Money
So, when I get unfriended or blocked on facebook, I feel the urge to post what made this happen here. This, I don't think was too evil, but maybe it just came from too many conversations on the matter. I probably post here, just because I'll never see this argument again, not that others are preserved....
The conversation started with a picture of Penn Jillette (posted by BW) with this quote: "It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
The caption reads:
BW: Spoken well, with no illusions attached.
Conversation starts:
BV: RARELY do I agree with this man, but he is spot on with this.
CW: That is a very good point
Me: If the rich/corporations had no issue in giving, why would we need to bother to make it law? Most (all?) people are inherently greedy. And if they weren't, why would some be so upset by taxation? They would be willing to give way before it had to be done by "gunpoint" (or give way less than they'd like to support a reasonably functioning government). This logic here sounds appealing, but makes no sense.
If it weren't the case, why are people losing their retirement funds and benefits to CEOs who "need" larger bonuses after business went south in the recent recession? Instead of taking the hit, they choose to not pay all the bills, meaning taking money from those who likely need their pensions way more than the CEOs. It seems that many who have the power to be greedy, use it to their advantage and at the inconvenience of others who may really need the money. And in some cases this is in scenarios where people have legitimately earned it, but then have lost it to some loophole that corporations have bought for themselves so they don't have to spread their wealth.
Idealism is awesome, but it's not reality.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/story/2011-10-14/retirement-heist-book/50795990/1
RS: Isn't voting to have our government, which is us, help people needing education, clothing and shelter compassionate?
BW: Not if it keeps them from rising out of poverty. All this has done is perpetuate generations of the same. Again, I point To my youth... Mom & pop took no assistance & we did fine. I made the decision to rise up myself, and did.
Me: We just need the 14 million unemployed to go into the military so the government can "legitimately" support them. Brilliant plan.
Me: There's enough money for all of that, right?
BW: It's called over-taxation. That's the unfair system. It's me in this middle class getting screwed by all programs to support the collective. It's pure whitewash to focus on the uber-rich and ignore what is happening to the middle. Sorry, but the same CEO blah blah blah corporations stealing blah blah talking points under a magnet on the fridge need to be updated. Funny how every comment reverts back to them.
BW: I did a lot of who I am long before
The military, like moving out at 16 into my own place, going to school and holding down a 36 hour a week job at Providence Hospital. You fail, when it comes to my personal history... The military was to escape a psycho girlfriend who was going to make me repeat my family history. Nice try, though...
Me: So you're cool with what the CEOs did? Totally legal, taking people's hard-earned retirement based solely off a loophole that they lobbied for which allows such detestable things? If money makes the world go round, and those who have it use it for their personal gain WHILE fucking over everyone below them in a manner that is morally repugnant but legal because of loopholes that they have paid for to exist, you're perfectly cool with that and you also don't think that's the biggest of our problems? That money can make anything legal... ESPECIALLY WHEN those loopholes that the CEOS/rich pay for mean that the middle class (YOU) have to pay more in taxes and shoulder the burden....?
I just really don't know what you think is worse: Having someone who has millions/billions take away from those who are scraping to get by, or the government taking money that could be from EITHER those who are scraping to get by AND/OR the insanely rich, and giving it to those who might just need a quick pick-me-up. One benefits the rich and powerful, the other benefits everyone in the long run (by not having the undereducated/underprivileged continue on their path of being a drain on society).
And here. I stole this from an article:
"It's not about rich people having more money. It's about how they got the money. It's about how they take opportunity away from rest of us, for the sake of having more money. It's how they're willing to take risks that destroy the economy -- knowing full well what could and would happen -- putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they're John Galt, creating wealth for everyone."
Why again should we praise corporations that are in it for themselves while despising the government who's job it is to hopefully make sure that the iceberg doesn't get too bottom heavy as to drown us all?
BW: Tell KF to stop typing under your name...
[Then I tried to write this, but this is how I found out I was blocked.]
Me: KF has no idea I wrote this. She's been... incapacitated all day. If you must know, I stole that quote from this article. I only changed the quote to make it grammatically correct. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/guy_called_cookie_monster_offe.php
The conversation started with a picture of Penn Jillette (posted by BW) with this quote: "It’s amazing to me how many people think that voting to have the government give poor people money is compassion. Helping poor and suffering people is compassion. Voting for our government to use guns to give money to help poor and suffering people is immoral self-righteous bullying laziness.
People need to be fed, medicated, educated, clothed, and sheltered, and if we’re compassionate we’ll help them, but you get no moral credit for forcing other people to do what you think is right. There is great joy in helping people, but no joy in doing it at gunpoint."
The caption reads:
BW: Spoken well, with no illusions attached.
Conversation starts:
BV: RARELY do I agree with this man, but he is spot on with this.
CW: That is a very good point
Me: If the rich/corporations had no issue in giving, why would we need to bother to make it law? Most (all?) people are inherently greedy. And if they weren't, why would some be so upset by taxation? They would be willing to give way before it had to be done by "gunpoint" (or give way less than they'd like to support a reasonably functioning government). This logic here sounds appealing, but makes no sense.
If it weren't the case, why are people losing their retirement funds and benefits to CEOs who "need" larger bonuses after business went south in the recent recession? Instead of taking the hit, they choose to not pay all the bills, meaning taking money from those who likely need their pensions way more than the CEOs. It seems that many who have the power to be greedy, use it to their advantage and at the inconvenience of others who may really need the money. And in some cases this is in scenarios where people have legitimately earned it, but then have lost it to some loophole that corporations have bought for themselves so they don't have to spread their wealth.
Idealism is awesome, but it's not reality.
http://www.usatoday.com/money/books/reviews/story/2011-10-14/retirement-heist-book/50795990/1
RS: Isn't voting to have our government, which is us, help people needing education, clothing and shelter compassionate?
BW: Not if it keeps them from rising out of poverty. All this has done is perpetuate generations of the same. Again, I point To my youth... Mom & pop took no assistance & we did fine. I made the decision to rise up myself, and did.
Me: We just need the 14 million unemployed to go into the military so the government can "legitimately" support them. Brilliant plan.
Me: There's enough money for all of that, right?
BW: It's called over-taxation. That's the unfair system. It's me in this middle class getting screwed by all programs to support the collective. It's pure whitewash to focus on the uber-rich and ignore what is happening to the middle. Sorry, but the same CEO blah blah blah corporations stealing blah blah talking points under a magnet on the fridge need to be updated. Funny how every comment reverts back to them.
BW: I did a lot of who I am long before
The military, like moving out at 16 into my own place, going to school and holding down a 36 hour a week job at Providence Hospital. You fail, when it comes to my personal history... The military was to escape a psycho girlfriend who was going to make me repeat my family history. Nice try, though...
Me: So you're cool with what the CEOs did? Totally legal, taking people's hard-earned retirement based solely off a loophole that they lobbied for which allows such detestable things? If money makes the world go round, and those who have it use it for their personal gain WHILE fucking over everyone below them in a manner that is morally repugnant but legal because of loopholes that they have paid for to exist, you're perfectly cool with that and you also don't think that's the biggest of our problems? That money can make anything legal... ESPECIALLY WHEN those loopholes that the CEOS/rich pay for mean that the middle class (YOU) have to pay more in taxes and shoulder the burden....?
I just really don't know what you think is worse: Having someone who has millions/billions take away from those who are scraping to get by, or the government taking money that could be from EITHER those who are scraping to get by AND/OR the insanely rich, and giving it to those who might just need a quick pick-me-up. One benefits the rich and powerful, the other benefits everyone in the long run (by not having the undereducated/underprivileged continue on their path of being a drain on society).
And here. I stole this from an article:
"It's not about rich people having more money. It's about how they got the money. It's about how they take opportunity away from rest of us, for the sake of having more money. It's how they're willing to take risks that destroy the economy -- knowing full well what could and would happen -- putting millions out of work, while creating nothing of value, and all the while crowing that they're John Galt, creating wealth for everyone."
Why again should we praise corporations that are in it for themselves while despising the government who's job it is to hopefully make sure that the iceberg doesn't get too bottom heavy as to drown us all?
BW: Tell KF to stop typing under your name...
[Then I tried to write this, but this is how I found out I was blocked.]
Me: KF has no idea I wrote this. She's been... incapacitated all day. If you must know, I stole that quote from this article. I only changed the quote to make it grammatically correct. http://blogs.sfweekly.com/thesnitch/2011/10/guy_called_cookie_monster_offe.php
