Posted by bistiza on 11/8/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Nearly everyone in the U.S. thinks plenty is done to help others and not enough is done to help themselves.

Incorrect.  A lot of people aren't looking for help.  They just don't want to be hindered. 

Posted by bistiza on 11/8/2012 11:08:00 AM (view original):
Nearly everyone in the U.S. thinks plenty is done to help others and not enough is done to help themselves.

That's funny.

The guy who thinks that nobody has the right to judge anybody else feels that he, somehow, can speak for how "nearly everyone in the U.S" thinks.

A lot of people aren't looking for help.  They just don't want to be hindered.

You can call it not being "hindered" if you'd like, but those people are looking for ways to help themselves, the same as anyone else.

The guy who thinks that nobody has the right to judge anybody else feels that he, somehow, can speak for how "nearly everyone in the U.S" thinks.

I think you would be hard pressed to find many people who aren't trying to help themselves and asking for others to take actions that will help them. That's the observation I'm making here. It's not a judgment on anyone or any specific group - in fact, I think it cuts across all demographics.

"help themselves" and "looking for help" are two entirely different things.    If you don't know that, or can't figure it out, I'll pay for your vasectomy so you can't breed your dumbassery into future generations.

Bistiza is 100% right on this one.  A few philosophers started predicting in the 1600s and early 1700s that a true Republic would never work because everyone would want the government to do more for them for less tax money, and they weren't wrong...

It is 100% true that the poor think that the government should increase programs that help support them, and that they shouldn't have to pay taxes.

It is 100% true that the wealthy think they shouldn't have to pay taxes to a government that subsidizes the poor as much as it does now.

It is 100% true that the middle class want more government assistance, could generally name a number of Federal programs such as road maintenance and National Park conservation and Federal Contributions into Social Security they would like to see bolstered AND to pay less taxes.

Obviously none of those things are entirely universal.  Some wealthy people are happy to pay taxes and support the poorer elements of society, although even those might prefer to do it through charitable donations rather than taxation and inefficient government-administered programs.  Some poor people aren't looking for handouts.  But if you polled social classes, these general trends would be extremely pronounced.  Everybody wants some combination of getting more from the government while giving it less.  This is the inherent problem with a democratic system.  People always want more from the government than they put into it, and when the government needs to be responsive to the people in order for individual members to keep their jobs the government as a whole tends to be more responsive to sometimes irresponsible or uneducated public demands.  That's when we run massive deficits.  Say what you want about totalitarian governments (and I'm not suggesting we get one), if they want to raise taxes they damn well do it.  If some poor people starve that's just an unfortunate side effect.

Frankly, strict term limits on all elected positions could help tremendously with managing the debt in the long term.  But then it means you have constant "feeling-out" periods where new officials don't really know what they need to be doing, and it's possible less gets done in general.  It's just a matter of picking the lesser of two evils, and that really isn't abundantly clear to me.

I stopped here "Bistiza is 100% right on this one" because I'm sure that's wrong.

"help themselves" and "looking for help" are two entirely different things. 

"help themselves" and "looking for help" are two entirely different things.  

They both amount to the same selfish desires that I loathe, so on that score it makes no difference. The only difference is some people feel justified because they believe they are helping themselves, but they're no better than those looking for help.

Everybody wants some combination of getting more from the government while giving it less.

+1, totally agree 100 percent, thumbs up, etc.

That's retarded.    Doing for yourself(and your family) should be applauded not despised.  And, yes, I'm telling you how you should feel.   Because, otherwise, you're retarded. 

That's one of your stupidest blanket statements yet.  Bank robbery is typically done in the name of doing well for some people and their families.  Should that be applauded?  Should it be applauded when one royal family waged war on another, sacrificing huge percentages of their peasant populations?  Should it be applauded when Bernie Madoff does extremely well for himself and his family by ransacking the life savings of countless people, poor, middle class, and even some wealthy?  What about the people that own and operate sweatshops?

The point is, it's great to applaud people for doing well for themselves if they do it with no collateral damage.  Or even some reasonable minimum, arguably.  Applaud the guy who scrapes together enough support to open his own restaurant and turns it into a huge success.  That's great.  Maybe even a guy like Bill Gates, who just happened to be incredibly smart and develop some software that really did a lot to help the rest of the people in the world.  But you have to be careful applauding guys who make a fortune off sweatshop labor.  I'm not a big fan of labor unions that require employers to pay factory workers an average of $40-$50 an hour for unskilled manual labor, but there's a happy medium somewhere where you're still treating employees reasonably and supporting society and not taking advantage of it.  You can't just say "well, I'm doing something good for myself, that's a good thing!" as you rob your neighbors at gunpoint.

That's retarded.    Doing for yourself(and your family) should be applauded not despised.  And, yes, I'm telling you how you should feel.   Because, otherwise, you're retarded.

You've just hit the ultimate package of foolish arguments by combining childish insults with attempts to tell others how they should feel. Congratulations on being the among the most foolish people who ever tried to argue anything.

The point is, it's great to applaud people for doing well for themselves if they do it with no collateral damage. You can't just say "well, I'm doing something good for myself, that's a good thing!" as you rob your neighbors at gunpoint.

I agree 100 percent again. The selfish motivations need to stop at some point - I'm merely advocating that point should be far sooner than usually happens.

Uh, bank robbery is illegal.   Did I really have to say "Within the limits of the law and common decency?"

Are you as ******* retarded as bis?    And, yeah, I stopped on sentence #2.   Because, until proven otherwise, you are as ******* retarded as bis.

Also, FWIW, I blocked biz at 9:04 because I can't read any more, even in single sentence form, of his dumbassery. 

You're the only retarded one here.  Bistiza is ridiculously idealistic and can't work within real-world parameters.  You're just stupid.

Tell me what to think of the McDonald's franchise owner who does the best he can for himself and his family by paying his workers a wage at which they can barely afford car insurance while pocketing half a million a year in profits.  Obviously some of the examples I provided are extreme, but there are perfectly legal ways to do well for yourself and your family by abusing other people.  Hell, outsourcing your factory to China and paying people $2 an hour or less for 10 or 12 hour work days is legal.  Does that make it right?  Do you applaud the guy that outsources jobs to make bigger profits?

I didn't read your examples beyond bank robbery..  I can only stomach so much dumbassery but I'm giving you a chance with this post.

I'm obviously pro-business.  No one is forced to work at McDonald's or for $2 an hour.   That's what the market is.   The business owner who is employing people took all the risk.   He is now providing jobs and reaping the rewards.   If he's underpaying people for their relative worth, the employees will move on to more appropriate jobs. It's called "free enterprise".   Charge as much as possible and pay as little as possible.   The customer and employee will draw the lines. 

The bottom line is that a business opens to make money.   It's not non-profit.   It is the individual's job to get paid as much as he feels he's worth.   If business A won't pay him, go to business B.   If business B won't do it, go to business C.  If business C-Z won't do it, maybe the individual should re-evaluate his worth.    As a business owner, it's no my job to make sure you can afford car insurance.  That's your responsibility.