Quote :

"I dont understand you Grumpy, I give you real examples and you choose to ignore them."

Again, based on what you have said about yourself on this site you have at least some college education, perhaps even a medical degree. Regardless, you should know why "anecdotal evidence" is largely worthless. If you don't, then I weep for the education system not because it takes in poor kids, but because it has failed you so colossally in learning how to talk without sounding like a god damned retard.

Quote :

"Your lack of knowledge on entitlments is pretty evident."

I'm aware that entitlement spending currently represents the majority of our budget. Anyone with a bare minimum of political literacy could take an American public policy class and tell you that. I'm also aware that the same can be said -- indeed, to a far larger extent -- of Sweden, Canada, and other modern, westernized nations. Incidentally, these have far superior rankings in virtually every standard by which modern nations are judged (poverty rate, infant mortality, life expectancy, literacy, etc, etc) than we do. I can point to concrete fucking examples of other countries with much higher tax burdens than you, the poor, oppressed medical professional currently endure here, doing much better than we are.

Does that mean their system is the best? I don't particularly think so. But it does make you like something of an ass for bitching about your god damned taxes paying to send kids to school and keep them from dying of motherfucking polio.

Quote :

"Ok, since you dont see how getting more money per kids is a reward, let me simplify it for you."

Listen to me, you myopic shit. I'm assuming you understand the term "myopic," since it has its roots in optometry, which presumably you grasp on at least some level.

If extra provisions for poor people with children are to be called "rewards," they must have a net benefit for the person receiving them. That is, the money they gain has to exceed the extra cost of another child. Under the current system, this is not generally true of an individual providing a reasonable and legal amount of care for their child.

Now, you might make the statement that a number of people receiving welfare do not, in fact, spend their extra income on their extra children. Ergo those children will be cared for beneath the reasonable and legal amount of care. Therfore they are guilty of crimes which should be better enforced with more impressive punishments. That much I'll agree to.

Quote :

"Lets say there are two people in the US. Grumpy and DocB. DocB works 40hrs a week and makes a 100 bucks a week. Grumpy chooses not to work and makes 0 a week. Now grumpy has a kid, now we send grumpy 20 bucks a week. Now Doc takes home 80. That money has to come from somewhere, correct? Now you have two kids, so you get 40 and I make 60."

This is such an inane comparison it is honestly making my head hurt, and this several hours before my hangover will set in and start the head-hurting process all over again. According to this lovely explanation, if I have five kids you will make $0. Please point out any example, even one of your anecdotes, that results in a working citizen making $0 because of someone else's babies.

Quote :

"Its why many people choose to live together and have kids rather than be married."

I've said once, and I'll say again,

Quote :

"I'm pretty damn sure that if it's not the government's job to pay to keep kids to starve it's damn sure not the government's job to pay people to get married."

Quote :

"it basically boils down to the chemicals we pump into cows to not only fatten them up quicker, but so they will produce more milk so we can milk them more often. The same, other than the milking, can be said with turkeys, chickens, etc.."

I still don't understand your point. Are you saying that food production technology has increased at a rate commensurate (or more than commensurate) than population growth? Because I'll agree with you. It's part of the advantage of not being a bunch of fucking cave men. The early ancestors of corn produced jack-all shit as far as nutrients compared to the corn we were growing 200 years ago, too. We get better at things. It happens.

Quote :

"Communism didn't work, it failed in the early 90s"

I was -- and here's a shock -- speaking in the context of what we were discussing, namely entitlement programs. If you're going to have entitlements, it doesn't seem to make much sense to skew them in favor of those who need them less.

4/24/2008 6:44:14 AM

Quote :

"As I said, it wouldn't be like the economic systems you're familiar with. If went to get a hamburger from the store, they'd record the amount of energy required to produce the hamburger."

Let us pretent you are right. Basic accounting fails at this point. Say we have two products which consume the same energy to produce yet one requires far more labor to make, say textiles versus plastic chairs. If the state is charging the same for both products, then the state is losing credits on the textiles because it is employing lots of people and only getting paid by consumers for the energy used in production. Similarly, there is no mechanism to regulate the demand for labor. If consumers opt to consume lots of plastic chairs and very little textiles then you will have unemployment as energy is diverted towards plastic chair production but none of the textile labor is needed for production. On the otherhand, if consumers opt to consume lots of textiles then shortages will quickly develop, as the government will have no way to shy people away from textiles consumption, since the price is fixed, and diverting more energy to the production of textiles would be useless since no more labor is available. Men with guns is the only known fix to the problem of consumer soverignty.

Quote :

"Energy usage isn't a matter of opinion. You simply measure it. A properly done car-sharing system would undoubtedly save energy. We wouldn't have to produce nearly as many vehicles, conserving vast resources. The only question is whether society could pull it off successfully."

But resources are free in technocracy; the economy prices everything in energy credits. So, that one way of doing things consumes vast non-energy resources but saves just a little bit of energy would be preferred, although in reality such behavior would be silly, your silly system makes it a logical outcome.

So, like I keep saying and you fail to grasp, technicracy is first an irrational system in that it does not contain a mechanism for utilized localized knowledge, it does not contain a mechanism for containing consumer soverignty, and it is totalitarian when it comes to allocating resources.

4/24/2008 9:30:24 AM

Quote :

"If extra provisions for poor people with children are to be called "rewards," they must have a net benefit for the person receiving them."

I'd say the bump in your welfare check; when you do not work anyway is clearly a reward for LaTika to have more children.

4/24/2008 10:16:16 AM

Thank you HUR. When YOU work and have to pay for YOUR kids. Yet take home less of YOUR money to pay for someone who chooses not to work and have kids... Id say the worker is being penalized and the nonworker is being rewarded.

Yes grumpy, Im totally against vaccines for kids. Thats exactly what I said. Do I think we can provide BASIC healthcare for all citizens? yes. Does that basic healthcare include acne meds, erection meds, hairpills? Fuck NO.

"net benefit" LOL. Ok, so before the kid... 0 money.. After the kid, money, food stamps, housing. Have more.. more "benefits". Got it?

4/24/2008 10:30:28 AM

I was at food lion the other day and someone was buying all her groceries using her EBT card. Glad i could help through my federal taxes to buy her food so that she would have enough money to also fill her cart with 40's of miller high life and buy a carton of newports.

4/24/2008 10:44:13 AM

Quote :

"I was at food lion the other day and someone was buying all her groceries using her EBT card. Glad i could help through my federal taxes to buy her food so that she would have enough money to also fill her cart with 40's of miller high life and buy a carton of newports."

The funny shit is you didn't say a damn word, what for all of your internet bad-boy conservative ranting. You just watched her buy it as impotent rage slowly built within you.

You glared at her cart hatefully. You resolved that you wouldn't take it today, oh no. You'd post on the Wolf Web about it.

4/24/2008 1:09:29 PM

Quote :

""net benefit" LOL. Ok, so before the kid... 0 money.. After the kid, money, food stamps, housing. Have more.. more "benefits". Got it?"

Do you seriously not understand the point he's making?

Before the kid... 0 money. After the kid, X money. Kid costs Y money, where X < Y.

After the kid ... X - Y money. In case you need me to draw the inference for you, X - Y < 0.

How the fuck do you consider this a reward is the question.

4/24/2008 1:11:47 PM

I see the point. MY point is you have NO income as is. After you have a kid, you are eligible for services that you werent before. This penalizes the taxpayer/worker and rewards the irresponsible. How the fuck do you consider it any different?

Are they getting money they didnt earn?

Just because someone makes an irresponsible decision to have a kid they cant afford..then MAKE more money by having more bad decisions.. Im supposed to feel good about paying my taxes, when now im expected to take home less of my salary and pay for my own? Who is getting the shaft in this scenerio?

4/24/2008 1:32:12 PM

On Technocracy:

I am not sure exactly what you mean sense the conversation seems to revolve heavily around energy credits.

I always thought of technocracy as being a type philospher-king system where rulers were selected by the existing technocrat structure.


Years ago I would have said it would never work because once a bad seed gets started there is no check on the system. Thus, if there is a small probablity of a bad seed in any year, then as time goes to infinity the probability of unchecked badness goes to one.


However, thus far China seems to be having a lot of success with it. Now of course the curreny government is fairly young as far as human history goes but it seems to be doing well. In many ways because the government seems to have a deeply pragmatic viewpoint. A combination i"f ain't broke don't fix it" and slow change if it is broken.

4/24/2008 1:33:31 PM

I'd say the child of the irresponsible poor person you're positing is the loser in this scenario. ^^

If you say otherwise, you're a goddamned monster.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 1:35 PM. Reason : .]

4/24/2008 1:35:02 PM

^ Ill agree to that. However, how do you prevent it?

Ever seen the Feral cat poster at the vet? Thats what happens when we keep doing everything for the child... the child grows up and keeps the cycle going. And you have to keep expanding hte programs and taxing workers.

If you prevent or only pay for one... then you could try to break the cycle. To just keep the status quo isnt an option..imo

4/24/2008 1:39:00 PM

Quote :

"^ Ill agree to that. However, how do you prevent it? "

Not by leaving the kids worse off. I'll guarantee that.

You act as if we put a cap at one kid then poor people will suddenly stop having children, as if the only reason they do now is because they're "encouraged to" by the system. Do you honestly think poor people, who are typically less educated, are going to suddenly start becoming responsible with their sexual habits to the point where they can limit the children they have to 1? What happens when they get pregnant again? Do we hang out the second kid to dry?

4/24/2008 1:41:31 PM

Luis, Ive long said that you make people come pick up thier checks and take BC while on the system. If you cannot afford to feed or house yourself, you dont need kids. Once you depend on someone else, you lose some personal freedoms.

Believe it or not, the human race survived before welfare. Shocking isnt it.

4/24/2008 1:47:23 PM

The human race survived but a lot of people in awful circumstances did not. Are you saying we should live as we did hundreds of years ago, where we allowed poor folks to rot in the streets? Really?

How do you enforce that they take birth control? You know it's not 100% effective, right? If they get pregnant, how do you determine that the BC didn't work or that they weren't taking it correctly?

Even then, what happens when the 2nd kid arrives? Who helps provide for the 2nd kid? Do we let the kid starve? The human race survived when we let the children of the poor starve (in fact this happens many places in the world and "the human race survives") -- does that mean it's right to let a child placed in a situation where it literally has NO control over its circumstances suffer?

4/24/2008 1:49:45 PM

Quote :

"Say we have two products which consume the same energy to produce yet one requires far more labor to make, say textiles versus plastic chairs."

Like other machines, humans use energy. We can measure all of these things. Technocracy seeks to minimize labor in ways the price system could only dream of. You keep thinking in terms of scarcity, Snark. If there's not enough to go around, technocracy will falter. The system is designed to distribute abundance. There wouldn't be a shortage of textiles or any other basic good. We can produce plenty. Without hoarding, a person can only consume so much.

Quote :

"So, like I keep saying and you fail to grasp, technicracy is first an irrational system in that it does not contain a mechanism for utilized localized knowledge, it does not contain a mechanism for containing consumer soverignty, and it is totalitarian when it comes to allocating resources."

What are you talking about? Unlike capitalism, technocracy is scientific. We'd cooperate to provide for all. Consumers would have considerable freedom to use energy credits. The technocrats would determine the most efficient to provide goods and services.

Quote :

"I always thought of technocracy as being a type philospher-king system where rulers were selected by the existing technocrat structure."

That's one definition of the term. I mean the social movement. You can find some similarities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_movement

4/24/2008 2:00:10 PM

Luis, when they come pick up thier check.. they have to take thier BC before they get it. Ill take my chances with 99% over 0% every time. How about you?

4/24/2008 2:05:51 PM

Quote :

"If there's not enough to go around, technocracy will falter. The system is designed to distribute abundance. There wouldn't be a shortage of textiles or any other basic good. We can produce plenty. Without hoarding, a person can only consume so much."

There you go, technocracy will falter and collapse, lots of people will die, and other systems will take its place.

Quote :

"What are you talking about? Unlike capitalism, technocracy is scientific. We'd cooperate to provide for all. Consumers would have considerable freedom to use energy credits. The technocrats would determine the most efficient to provide goods and services."

I don't think you are understanding my point. These two sentences: "Consumers would have considerable freedom to use energy credits" and "technocrats would determine the most efficient to provide goods and services" are mutually exclusive and cannot both be true. If consumers have freedom then the technocrats are at their mercy and will quickly run out of non-priced inputs, be it land, labor, or capital attempting to fullfill their obligations. As such, they will fail, shortages will develop, and some will die.

4/24/2008 2:44:53 PM

Quote :

"I'd say the bump in your welfare check; when you do not work anyway is clearly a reward for LaTika to have more children."

Quote :

""net benefit" LOL. Ok, so before the kid... 0 money.. After the kid, money, food stamps, housing. Have more.. more "benefits"."

I'm going to walk through this one more time using simple mathematical expressions.

Our impoverished mom receives $100 in benefits. She has a kid, which results in her getting an extra $50. Now she gets $150. Having and maintaining that kid costs $60. Meaning that before the kid the mother had a net benefit of $100, and now she has a net benefit of $90.

Until one of you can demonstrate to me that the increase in benefits from having a child is greater than the increased costs of having a child, you have not demonstrated any reward whatsoever.

Now -- and I will say this again -- no doubt there will be those parents who do not apply their extra benefits to their children. This is wrong on a number of levels, but fortunately neglect is already illegal and frankly I'm going to consider it a rather more serious problem than the mis-allocation of part of your taxes.

Quote :

"Yes grumpy, Im totally against vaccines for kids. Thats exactly what I said."

90% of what you do on this website is bitch about entitlements. I can't recall ever having seen you support a single one, and I'm gonna have to go ahead and say that free or subsidized vaccines qualify. I haven't gotten the impression that you're against vaccines for kids, I've gotten the impression that you're against paying for vaccines for kids.

But fine, as you will. Some medical care good. Other medical care bad. Since you only gave us the two extremes -- life-saving, epidemic-preventing vaccines and viagra -- would you care to clarify exactly where the cut-off is for medical treatment that you would feel OK paying for.

Quote :

"I was at food lion the other day and someone was buying all her groceries using her EBT card."

Man, you guys are fucking filled to the brim of anecdotes this week, aren't you?

Tell me, you never actually mentioned in your story (that is just as likely make-believe as anything), did you actually see her buy beer or cigarettes?

Quote :

"Im supposed to feel good about paying my taxes"

Nobody ever said that. If we thought everyone was going to feel good about paying taxes we wouldn't have the IRS.

Quote :

"This penalizes the taxpayer/worker and rewards the irresponsible. How the fuck do you consider it any different?"

BECAUSE

AS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED TIME AND TIME AGAIN IN THIS THREAD

YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE WORD "REWARD" MEANS

Quote :

"Luis, Ive long said that you make people come pick up thier checks and take BC while on the system."

I'm certainly in favor of making people come to pick up their checks and I don't even disagree with the principle that their doing so should be contingent on some sort of birth control regimen, but the latter would take a lot of hammering out. A hell of a lot of shit interferes with different kinds of BC, and some of them ain't exactly cheap, either. You offering to pony up on this one?

Quote :

"Believe it or not, the human race survived before welfare."

The human race did. Some human beings didn't. Of course, you've already said you're a proponent of social darwinism, and what lovely company that puts you in.

4/24/2008 3:33:16 PM

Quote :

"There you go, technocracy will falter and collapse, lots of people will die, and other systems will take its place."

Luckily for the human race, abundance exists despite your claims. Our vast productive capacity and wealth will only grow as technology advances. Technocracy would be possible with machines from the 1910s. Molecular manufacturing will make it downright easy.

Quote :

"If consumers have freedom then the technocrats are at their mercy and will quickly run out of non-priced inputs, be it land, labor, or capital attempting to fullfill their obligations."

They won't, be cause we'll produce enough for everyone. No, the system couldn't handle gross waste or conspicuous consumption. I'm okay with that. I absolutely want to steal your solid gold Humvee. I'd support equality even if it made us all poorer. Thankfully, it won't have to.

4/24/2008 3:43:10 PM

Quote :

"Our impoverished mom receives $100 in benefits. She has a kid, which results in her getting an extra $50. Now she gets $150. Having and maintaining that kid costs $60. Meaning that before the kid the mother had a net benefit of $100, and now she has a net benefit of $90. "

Curry math

Quote :

"Until one of you can demonstrate to me that the increase in benefits from having a child "

The Bloomberg administration, in a significant departure from the welfare policies of the Giuliani era, is pursuing a federal waiver that would make it easier for able-bodied adults who do not have children to qualify for food stamps, even if they are not working.

The federal welfare overhaul of 1996 imposed a three-month limit on food stamps in any three-year period for this group, known as able-bodied adults without dependents.


There is ALL the proof you need. If you DONT have a kid you get 3 months. I also mentioned putting your child on disability for up to 300-500 per child per month. But you also ignored that.

There is your real example. Your response should be entertaining should you choose to.

4/24/2008 3:57:31 PM

Abundance is not readily apparent.

-World food shortage
-World oil shortage
-World fresh water shortage
-exponential population growth.

I actually don't even know where you're inventing half the shit you're talking about from and I know its hard for you to accept the fact that your Star Trek Utopia won't ever happen, you need to ground yourself in some form of reality.

ps-Machines from the 1910 won't be able to create a 'technocracy' in any form.

4/24/2008 3:59:03 PM

The price system causes our current shortages. A scientific society could sustainably provide for everyone. Oddly enough, you'll even find folks from the Cato Institute stressing the availability of resources when it suits their purposes. They use this to argue against conservationism. Of course, they conclude capitalism must continue.

4/24/2008 4:09:42 PM

Quote :

"The funny shit is you didn't say a damn word, what for all of your internet bad-boy conservative ranting. You just watched her buy it as impotent rage slowly built within you."

WTF was i supposed to do grab her cigarettes and beer and put it back on the shelf. I couldn't stop her as she was doing nothing illegal although it clearly illustrates a problem with the system. Besides i didn't want her b/f keyshawn waiting out in the car outside with the chrome spinning hubcaps to shoot me with his tec-9 when i walked out.

Quote :

"Man, you guys are fucking filled to the brim of anecdotes this week, aren't you?"

GrumpyGOP

Quote :

"Our impoverished mom receives $100 in benefits. She has a kid, which results in her getting an extra $50. Now she gets $150. Having and maintaining that kid costs $60. Meaning that before the kid the mother had a net benefit of $100, and now she has a net benefit of $90."

Man, you guys are fucking filled to the brim with made up numbers to support your claims, aren't you?


The number of heart filled liberals in this thread that justify and make excuses for a large group of people who are nothing but a drain to society absolutely makes me fucking sick.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 5:20 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 5:21 PM. Reason : l]

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 5:22 PM. Reason : l]

4/24/2008 5:20:30 PM

Quote :

"Our impoverished mom receives $100 in benefits. She has a kid, which results in her getting an extra $50. Now she gets $150. Having and maintaining that kid costs $60. Meaning that before the kid the mother had a net benefit of $100, and now she has a net benefit of $90. Until one of you can demonstrate to me that the increase in benefits from having a child is greater than the increased costs of having a child, you have not demonstrated any reward whatsoever."

Well, using your example she is made $10 better off. As you know, having children is avoidable, it just requires effort. For example, let us assume the impoverished soon-to-be mom could purchase a $20 alarm which would remind her to take her pill everyday. Now, without the added benefits, having a child would cost her $60, substantially more than the $20 alarm. As such, she buys the alarm and does not have a child, but is still out $20.

Now, you provide her with $50 in child benefits. Suddenly, not having the alarm only costs her $60 minus $50, or $10, which is less than the $20 alarm. As such, she does not buy the alarm and has the child; she is out $10, government is out $50, and society gains another crime-prone child.

Quote :

"They won't, be cause we'll produce enough for everyone. No, the system couldn't handle gross waste or conspicuous consumption. I'm okay with that. I absolutely want to steal your solid gold Humvee. I'd support equality even if it made us all poorer. Thankfully, it won't have to."

If you comprehended the arguments I have given you, you would see that technocracy will not manage your breakfast, nevermind something as complex as a humvee. The irony of it is that you would make us all poor while at the same time dramatically increasing inequality. Afterall, since it is the technocrats which plan the economy, they will get to eat regardless of how poor last years harvest was. And I can think of no more unequal society than one in which the technocrats eat well while everyone else starves.

So, like I keep saying and you fail to grasp, technocracy is an irrational system in that it does not contain a mechanism for utilizing local knowledge, it fails to provide incentives to be productive, it does not contain a mechanism for containing consumer soverignty, and it is totalitarian when it comes to allocating resources.

[Edited on April 24, 2008 at 6:02 PM. Reason : .,.]

4/24/2008 6:01:31 PM

Quote :

"There is ALL the proof you need. If you DONT have a kid you get 3 months. I also mentioned putting your child on disability for up to 300-500 per child per month. But you also ignored that."

No part of this

NOT ONE SINGLE PART

Has anything to do with what I'm talking about.

I don't know how to explain it any clearer. Yeah, I get that people with kids get more benefits than people with fewer or no kids. Nobody is denying that. That's not the point.

You have yet to demonstrate that those benefits are greater than the cost of those kids.

Quote :

"Curry math"

Quote :

"Man, you guys are fucking filled to the brim with made up numbers to support your claims, aren't you?"

I'm just trying to explain a very simple concept that nobody seems to grasp, which is that extra money for a kid isn't a "reward" or "bonus" unless it's greater than the cost, which neither of you have demonstrated to be the case

Quote :

"Well, using your example she is made $10 better off."

And as you say, it was an example, the sole purpose of which was to demonstrate the difference between "reward" and "not a reward."

Quote :

"As such, she buys the alarm and does not have a child, but is still out $20."

Even educated, relatively well-off people do not always operate in this way.

4/24/2008 6:43:35 PM

Grumpy, my point is that incentives matter and people often respond to incentives without even realizing it. As such, even if no one ever goes through the mathematical calculation you and I did norms of behavior will shift in response. This is because people learn norms of behavior by watching others and your impoverished friends become visibly malnourished after having a child because they missed a pill will make you redouble your efforts never to do so.

If having a child is truely devastating then every instance becomes a warning to others. On the other hand, if having children is turned into nothing more than a financial and emotional burden then such beacons of unhappiness are silenced.

That said, I am still in favor of welfare because I am in favor of population growth wherever it comes from, even if most of it will be dead weight in a prison somewhere and there is no doubt in my mind that welfare increases baby making among the poor. I just wish we would subsidize it even more among the rest of society.

4/24/2008 8:19:53 PM

Quote :

"If you comprehended the arguments I have given you, you would see that technocracy will not manage your breakfast, nevermind something as complex as a humvee."

Well, we've gone past real debate and reach mere assertion. So, why do you hate science?

Quote :

"The irony of it is that you would make us all poor while at the same time dramatically increasing inequality."

No, I wouldn't. Technocracy would do neither of these things. Quite the opposite.

Quote :

"Afterall, since it is the technocrats which plan the economy, they will get to eat regardless of how poor last years harvest was."

Again, the harvest won't be poor. Technocracy isn't Stalinism or Maoism. Without the price system, we'd be free to produce as much food as the planet needs. An egalitarian method of distribution would reduce waste. Prices needlessly prevent consumption and destroy food. I have personal experience with this phenomenon. For example, a customer at Galaxy Cinema today didn't have the cash to pay for her popcorn and soda, so they went in the trash.

Quote :

"And I can think of no more unequal society than one in which the technocrats eat well while everyone else starves."

How about one in which the capitalists eat well while others starve?

4/24/2008 8:48:09 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, I get that people with kids get more benefits than people with fewer or no kids. Nobody is denying that. "

Great, so by your admission they get more benefits with each kid. THANK YOU

Now if you want to blur the margins by asking if its enough to cover the costs... Well does it take 25k a month to raise britney's kids? How the fuck is that your arguement? Dipshit, they have NO other money coming in. got it?

lets see. If you got 0 benefits before your kid, and now you have food stamps, housing, and welfare... then id say your fucking better off. Now if you want to sit around and mental masturbate as to how much better off they are, have at it. Im done with you. Have a good night sir.

4/24/2008 11:35:48 PM

seriously...

dont have kids any you can do whatever you want.

4/24/2008 11:40:55 PM

assertion indeed. Look, I have given you arguments why technocracy sucks and yet you do not bother refuting them. Instead, you pretend they have not been spoken and restate your assertions. Why?

Quote :

"How about one in which the capitalists eat well while others starve?"

Where would that be? I have the odd distinction that no capitalist country has ever suffered widespread famine with death from starvation. Meanwhile, every centrally planned economy, especially those whose rulers despised religion and worshiped science, enjoy death tolls in the millions.

Quote :

"Again, the harvest won't be poor. Technocracy isn't Stalinism or Maoism. Without the price system, we'd be free to produce as much food as the planet needs. An egalitarian method of distribution would reduce waste. Prices needlessly prevent consumption and destroy food. I have personal experience with this phenomenon. For example, a customer at Galaxy Cinema today didn't have the cash to pay for her popcorn and soda, so they went in the trash."

Really? In your technocratic society no one is ever going to order popcorn and find themselves without enough energy credits to afford it? Do you even remember what you say?

4/25/2008 12:01:28 AM

Quote :

"Great, so by your admission they get more benefits with each kid. THANK YOU Now if you want to blur the margins by asking if its enough to cover the costs... Well does it take 25k a month to raise britney's kids? How the fuck is that your arguement? Dipshit, they have NO other money coming in. got it? lets see. If you got 0 benefits before your kid, and now you have food stamps, housing, and welfare... then id say your fucking better off. Now if you want to sit around and mental masturbate as to how much better off they are, have at it. Im done with you. Have a good night sir."

The bad part: you have no idea what a "reward" is. Additionally, you have no idea what a "realistic" or "enforceable" policy is. Additionally, you are unethical and would mandate that poor children suffer for the sake of YOUR MONEY.

The good part: people like you get executed in revolutions and poor-uprisings.

4/25/2008 1:56:21 AM

Well hey, our resident sociopath is back. How charming.

4/25/2008 7:12:57 AM

LiusClues, you are a slow one, aren't you? In their logic, by stacking the rules against poor mothers they are saving children from a lifetime of poverty by preventing their birth. Welfare or no welfare, by being born they are going to suffer in poverty, or so their argument goes. It is really quite sad that you could not follow such simple logic. Now, I want population growth regardless of how much poverty the child will face. Therefore, I disagree with the logic, but I'm not stupid enough to think individuals that agree with it do so because they "would mandate that poor children suffer for the sake of" their money.

4/25/2008 8:17:07 AM

No matter what you say it is bullshit that i have to sacrifice part of the 28% taken out of my paycheck in federal taxes in order to subsidize someone for spreading their legs and pumping out babies. It is not my job to make sure the scum of our society can reproduce and take part in the uptake of their child rearing.

4/25/2008 8:54:21 AM

Quote :

"LiusClues, you are a slow one, aren't you? In their logic, by stacking the rules against poor mothers they are saving children from a lifetime of poverty by preventing their birth. Welfare or no welfare, by being born they are going to suffer in poverty, or so their argument goes. It is really quite sad that you could not follow such simple logic. Now, I want population growth regardless of how much poverty the child will face. Therefore, I disagree with the logic, but I'm not stupid enough to think individuals that agree with it do so because they "would mandate that poor children suffer for the sake of" their money. "

Why yes, the lack of "incentives" has really stymied the birthrate in Africa, hasn't it?

Quote :

"It is not my job to make sure the scum of our society can reproduce and take part in the uptake of their child rearing."

Actually it turns out that it is. Enjoy

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 10:55 AM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 10:55:00 AM

Quote :

"Why yes, the lack of "incentives" has really stymied the birthrate in Africa, hasn't it?"

Wow, yet another daft statement. What part of "subsistence agriculture" and "child labor" do you not understand? It is no accident that industrialization leads to a falling birth rate: children are rendered unproductive, thus eliminating the incentive to own children, thus we stop having them. Sheesh.

4/25/2008 11:06:54 AM

^^ People like you are to blame for the current mindset of society that the gov't "owes" them and it is "ok" to live off the system.

4/25/2008 11:11:20 AM

The point is that the poor folks in Africa have no incentive to keep "pumping out" babies as the majority of them are born into sprawling conditions and starve, living ridiculously short, brutal, and awful lives. Additionally people can't even afford to provide them with adequate care (this is part of the reason why this happens -- ever seen babies with distended bellies? it's because they're malnourished and not getting breast milk, because the mothers are off working in the fields after they give birth because they can't afford NOT to).

Yet they keep having them, over and over again.

Quote :

"^^ People like you are to blame for the current mindset of society that the gov't "owes" them and it is "ok" to live off the system."

Fine with me as long as it's on your dime.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 11:12 AM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 11:12:07 AM

Could it be that they have children because they neither have education about contraceptives nor access to them? They even have MISinformation thanks to the Catholic Church.

People don't stop fucking. We're wired for it. Neither should fucking be a privilege of the rich. Either way, when it comes to poor folks, bar education and some resources, they're going to have a bunch of kids. Cheers.

4/25/2008 11:14:02 AM

I don't think people have kids with the sole conscious desire of getting more welfare money.

I think they generally have kids because they don't use contraception.

4/25/2008 11:24:26 AM

what about gov't subsidized abortions?

4/25/2008 11:45:19 AM

Quote :

"Fine with me as long as it's on your dime. People don't stop fucking. We're wired for it. Neither should fucking be a privilege of the rich. Either way, when it comes to poor folks, bar education and some resources, they're going to have a bunch of kids. Cheers. "

I apologize that you come from a welfare recipient trailer park home. The purpose of government though is not to hold you hand and be your surrogate parent.

The reasoning is pretty simple; if you can not even afford to feed and house your self thus relying on welfare and foodstamps then you really have no business bringing another life into the world that will serve as one more burden to society. Given your circumstance even if you do decide to have kids then you shouldn't expect the tax payer to pick up the tab every time you pop out another kid.

I have never advocated an end to welfare programs that support people who are a victim to an acute event of mis-fortune ie laid of while searching for a new job, death of "bread" making parent/spouse, victim of natural disaster. The issue are those who are CHRONICALLY reliant on the system.

Nor did i ever insinuate that having kids should be a privilege of the rich. Two blue collar parents with a mediocre job paying $8/hr can easily handle the expenses of having 3 kids with a household income of $36,000 w/o living on foodstamps or welfare.

Quote :

"about contraceptives nor access to them"

I call bullshit on this one. You can easily walk into a gas station and buy a condom or two. The $2.50 6-pack of trojans is def a good investment to decrease the risk of spending $1000's on rearing an unexpected child.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:13 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 12:11:53 PM

Quote :

"I apologize that you come from a welfare recipient trailer park home. The purpose of government though is not to hold you hand and be your surrogate parent."

Hmm yes much better if they starve to death in the most painful of fashions.

Quote :

"I have never advocated an end to welfare programs that support people who are a victim to an acute event of mis-fortune"

Hmm yes how about an acute event of misfortune like being born to an irresponsible poor person (the type you like to imagine all the time -- you know, the one you imagine as being black)

4/25/2008 12:18:11 PM

Look the bottom line here really is the fact that you are funding (with your tax dollars) people you absolutely loathe.

Think about it. We take your money and then use it to fund the people you hate most in life. Doesn't that bend you up? It's great. In fact I'll continue to support people who promise to take more and more of your paycheck to subsidize the people most in need (those you hate).

The best part about it all? The impotent, blind rage you feel when you look at the amount of money taken out of your paycheck.

4/25/2008 12:20:56 PM

^ then you utilize the resources and opportunities our society provides to WORK hard in order to provide a better life for yourself. Instead of blaming your early misfortune on other people and living on the gov't for your entire life also.

Quote :

"Hmm yes much better if they starve to death in the most painful of fashions. "

Since my sophmore year i have been able to house, feed, and provide other necessities for myself on $13K or less per year in income with still enough money left over to have some fun and make a few purchases with disposable income. The only expense my parents paying is health insurance. If i can do this w/o being on welfare or food stamps then i do not see what the problem is for others even with a kid or two. There is no excuse but i guess in this case you might have pay for your child health insurance instead of buying those two 40's of high life or pay the daycare bill instead of putting chrome rims on your 1992 chevy impala.

LiusClues: the ultimate faggot loving bleeding heart liberal.



[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : a]

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:26 PM. Reason : a]

4/25/2008 12:25:10 PM

Quote :

"The only expense my parents paying is health insurance."

Quote :

"The only expense my parents paying is health insurance."

Quote :

"The only expense my parents paying is health insurance."

Quote :

"my parents paying"

Quote :

"my parents paying"

Quote :

"my parents paying"

Quote :

"my parents"

LOL.

Yes if an able bodied white male can do it without any children to pay for and without any unexpected health-disasters, then anybody could do it!!

I love it. I will continue to vote in people who will tax. the. fuck. out of you.

Stay beautiful.





P.S. MY PARENTS PAYING

lol

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:30 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 12:27:47 PM

speaking of poor people, am i the only one thats happy shit like rice is going up in asia? these people already spend like 73 percent of the money on food..sucks for them...

4/25/2008 12:30:47 PM

Quote :

"The only expense my parents paying is health insurance. If i can do this w/o being on welfare or food stamps then i do not see what the problem is for others even with a kid or two."

hahaha

4/25/2008 12:34:07 PM

Luisclues, I bet you just hate rich people don't you (not that i am but am working hard to be successful). It burns you up that someone put in lots of hard work, maybe took a few risks, and made a good living for themselves as a successful person in some line of work. The government should definitely tax them to death so you can lay on your couch everyday watching Ricki Lake, eating the 1/2 lb bacon thickburger with the super sized fries that you bought at hardees using the money received in this weeks welfare check.

Or perhaps you hate someone who was born into money after their parents worked their asses off to create a good standard of living in which to bring in a new child. The parents shouldn't give their kids any of this hard earned money. They should just go down to the ghetto handing out what would otherwise be their child's inheritance to those in "need" thus making sure their son/daughter has to claw their own financial success from scratch.



what the fuck is such a big deal about the only expense i don't pay is health insurance. Even if my mom were to cheap to pay it; i'd end up paying her to be on my policy as it is immensely cheaper then if i was on my own personnal policy. Do not be an idiot; you rotten piece of trailer trash.

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:37 PM. Reason : aa]

4/25/2008 12:35:18 PM

No I don't hate them at all because we tax the living fuck out of them and extract their due.

I love them because I can continue to extract joy from them as their tax rates go up and up.

Quote :

"what the fuck is such a big deal about the only expense i don't pay is health insurance."

Ahahahah oh god you can't make this shit up You make me laugh

[Edited on April 25, 2008 at 12:39 PM. Reason : .]

4/25/2008 12:37:35 PM