same time i became a "Zionist Jew" maybe? That and "Communist" feature quite heavily in the list of insults hurled at me, and believe you me i've had my fair share of abuse. The best remedy is i think to laugh it off. Because i've learned the hard way that you'll never convince "some" that this actually did happen, and likewise you'll never convince "some" that Fascism is a Right wing idea and not a left wing one.

I guess it comes down to the notion that Marx's ideas and Fascism are very poorly understood. Partially out of what i think is the deliberately created atmosphere of misunderstanding that certain Fox News [and other right wing] "pundits" have generated as if to imply that "Fascism, Communism, Progressivism, Socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Marxism, Totalitarianism [and shall we throw in Atheism as well?] and whatever other bogeyman said Fox News [and other right wing] "pundits" use to scare their children at night, are all the same thing. My rant is over

 

[ImprobableJoe]

About the same time i became a "Zionist Jew" maybe? That and "Communist" feature quite heavily in the list of insults hurled at me, and believe you me i've had my fair share of abuse. The best remedy is i think to laugh it off. Because i've learned the hard way that you'll never convince "some" that this actually did happen, and likewise you'll never convince "some" that Fascism is a Right wing idea and not a left wing one.

I guess it comes down to the notion that Marx's ideas and Fascism are very poorly understood. Partially out of what i think is the deliberately created atmosphere of misunderstanding that certain Fox News [and other right wing] "pundits" have generated as if to imply that "Fascism, Communism, Progressivism, Socialism, Liberalism, Nazism, Marxism, Totalitarianism [and shall we throw in Atheism as well?] and whatever other bogeyman said Fox News [and other right wing] "pundits" use to scare their children at night, are all the same thing. My rant is over

It was a pretty good rant though!

Anything that disagrees with the most idiotic of the right-wing non-ideas is instantly the most extreme leftist idea imaginable. It is telling that here in America, Nixon and Reagan and both Bushes are now being thought of as "leftist" as seen by the current crop of right-wing loonies.

 

[Aught3]

I don't understand why they think you are jealous and greedy. The kind of viewpoints you are displaying, if they come from any emotional response, arise from compassion for others. The benefits of arranging a country in this way go to everyone in society not to the individual who is arguing for them. Are they so stuck on the concept of 'everyone out for themselves' that they can't comprehend not all people are like that?

Nvm, I don't need an answer.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't understand why they think you are jealous and greedy. The kind of viewpoints you are displaying, if they come from any emotional response, arise from compassion for others. The benefits of arranging a country in this way go to everyone in society not to the individual who is arguing for them. Are they so stuck on the concept of 'everyone out for themselves' that they can't comprehend not all people are like that?

It is projection. Right-wingers are jealous, greedy, and spiteful... and they can't imagine people acting from any other possible motivation. They can't picture someone advocating for other people from a positive or selfless perspective, they can only see what they would do in that situation... which is to say positive things in order to exploit others.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

Oh, and also? You're welcome.

 

[Aught3]

It is projection. Right-wingers are jealous, greedy, and spiteful... and they can't imagine people acting from any other possible motivation. They can't picture someone advocating for other people from a positive or selfless perspective, they can only see what they would do in that situation... which is to say positive things in order to exploit others.

I don't know, if they are generally jealous, greedy, and spiteful while simultaneously believing that leftist policies benefit the individuals who support them, shouldn't they also adopt those same policies? Perhaps they don't think through the contradiction but it seems pretty glaring to me.

 

[ImprobableJoe]

I don't know, if they are generally jealous, greedy, and spiteful while simultaneously believing that leftist policies benefit the individuals who support them, shouldn't they also adopt those same policies? Perhaps they don't think through the contradiction but it seems pretty glaring to me.

They assume that they are the ones being screwed over, not the ones who benefit. They hate minorities, gays, non-Christians, and pretty much everyone else so much that they don't understand that they are getting screwed over. Americans don't understand how poor they are, or how rich they are...

As an example, I have a friend who is a strong supporter of gay rights and feminism, who doesn't understand that she's pretty wealthy compared to other Americans. She thinks she's poor because she doesn't have millions, but she just spent two weeks in Bermuda and is on another vacation on a farm with friends... and has another vacation planned for the summer. Most people in America live on less than $50,000 for their household, and that's less than she makes by herself. She's a Democrat and politically active, but she doesn't understand that she's in the top 10% of household incomes.

Imagine the rest of America, poor and stupid and railing against policies that would help them because they're so convinced by the right-wing creeps that some unworthy evil people will benefit from the policies that will help them most! Talk about cutting off your own nose to spite yourself!

 

[ohcac]

This seems a little one-sided in opinion, so my butting in might not be received very well, but here goes:

Why *should* a fat-ass, lazy, irresponsible dufus who has inherited his fathers money in a situation akin to Billy Madison have more of his money extracted from him just because he doesn't work hard? Does the quality of not working hard mean that one forfeits their property to the state more than a poor person who works his ass off every day? I think the notion "Robin Hood property rights" (rich to poor "wealth transfer") is probably a fallacy. That's a more minor point, though.

ImprobableJoe makes several, incredibly sweeping assertionsthat the vast majority of the wealthy are parasites, whose mommy and daddy started up the big business from scratch and then hired stockbrokers to invest and gobble up more acquisitions and power for their kiddies. I can almost see them grinning as they rub their hands together, letting out an evil laugh as they look out the window of the 110th floor of their city mansion at all the poor people dying in the streets! This characterization of wealthy people is bordering on Glenn-Beck-stupid.

I really don't understand why members of a board called the "League of Reason" can can bring themselves to believe that large scale government programs are generally a good thing that are of generally high quality. I have often seen the outcry that *public schools in particular* are not receiving enough money. In reality, however, public schools are an utterly poisonous entity that needs to be put to an end.

Most public schools, in short, are simply shitty.... really, really *shitty*. The didactic methodology is a silly joke, in 90 plus years schools have gone from a lecturer with a blackboard to a lecturer with a white board. Almost all state-required curricula result in countless thousands of wasted hours studying for unneeded shit; the children have their imaginations destroyed in a dank, boring institution; gifted students are held in bondage with crappy students; crappy students who have promising non-academic skills are not allowed to leave the fucking place; I am qualified to comment that the *mathematics* education in particular is horrific and is usually taught terribly so that later, exquisite ideas become impenetrable garbage; children are generally mistreated etc, etc, etc.

It is actually quite easy to see why funding via taxation leads to terrible quality *in general*. Whenever a school performs poorly in providing the service of education to students, one hears outcries to give the school *more money* via taxation. In free markets, institutions that manage their structures of production in such a way that the service is poor should get punished by their consumers and receive less money so that superior competition prevails. Whatever your opinions on free markets or competition based economic structures, it is abundantly clear that public schools are terrible because they have no incentive to provide a higher quality service. The same is probably true of other government programs deemed "essential" by the generally ignorant general public.

ImprobableJoe is merely spewing the ham-fisted rhetoric of other people who claim that anybody who disagrees with "progressivism" is either a capricious, misanthropic, republican turd who lives in the hills; quivering in the corner of his trailer home with a Bible and obsessively whispering gay slurs to himself whilst daydreaming of his favorite ultra-Conservative member of Congress; or a capricious, misanthropic, republican turd that falls asleep by cuddling with a pile of 100 dollar bills and snickers whenever a person who looks like they make less than $40 million a year walks by.

 

[televator]

Edit: I really don't want to derail another thread.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

:lol:

Joe and I are alike in a lot of ways - atleast in viewpoints. So I would take that as a compliment, borr.

 

[Welshidiot]

This seems a little one-sided in opinion, so my butting in might not be received very well, but here goes:

Why *should* a fat-ass, lazy, irresponsible dufus who has inherited his fathers money in a situation akin to Billy Madison have more of his money extracted from him just because he doesn't work hard? Does the quality of not working hard mean that one forfeits their property to the state more than a poor person who works his ass off every day? I think the notion "Robin Hood property rights" (rich to poor "wealth transfer") is probably a fallacy. That's a more minor point, though.

ImprobableJoe makes several, incredibly sweeping assertionsthat the vast majority of the wealthy are parasites, whose mommy and daddy started up the big business from scratch and then hired stockbrokers to invest and gobble up more acquisitions and power for their kiddies. I can almost see them grinning as they rub their hands together, letting out an evil laugh as they look out the window of the 110th floor of their city mansion at all the poor people dying in the streets! This characterization of wealthy people is bordering on Glenn-Beck-stupid.

I really don't understand why members of a board called the "League of Reason" can can bring themselves to believe that large scale government programs are generally a good thing that are of generally high quality. I have often seen the outcry that *public schools in particular* are not receiving enough money. In reality, however, public schools are an utterly poisonous entity that needs to be put to an end.

Most public schools, in short, are simply shitty.... really, really *shitty*. The didactic methodology is a silly joke, in 90 plus years schools have gone from a lecturer with a blackboard to a lecturer with a white board. Almost all state-required curricula result in countless thousands of wasted hours studying for unneeded shit; the children have their imaginations destroyed in a dank, boring institution; gifted students are held in bondage with crappy students; crappy students who have promising non-academic skills are not allowed to leave the fucking place; I am qualified to comment that the *mathematics* education in particular is horrific and is usually taught terribly so that later, exquisite ideas become impenetrable garbage; children are generally mistreated etc, etc, etc.

It is actually quite easy to see why funding via taxation leads to terrible quality *in general*. Whenever a school performs poorly in providing the service of education to students, one hears outcries to give the school *more money* via taxation. In free markets, institutions that manage their structures of production in such a way that the service is poor should get punished by their consumers and receive less money so that superior competition prevails. Whatever your opinions on free markets or competition based economic structures, it is abundantly clear that public schools are terrible because they have no incentive to provide a higher quality service. The same is probably true of other government programs deemed "essential" by the generally ignorant general public.

ImprobableJoe is merely spewing the ham-fisted rhetoric of other people who claim that anybody who disagrees with "progressivism" is either a capricious, misanthropic, republican turd who lives in the hills; quivering in the corner of his trailer home with a Bible and obsessively whispering gay slurs to himself whilst daydreaming of his favorite ultra-Conservative member of Congress; or a capricious, misanthropic, republican turd that falls asleep by cuddling with a pile of 100 dollar bills and snickers whenever a person who looks like they make less than $40 million a year walks by.

So you decided to counter sweeping generalisations and vituperative rhetoric, with more sweeping generalisations and vituperative rhetoric.
Speaking as a resident of the non-USA, I sometimes wonder how you Yanks have managed to avoid another civil war.

 

[australopithecus]

Pre-emptive moddery:

Let's not let this turn into a childish flame war please.

 

[devilsadvocate]

to Ohcac

Per capita spending on health expenditures

1 United States 7,290 16.0

8 France 3,601 11.0

Overall efficiency [of health system] in all WHO member states

1 France 0.994

37 United States of America 0.838

On infant mortality U.S is 37th, almost all of the nations that rank better have public health system and all spend LESS money per capita on health expenditures


In PISA student test, United States ranked 17th. Finland ranked 3th with exclusively public school system. Spending per K-12 student was 90 000 for U.S and less than 65 000 for Finland.

I have given just a couple of examples, but when you look at these results the trend is clear. Government lead system gives you more for less in both health care and in education. It isn't only more humane and fair system, but it's also more EFFICIENT. The exact argument that is usually used to defend private schools and health care.

 

[borrofburi]

I have often seen the outcry that *public schools in particular* are not receiving enough money. In reality, however, public schools are an utterly poisonous entity that needs to be put to an end.

And it's in place you would have? What precisely? A system where the poor aren't allowed to get education, unless some nice rich person happens to be willing to help out?