Conquer Club

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:49 pm**

hecter wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:Sorry, but you are wrong. I would love to help as many people as I can learn the skills that I have to offer. I hunt, I am a professional IT manager, I have basic mechanical and carpentry skills. If you have a question, ask and I will give my advice. If you need help doing some work, ask and if I can I will help. But this whole idea about giving people a handout is bull shit.

Look what is happening in corporate AmeriKa. Chrysler is on the verge of collapse, but with their hand out, they are going to pilfer the Federal coffers to keep their out dated business practices operating. 10 years ago they should have become more fuel efficient. They still won't do it. Let them go under, I say.

And your assertion that the government is somehow responsible to keep people happy is strictly retarded. The government is obligated to allow you to pursue happiness, but not to provide it.

I would much rather be an ass hole that completely stupid as you seem to be.

Of course the government has to keep people happy! If they don't then in a democratic society they'll get voted out for somebody who will keep them happy (and in an authoritarian hopefully there will be a revolution). It's basic politics. And you're right about Chrysler. f*ck them, they ran their practice poorly and now they're failing, just like they should. But that's the nature of business. But that doesn't really mean that people are suffering. Of course, people will lose jobs, but they'll be able to find better ones and, if they are in dire need, the government can and should step in with social services to help them.

Also, I don't think you have any idea about what I'm saying. The government shouldn't be giving out "handouts", it's about giving people help so they can be productive members of society. It's not like "unconditional welfare for everybody making below 30 grand a year!", it's services - whether it be welfare or a free nightschool course on how to properly write a resume (it's not like welfare is the only fucking social service on the planet) - for those that want and need it. If somebody decides to squander their welfare money, despite attempts to teach them how to manage money, then take it away from them. If people aren't going to use your help, then don't give it to them. Let them live in their shit hole picking cigarette butts off the ground in an attempt to get a whole cigarette, or hoping to scrounge up enough change to make another bet on the horses. But, I've said it once and I'll say it again, why punish everybody because of the few that you'll never reach?

Your telling us about the nature of business and how its make it or break it but then you say everyone deserves the same so give them all welfare. Contradiction. Second you just said free handouts are F*cked up but then you say give them out to the poor to help them out. Stick to one side of a argument please. Also maybe spend a few more hours searching for the right information and looking at both sides of the story. Then if you feel ready.... DON'T HURT YOURSELF its ok if you cant do this yet. Try and come up with a sentence that you think about before you write and that makes sense. Its ok if it doesnt work we'll all tease you anyway.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:53 pm**

See, there's a big difference between the cooperate politics and the social politics. Giving money to businesses is way different then giving money to citizens. Second, I never contradicted myself. I said help people, don't give them unconditional handouts.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:55 pm**

welfare is handouts and its not helping them. Its creating a dependency upon the government. If anything the money that goes to welfare should go to building training facilities to help the poor get a job or training for a better job.

Look at you statement I can count at least two contradictions. :lol:

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:59 pm**

This whole conversation is silly. Capitalism will never go away. Neither will communism/socialism/marxism.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 10:59 pm**

Japs wrote:welfare is handouts and its not helping them. Its creating a dependency upon the government. If anything the money that goes to welfare should go to building training facilities to help the poor get a job or training for a better job.

Look at you statement I can count at least two contradictions.

Welfare is helping people. If you have a single mother trying to juggle work, school and a kid, welfare helps a lot. Without welfare, people can't train for a better job because they have to work as they'd have no money (and no money means no food or shelter, in case you can't grasp that either).

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:05 pm**

What I cant grasp is your stupidity. Ill draw it out.

Training = Better Job
Better Job = More Money
More Money = More food/shelter for family

Welfare = Check
Check = government dependency
Government dependency = not wanting to get a better job so i still get a welfare check

Those that work for it shall get what they deserve.
"You dont work You dont Eat." Cpt. John Smith

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:16 pm**

Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =

First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:19 pm**

Yes, that really is true. The problem with welfare now... isn't really that it exists. It just needs more controls, limits than it does currently.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:20 pm**

MergeSubmersible wrote:Yes, that really is true. The problem with welfare now... isn't really that it exists. It just needs more controls, limits than it does currently.

Ya. Current system, it sucks balls. We clearly need a new one.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:24 pm**

hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

How can any of this make sense to you? If your on welfare and lifes already paid for you and your not working why do i want to work for my food? Im getting it free!!! So there will always be welfare if we go with your theory.

and you last scenario lost us all after Government intervention. Its just worded wierd.

going to bed now ill reply to your next one later.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:26 pm**

hecter wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:Sorry, but you are wrong. I would love to help as many people as I can learn the skills that I have to offer. I hunt, I am a professional IT manager, I have basic mechanical and carpentry skills. If you have a question, ask and I will give my advice. If you need help doing some work, ask and if I can I will help. But this whole idea about giving people a handout is bull shit.

Look what is happening in corporate AmeriKa. Chrysler is on the verge of collapse, but with their hand out, they are going to pilfer the Federal coffers to keep their out dated business practices operating. 10 years ago they should have become more fuel efficient. They still won't do it. Let them go under, I say.

And your assertion that the government is somehow responsible to keep people happy is strictly retarded. The government is obligated to allow you to pursue happiness, but not to provide it.

I would much rather be an ass hole that completely stupid as you seem to be.

Of course the government has to keep people happy! If they don't then in a democratic society they'll get voted out for somebody who will keep them happy (and in an authoritarian hopefully there will be a revolution). It's basic politics. And you're right about Chrysler. f*ck them, they ran their practice poorly and now they're failing, just like they should. But that's the nature of business. But that doesn't really mean that people are suffering. Of course, people will lose jobs, but they'll be able to find better ones and, if they are in dire need, the government can and should step in with social services to help them.

Also, I don't think you have any idea about what I'm saying. The government shouldn't be giving out "handouts", it's about giving people help so they can be productive members of society. It's not like "unconditional welfare for everybody making below 30 grand a year!", it's services - whether it be welfare or a free nightschool course on how to properly write a resume (it's not like welfare is the only fucking social service on the planet) - for those that want and need it. If somebody decides to squander their welfare money, despite attempts to teach them how to manage money, then take it away from them. If people aren't going to use your help, then don't give it to them. Let them live in their shit hole picking cigarette butts off the ground in an attempt to get a whole cigarette, or hoping to scrounge up enough change to make another bet on the horses. But, I've said it once and I'll say it again, why punish everybody because of the few that you'll never reach?

Meh, its pointless. f*ck socialism. f*ck it right in the ass. It is a one way street to a dead end society. It is my understanding of the situation that for the most part, folks are more likely to donate to the charities of their choosing than they are to want to pay taxes. It is not better to have a corrupt federal government uphold inefficient businesses in an attempt to keep people employed, especially when those people are unionized and are so bent on securing annual raises and benefits that, like parasites, they will eventually kill their host. The system is bad now. Jack up taxes and continue to bloat the government's corporate welfare policy and we are looking square in the face of the Greater Depression. Someone asked if I was all about Gloom and Doom. In a way, I guess I am.

Yeah, f*ck socialism. Its unnatural. we, as a species, were born in the jungle to hunt and keep what we kill. We compete. When we are hungrier, we should be more aggressive. It is how we thrive. If we are hungrier and it only serves for a compassionate handout, it is a disservice to us. you are supposed to make your own way.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:28 pm**

Finally a person who agrees.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:30 pm**

Japs wrote:
hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

How can any of this make sense to you? If your on welfare and lifes already paid for you and your not working why do i want to work for my food? Im getting it free!!! So there will always be welfare if we go with your theory.

and you last scenario lost us all after Government intervention. Its just worded wierd.

going to bed now ill reply to your next one later.

You aren't understanding what Hecter's proposing; I think this might actually be something you'd agree with (more than the current system anyway). He's saying: if you're getting welfare, and not using it to work, then the government stops giving you welfare. Therefore, it's just an emergency leg-up, that will go away if you don't use it how it's intended. Most people getting welfare now, would lose it. But it would still be offered to people who need it to attend training courses, in order to support themselves... if they squander it, the checks go away.

He's also proposing that on the first offense, you'd have a mandated money management training session--if you ignore that, then you get your welfare taken away. You would like this idea better than the current unconditional system, right?

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:32 pm**

I did misunderstand it. It is better than the present system but I dont know how the government would see if your spending to help yourself get training or a job.

Still I dont think welfare should be around as it is not going to help anyone.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:34 pm**

Japs wrote:What I cant grasp is your stupidity. Ill draw it out.

Training = Better Job
Better Job = More Money
More Money = More food/shelter for family

Welfare = Check
Check = government dependency
Government dependency = not wanting to get a better job so i still get a welfare check

Those that work for it shall get what they deserve.
"You dont work You dont Eat." Cpt. John Smith

When a company gets a hand out to get it started .. its "development"

When people do ... its "welfare"

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:35 pm**

hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

Here is a better one for you:

Work 9-5 = money

Class three days a week from 7-10 = training

training = Degree = more money.

You have to do what you can. We work so that we can live and we don't live outside of our means. If that means you live in a roach infested shit hole for now, guess what... You do that for a while as you KEEP YOUR EYES OPEN for opportunity. If you have kids, they get older and get into school, but stop having kids! Kids go to school, you can recoil and get a better job.

There are plenty of places to get counseling on this kind of stuff, just fucking ask someone till you hear something that makes sense to you. There is no shortage of opinion.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2008 11:38 pm**

black elk speaks wrote:
hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

Here is a better one for you:

Work 9-5 = money

Class three days a week from 7-10 = training

training = Degree = more money.[/quote]
You've never heard of people who have to work two, three (four?) jobs just to support themselves and their family? I really mean it when I say that some people don't have time for training. A little welfare would allow them to quit a job or two, attend a class, show the proof of the class to the welfare office so that they don't get welfare taken away, then go back to earning more money, and then get off welfare. If we make it so that welfare is restricted, then it's temporary either way: either you eventually don't need it anymore, or you're not using it right and you get it taken away.

And all this can be funded by the "you don't need a whole ton of money you didn't earn; just because your parents were hard workers doesn't mean you get a freebie" tax (aka the inheritance tax).

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 12:54 am**

Ditocoaf wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:
hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

Here is a better one for you:

Work 9-5 = money

Class three days a week from 7-10 = training

training = Degree = more money.

You've never heard of people who have to work two, three (four?) jobs just to support themselves and their family? I really mean it when I say that some people don't have time for training. A little welfare would allow them to quit a job or two, attend a class, show the proof of the class to the welfare office so that they don't get welfare taken away, then go back to earning more money, and then get off welfare. If we make it so that welfare is restricted, then it's temporary either way: either you eventually don't need it anymore, or you're not using it right and you get it taken away.

And all this can be funded by the "you don't need a whole ton of money you didn't earn; just because your parents were hard workers doesn't mean you get a freebie" tax (aka the inheritance tax).

[/quote]

Yeah, f*ck that. Why are people working three and four jobs? Had a bunch of kids and they need to make a lot of money? They want to keep the cable on? Sorry. I propose a "live within your means" option, which would suggest that you have to get rid of the stuff that you don't need if you are going to shed a job so that you can take the time to get better training.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:05 am**

black elk speaks wrote:
Ditocoaf wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:
hecter wrote:Did you even read any of my posts? Jesus Christ man...

Training = Time not spent working
Time not spent working = Less/No money
Less/No money = Less/No food or shelter
Less/No food or shelter = Malnutrition, disease, death, ect.

Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & food
Less time spent working & food = Time spent training for better job
Better job = More money
More money = No more welfare

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIO
Welfare = Money
Money = Less time spent working & squandering government money
Less time spent working & squandering government money = Government intervention
Government intervention =
First Offence: Forced money management training session.
Second Offence: No more welfare

Here is a better one for you:

Work 9-5 = money

Class three days a week from 7-10 = training

training = Degree = more money.

You've never heard of people who have to work two, three (four?) jobs just to support themselves and their family? I really mean it when I say that some people don't have time for training. A little welfare would allow them to quit a job or two, attend a class, show the proof of the class to the welfare office so that they don't get welfare taken away, then go back to earning more money, and then get off welfare. If we make it so that welfare is restricted, then it's temporary either way: either you eventually don't need it anymore, or you're not using it right and you get it taken away.

And all this can be funded by the "you don't need a whole ton of money you didn't earn; just because your parents were hard workers doesn't mean you get a freebie" tax (aka the inheritance tax).

Yeah, f*ck that. Why are people working three and four jobs? Had a bunch of kids and they need to make a lot of money? They want to keep the cable on? Sorry. I propose a "live within your means" option, which would suggest that you have to get rid of the stuff that you don't need if you are going to shed a job so that you can take the time to get better training.[/quote]

Many of them already have gotten rid of everything they realistically can. Unless you suggest they drop below first world living standards, it isn't that easy.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:09 am**

Its funny watching you people making excuses for goddamn socialism. The world has suffering in it. its up to you to avoid it.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:17 am**

black elk speaks wrote:Its funny watching you people making excuses for goddamn socialism. The world has suffering in it. its up to you to avoid it.

its also funny that you somehow assume you are better than the forty million or so that qualify in the working poor and down ranges of the stratification of our country.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:21 am**

Not really if youve read any of this discussion hes not better he just has better views just like me.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:23 am**

got tonkaed wrote:
black elk speaks wrote:Its funny watching you people making excuses for goddamn socialism. The world has suffering in it. its up to you to avoid it.

its also funny that you somehow assume you are better than the forty million or so that qualify in the working poor and down ranges of the stratification of our country.

I guess that when it comes to who is spending the money that I earn, You are correct, I think that I am better qualified to spend it.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:24 am**

Japs wrote:Not really if youve read any of this discussion hes not better he just has better views just like me.

Id be willing to wager that there are a reasonable number of people who would disagree. Anytime BES or really most others want to seriously argue why we should get away from any welfare state, id be happy to discuss it with them. The problem is its usually not something that can be done without arguing emotively from the other side.

Also BES: I like freeriding the much as the next guy, but that doesnt make it right.

Posted: **Sat Nov 08, 2008 1:27 am**

Well I doubt those other people that disagree with him are non partisan so it would really be a biased kind of thing. Please read a few pages before you add your two cents. Need at least a dollar to buy in here.

Conquer Club

The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism

Re: The fundamental flaw in capitalism