Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Znet)   Our only political party has two right wings, one called Republican, the other Democrat   ( divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

16149 clicks; posted to Main » on 26 Jan 2004 at 6:23 AM (14 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

608 Comments     (+0 »)

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

2004-01-26 03:52:41 PM  
And the kids who are now living in poverty certainly don't deserve to be punished for the mistakes of their parents, do they?

Why don't they? Or, put another way, why do I have to pay for these mistakes if the children don't? Couldn't I argue that someone else from another country should pay because, after all, one American shouldn't be forced to pay for the mistakes of another American? It's specious logic all the way around.
2004-01-26 03:56:45 PM  
First of all, you're paying very little. And if you're inhumane enough to begrudge the *maybe* five dollars (probably less) of your tax money that goes to keep the heat on in the winter for a kid in poverty, then I really want nothing to do with you.

2004-01-26 04:01:39 PM  
You really have no rational argument, then.
2004-01-26 04:02:23 PM  
Also, as I mentioned before, most of that money gets paid back in the form of taxes by welfare recipients. The taxes go to build the roads we drive on, pay for schools, education grants and loans, the military, etc. So you may be paying a small amount to help someone out now, but in the future they put that money right back into society, where it helps YOU, as well.
2004-01-26 04:09:21 PM  
There may be some positive return down the road, you could be right. But, what about my opportunity cost? Let's say I get a 5% return on my tax money. What if I had other investment opportunities that would have led to a 20% return? Then, I'm actually facing a net loss. In the end, society didn't help me as much as I could have helped myself.
2004-01-26 04:13:53 PM  
GreyKitten: Thanks for the reference. It seems that most people here who biatch about lazy people living off the system would rather go back to the days when people caught begging got their hands chopped off.
2004-01-26 04:14:37 PM  
It's not just about you, though. Sounds like someone reads a little too much Ayn Rand. Each and every person in this world is just as valuable as you are, and the reason we even HAVE society is to promote the welfare (yes, welfare) of all people.
2004-01-26 04:18:58 PM  
A mostly insignificant amount of taxes go to actually useful things like roads, and military. The rest is wasted on pork barrel and welfare. I don't just mean the welfare program but I mean any welfare, social security, corporate welfaro, farm subsidies, and the like. What little we should be spending on military is being used to enforce our laws elsewhere where we have no business being, billions a year are being spent on the war on drugs and related insanity. Money is being spent on schools and education with the excuse of being for a good cause without the responsibility to spend that money respensible. Everytime I complain about taxes people bring up the things that taxes pay for. If that was all that taxes paid for then we wouldn't have taxes to complain about. The majority of tax money is wasted on needless, poorly run, corrupt, and offensive government systems.
2004-01-26 04:20:28 PM  
And I'm sorry if I sound heartless for opposing the welfare system, but I have always learned and believed that stealing is wrong.
2004-01-26 04:21:05 PM  
I got a perspective for ya biatches...

If Al Gore was president, 911 WOULDN'T have happened.
2004-01-26 04:25:05 PM  
I would certainly not call it stealing.

I've always learned and believed that the greatest crime we can commit against our fellow humans is complete selfishness.
2004-01-26 04:31:57 PM  
2004-01-26 04:21:05 PM MilkIt

Please...go soak your head in a pickle bucket for saying something something so stupid. Thank you.

Now go do it. I'm watching.
2004-01-26 04:32:56 PM  
It's not just about you, though. Sounds like someone reads a little too much Ayn Rand. Each and every person in this world is just as valuable as you are, and the reason we even HAVE society is to promote the welfare (yes, welfare) of all people.

The problem is that I'm overpaying. If we could find an optimal tax rate that balanced the return on tax investments with the return on private investment opportunities, that's the rate at which I'm indifferent whether my next dollar goes to taxes or personal investment. This is taking the totality of the effects, short and long run, into account. That's the only rate at which I will not think I am being overcharged for the maintenance of society.

Your other statement about the value of each and every person being equal is just fluff. It's unquantifiable and unverifiable. Even if you wanted to prove it, you couldn't. There are lots of surveys done on what the value of a human life is and they vary all over the place. I might place a value of $5 for someone I don't know and $500K for someone who is very close to me. Neither of those estimates mean anything much in particular.
2004-01-26 04:33:58 PM  
2004-01-26 04:18:58 PM TheOmni

I dont think your plan would produce a stable economy.
2004-01-26 04:37:36 PM  
Whoa. So you think that you can quantify the value of a human life in monetary terms? I'm sorry. There is something seriously skewed with your worldview.
2004-01-26 04:38:40 PM  
others from my planet have been searching for a profoundly stupid specimen to torture with anal probes, and we have selected you. 9/11 had nothing to do with who was president at the time. 9/11 had more to do with Iran and Al-Qaeda.

...rumpriding rectum raper
2004-01-26 04:39:26 PM  
//We have the "Democrats" who are the renewed socialist Marxist from the 50's//

I'm all about respecting your opponent in a debate, but you need to STFU.
2004-01-26 04:42:05 PM  
oh wait- i forgot... the washington post is the tool of the illuminati... i really should put my tinfoil hat back on to protect my brain from those mind-reading sattelites they have in space

/absolutely astounded by the sheer volume of stupidity saturating these comments
2004-01-26 04:43:26 PM  
Welfare as it stands today isn't terribly bad, but it's still a huge chunk of our budget

Define "huge" please.

After you do a little searching to find out exactly how much the Federal Government spends on welfare, and compare it to how much you spend on shampoo in a year I want to hear about your HUGE problem with Head and Shoulders.

Now, if we want to talk huge, let's talk about our military and the portion of the national debt directly related to military overspending.

If we want to talk another huge let's talk about social security disbursements, and medicare/medicaid payments made. Heck the rascal problem alone is in porportion a huge problem.
2004-01-26 04:48:14 PM  

What is a rough number of what you think is our annual military budget?
2004-01-26 04:48:59 PM  
Whoa. So you think that you can quantify the value of a human life in monetary terms? I'm sorry. There is something seriously skewed with your worldview.

Of course you can quantify the value of human life in monetary terms. Insurance companies do it every day.
2004-01-26 04:51:06 PM  
And you would want to think like an insurance company, whose sole motive is profit, WHY? ? ?
2004-01-26 04:56:35 PM  
If the US goes to a compulsory voting system, I'm moving. Whoever suggested that is an idiot, and their kids are idiots too (maybe).

People who are FORCED to go vote who don't want to will not cast blank ballets. They'll just vote for idiots cause they're pissed off and Al Sharpton will become president.
2004-01-26 05:00:27 PM  
Nathan, farking huge. I didn't mean that the amount spent on military was small. I meant that the amount that should be spent on military is small. I see how I didn't explain that at all.
2004-01-26 05:03:08 PM  
The estimates insurance companies make are based on how much money a person has bought into a policy. If someone buys a $10,000 policy one day, and then buys a $100,000 policy the next, his worth as a person does not increase tenfold from one day to the next.

I can't believe, though, that I'm even justifying the very idea by arguing against it. When I said that each human life was as valuable as any other, I meant that each person has intrinsic value to this world simply by being human. We are all interconnected. Money has nothing to do with it. I feel sorry for you if you can't think in any terms other than monetary, because your life must be pretty empty-- and heaven forbid you ever become poor.

2004-01-26 05:06:08 PM  
And you would want to think like an insurance company, whose sole motive is profit, WHY? ? ?

Because all other ways of thinking are inferior and lead to sub-optimal decisions, on average.
2004-01-26 05:07:53 PM  

When people talk about bleeding heart and the like you are the type of people they mean. Just about everything you have said is justified by some emotional feel good reason, not necesarily based in logic. Just because someones sole motive is profit doesn't make them evil. It makes them a hell of a lot more trustworthy than people who have "selfless" motives. You never know what those people want, although it is usually power, which is a very dangerous thing. Think about it, would you rather trust something to a company or trust it to government? Well, you are probably the wrong person to ask, but companies and corporations are a lot more trustworthy than the government for two reasons. They have clear goals and targets and won't do things to keopordize that, and they can be held accountabel through the courts of law or the court of public opinion/consumer choice. The government is unnaccountable, poverful, abusive, and has no clear goals.
2004-01-26 05:10:53 PM  

Whoa. So you think that you can quantify the value of a human life in monetary terms? I'm sorry. There is something seriously skewed with your worldview.

That means $87 Billion on the war in Iraq was a good thing because saving human lives from Saddam is more important that $87 billion?
2004-01-26 05:13:06 PM  
and heaven forbid you ever become poor.

And why would we ever do that? See, that's just the thing. People like us for the most part can't become poor. At least not poor like people you talk about. We believe in the silly concept of personal responsibility. Following this concept prevents us from becoming poor at our own fault. If some huge event happens to render us poor against our will, once again our belief in personal responsibility would move us to work of any debt, or to start building our savings again. We are the movers and the creators that drive everything forward. Without people like us, people you call empty and petty, then mankind as a whole would be left far in the past still struggling with keeping alive.
2004-01-26 05:13:54 PM  
I feel sorry for you if you can't think in any terms other than monetary,

Two points.

One, you shouldn't feel anything for me and I reject your pity out of hand as meaningless.

Two, we are talking about taxation. Taxes, last I checked, are paid in money, so monetary terminology is completely appropriate when making a comment on tax levels. When the government starts taking tax payments in the form of concertos, then we can debate how many concertos I need to write per year to pay my taxes.

I meant that each person has intrinsic value to this world simply by being human.

OK. I set this value at nothing. That's my estimate of the intrinsic value of a person. Above and beyond that, I have my own private estimate of the person's value, based on who they are to me and what they do.
2004-01-26 05:16:31 PM  
I meant that each person has intrinsic value to this world simply by being human.

No, your value is determined by your actions.
2004-01-26 05:20:07 PM  
What is the value of a human in this world?
I would like to buy one, as my dishes are piling up and need "doing."
2004-01-26 05:23:48 PM  
Well, I can't remember how much our wedding cost but....owwww....yes Dear. Sorry - I have to go do the dishes.
2004-01-26 05:32:35 PM  

I'm going to have to disagree. I think spending what we do on military is already too much by multiples.

For perspective, currently, without adding in discretionary spending on Iraq or Afghanistan our military budget per year is roughly $500 Billion. Now considering 90% of our national debt is directly the result of military spending, if you add on it's portion of debt servicing we're adding another $200 Billion.

Whether it's 500 or 700, both numbers are way too high.

Think of it this way, nearly 10% of every dollar earned in the United States goes directly to our military. In overall taxes the military is in excess of 1/3rd of our total federal government spending.

Considering the next 9 countries in military spending only total $500 billion between them, then yes I say we are spending too much by at least $250 billion if not more.

And frankly, you could cut that money without a significant loss of personnel. Look at the numbers spent in R&D and purchasing outmoded military vehicles. (look at our helecopter fleet for perfect example)

For reference, the Federal obligation to welfare payments is in the neighborhood of $30 billion, with states pitching in another $30 billion (state matching program has some monster holes which allow for them to put some interesting costs on the matching funds line)
2004-01-26 05:37:04 PM  

What's your wife's number?
Does she sell, lease, or rent your services?
2004-01-26 05:38:59 PM  
...and I was told this argument was largely over!

fark_tard, good stuff.

GreyKitten, it's really pretty simple. Altruism doesn't exist. It hasn't been demonstrated to exist anywhere in the natural world, and there are good reasons to believe that people don't act altruistically. Now I happen to thing Ayn Rand is a dogmatist and I find Objectivism much too little-e egoic, but the positivism that undergirds her philosophy is the same positivism that engendered Socialism/Communism. It is the belief that a formal system can be constructed that can foresee everyone's interests better than the individuals can do if left to their own devices.

You see, this is what is so striking about the market: it is an emergent property of the actions of all the individuals of which it comprises. It is not created by fiat as with with Socialism. This is important, because the fact that you are complaining about someone not being able to afford $30 pills as opposed to complaining about how your sister was just eaten by a bear or how you have an abscessed tooth at age 23 that because of the lack of dentistry you will die from is a direct result of markets. Markets provide something better than some objective notion of value - they provide a dynamic, putative value. Furthermore, markets are the only wealth generators - governments are consumers, so you can never get rid of the market, or its back to the farking trees. In fact, in those countries where there has been attempts made to cease the free-market, free and black markets develop in their stead.

Look, I don't want to know what some "expert" thinks I should pay for something, I want to find the lowest bidder! This should be true as well with the ostensible "social net" you pine about. I should be able to decide to give my $ to a charity that will serve people in the way I think is most efficient, as opposed to being compelled to give it to a bureaucratic body that may or may not serve people in the way I think is most efficient.
2004-01-26 05:41:26 PM  
Never mind.
I think I can build my own human from the varous parts found on eBay
2004-01-26 05:41:45 PM  
img.fark.netView Full Size
2004-01-26 05:46:03 PM  
It's just as well Bukharin . The current exchange is sex and frankly, you're not my type.

If you do get that stuff from Ebay, don't start with one of the factory second skeletons. You'll probably get one with 2 right hands or something. That would be OK if you build a right handed person but if you build a left handed person, you're absolutely screwed.
2004-01-26 05:46:11 PM  
CatholicSamurai: "If women wanted to be truly "equal" with men, then women should be forced to join the Selective Service, therefor being eligable to be drafted in times of war. Women should have to pay the higher insurance rates like men do. Women should not get maternity leave. Women should expect that if they want to strike a man like a male would, that the man would cold-cock them just like a man would do to another man."

You already advocate forcing women to give birth by denying us access to abortion, so it's unfair to force us to do TWO things against our will.

You didn't indicate whether you meant auto or health insurance, but auto insurance companies offer women lower rates because we're safer drivers. They also offer lower rates to people who live in nicer neighborhoods. Perhaps you'd like to change that as well.

Unfair? No. Women earn less than men for the same work and pay more for clothing and services. Dry cleaners always charge more to clean women's clothes. Auto repair shops usually charge women much higher rates than men.

In college, I used to buy polo and button-down shirts in the boy's section at department stores because they were always 1/2 the cost of the same items in the women's section; the only difference was that the buttons were reversed.

Regarding maternity leave, you expect women to pop out kids & be back at work the next day?!?!? Let's make things REALLY fair, then. ANYONE who has to be hospitalized for ANY reason should be forced to go back to immediately after the operation, NO EXCEPTIONS. I don't care if you got into an accident and ended up in traction; if you don't report to work the next day, you're FIRED!

As for hitting men, most women do that in self-defense. Does this mean that you advocate men beating up women simply because they're physically stronger? How "pro-life" is that?!?!?

What is this "equality" thing feminists want? The Equal Rights Amendment sums it up nicely:

Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex.
Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.
Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.

That's it. No request for special privileges, just equality under the law.
2004-01-26 05:50:01 PM  

If two right hands is good... three must be better?
Many a dishes to be washed as soon as my paypal clears...
2004-01-26 05:51:39 PM  
"If women wanted to be truly "equal" with men, then women should be forced to join the Selective Service, therefor being eligable to be drafted in times of war....

Or remove men from the SS list.
I think the chics would dig that.
I think most men ages 18-25 would too.
2004-01-26 05:58:12 PM  
Canada is the same way. We have the liberals, now a moderate right-wing party under Martin, and the conservatives, an extreme right wing redneck/rich people party. All we have on the left is the New Democratic Party, but they're only polling at around 15%.
2004-01-26 06:55:55 PM  
Man, the linked to Z magazine? I'm surprised this thread isn't more brutal than it is.
2004-01-26 06:56:55 PM  
2004-01-26 06:59:16 PM  

There appears to be some confusion. I agree with you. The amount spent on military is far too large and it should be cut back.
2004-01-26 07:25:52 PM  
this is old news, we never had a left since as far back as i know of. maybe before the civil war, but after that there hasn't been one truely left sided president i can think of. just a bunch of people claiming to be so they can slip money under the table into programs like the pentagon system (that is basically a goverment hand out to the buisness class) its good to see that people are finally alowed to publish articles about this though. it's funny how common knowledge like this is hardly ever displayed in the media. call me a kook or whatever pidgeon holed name you'll have for me but it's all beyond obviouss how we get a royal screwing up the arse every tax season. and if you really think that all the money we put in to nasa goes to things like mars rovers and the like then i got a bridge to sell you, maybe even 5. just read anything by noam chomsky and it's completely obvious. people like him have been screaming there lungs out about these things and nothing gets done about it. and everything he says is backed up by tons of declasified documents and the likes. it's really quite interesting and i sugest you all look into it yourselves
2004-01-26 08:40:37 PM  
Caca de vaca. Caca, caca, caca, mas caca. Caca de boca. Boca, boca, boca con caca.

Este chupa.
2004-01-27 12:21:56 AM  
ListenToReason, Noam Chomsky is a habitual liar and obfuscator. Further, he is way outside of his expertise when pronouncing on geopolitics and economics. You should read Friedrich Hayek, or Ludwig von Mises, or Adam Smith, or really anyone to counter the mental blender Chomsky has put you through.

Here are some links to get you started:

Virginia Postrel on Friedrich Hayek
Here's an opportunity to learn about the deficit and Murray Rothbard
More on Hayek from the Mises Institute

It's a good start - check out this telling quote from Hayek from the above:

"A claim for equality of material position can be met only by a government with totalitarian powers."

Think on that for a bit dear Socialists.
2004-01-27 12:45:10 AM  
Agree with the article, do whatever you have to do..but come Nov 4th go out and vote Dem for the love of this country.
Displayed 50 of 608 comments

Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | » | Newest | Show all

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.