Nightingale 0 #26 August 23, 2006 Quote So you think if we cut all social spending, unemployment, medicare, medicaide, social security, disability, and any and all social programs and somehow privatize them we would be a better nation. [nighingale gets in a paralizing car wreck tomorrow and has a 180 degree paradigm shift fatser than Chris Reeves]. No. If I got in a paralyzing car wreck, I certainly wouldn't change my tune, because I've been responsible and budgeted for purchasing excellent health and disability insurance. Financially, I'd be set for life. I've been responsible, and I'm prepared to be able to financially take care of myself. I wouldn't depend on the government to do it for me, mainly because it's not their job to take care of me. It's my job to take care of me, so I've done so. Also, judging by the less than stellar track record our government has with managing its social programs, they'd probably fuck things up anyway. Quote It is pure avoidance to ignore social problems and they would turn into violent confrontations in many cases when people get sick / hungry enoughm so crime would be huge. It's really a ridiculous approach. No, it's to get people off their asses and taking care of themselves instead of letting mommy-government do it for them. If the people on welfare that were able to work did so, then there would be much more resources left over to help the truly needy. Quote As in foreign forces? It's also to ensure minimal economic stability, protect the children.... It's the job of a PARENT to protect the children. It's the job of the government to provide a safe atmosphere for the parent to do so. The government should keep people safe from crime, fire, and invasion, as well as ensuring protection of our natural resources. It is not the job of the government to pay your rent, feed you, or to force other people to be nice and pay for it for you. You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mailin 0 #27 August 23, 2006 Quote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. This is my libertarianism 'tag line' - thank you Beats having to explain it 'the old way' to people like the OP. JenArianna Frances Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #28 August 23, 2006 QuoteBut I thought complete socialism can solve everyone's problems? I am so confused. Well, COMPLETE socialism will solve all problems. It would look something like a zoo with all the people cared for like pets (or maybe livestock). All you'd have to do was eat and poop, some keeper takes care of all your other needs. The only drawback is that they also will be deciding your needs for you. I don't like the thought of that kind of arrangement, and I don't know where we'd get keepers. Aliens maybe?" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #29 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteI'm still trying to figure out the problem with letting poor people suffer. (If that is what's happening). My family was pretty strapped. We ate, and had a home, but even little luxuries were virtually non-existent. ALL my clothes were hand-me-downs, a frozen pizza was a big deal (ordering delivery was absolutely out of the question), we ate somewhere other than home maybe twice a year (Mother's Day and Easter). I learned some very valuable things in a nurturing, but very spartan environment. I'm not for letting people starve to death, but life on the dole SHOULD be harsh enough to motivate a person to want to work hard for another way of life. Not like "I'll get out and fill out some applications tomorrow." More like "I better get off my ass and make some money so we can eat tomorrow." As a friend of mine once said, why shouldn't we allow certain groups of people to eliminate themselves if they are bent on doing so. Just not on me please. QuoteI'm still trying to figure out the problem with letting poor people suffer. (If that is what's happening). Really! Next thing you know they'll be calling us humanitarians. QuoteI'm not for letting people starve to death, but life on the dole SHOULD be harsh enough to motivate a person to want to work hard for another way of life. That's what we're talking about here, so why the conflict with your logic? Did I ever write that Hoover was a SOB becuase he didn't buy everyone Cadillacs? I can't understand why you contrast here, unless you don't knwo a lot about the Great Depression. QuoteNot like "I'll get out and fill out some applications tomorrow." More like "I better get off my ass and make some money so we can eat tomorrow." You understand there was no unemployment, no social services anywhere - people were litterally, litterally dying in the streets. It's kind of moot for any of us to comment on that era since I don't think any of us can even fathom what it was like, just what we read. QuoteAs a friend of mine once said, why shouldn't we allow certain groups of people to eliminate themselves if they are bent on doing so. These weren't lazy people, these were you and me. I don't think you can fathom the gravity of the Great Depression. I wouldn't disagree with you so much on the situation back then. I didn't live thru it, but heard lots of 1st hand stories from Grandma. There were lots of scammers back then though too. They were just scamming other citizens directly versus taking it from them via taxation. Our government just made it easier by institutionalizing welfare to the degree that they have. In that sense, I think the solution to a tough situation ended up becoming a much worse situation than the problem it intended to solve. By taking charity public, they made it very eay for the public to abuse charity." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,150 #30 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. And for those that can't take care of themselves? (orphans, among many others)?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #31 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo. Libertarians don't believe that privatizing welfare will solve all society's problems (though I think it'd be a start). Libertarians simply believe that it is not the job of the government to take from some individuals to give to others. The job of the government is ensuring the safety of its citizens from outside factors, not playing Robin Hood. QuoteNo. Libertarians don't believe that privatizing welfare will solve all society's problems Please post what the official take on social welfare is then. Feel free to post a citation. Quote(though I think it'd be a start). So you think if we cut all social spending, unemployment, medicare, medicaide, social security, disability, and any and all social programs and somehow privatize them we would be a better nation. [nighingale gets in a paralizing car wreck tomorrow and has a 180 degree paradigm shift fatser than Chris Reeves]. QuoteLibertarians simply believe that it is not the job of the government to take from some individuals to give to others. Well this is the theme of my thread, which everyone seems to ignore. Hoover thought like a Libertarian. So what is your answer to the elderly, the sick, the disabled? Do we have trucks that go around and scoop up the bodies? Then your kids see this and it ... let's say, "alters them." Actually it depraves them as the word, "humanity" takes on a whole new meaning. Libertarians mean well, they just don;t think things thru. PROBLEM: Too much spending on social programs SOLUTION: Cut all spending and wear blinders and respirators AGREED, on to the next problem. It is pure avoidance to ignore social problems and they would turn into violent confrontations in many cases when people get sick / hungry enoughm so crime would be huge. It's really a ridiculous approach. The Libertarians are considered very obscure for their take on social welfare, IMO, and might be taken more seriously if they remedied that. QuoteThe job of the government is ensuring the safety of its citizens from outside factors, not playing Robin Hood. As in foreign forces? It's also to ensure minimal economic stability, protect the children, care for the elderly, etc.... I don't recall anyone calling to cut ALL spending. But it needs to be reasonable, we need to be cool and objective on the criteria, we need to seriously go after the abusers. Like I said, being on the dole should be uncomfortable enough to motivate anyone who can get off to get off." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #32 August 23, 2006 QuoteAnd for those that can't take care of themselves? (orphans, among many others)? Those are the exceptions, and they must be cared for, the extent to which would need to depend on some sort of reasonable critieria. That's where I'm sure a lot of the disagreement would occur - or as they say, the devil is in the details. I'm not unsympathetic to those truly in need and incapable. I have a cousin with mental health problems who got thrown in the street (literally) when Reagan decided that most crazy people should have a go of it on their own. I also have a brother with cerebral palsy who lives partially on the dole. Then again, even in my own little world, at least half the people I've met who are getting some form of assistance don't really NEED it and have turned it into a permanent lifestyle. I know of 3 families personally that brought new lives into this world just for the sake of increasing their dole. Despicable. I concede that there are people truly not capable; the rest need to: 1 - Get off their asses. 2 - Suffer the consequences of their action (or inaction)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites SpeedRacer 1 #33 August 23, 2006 So let me get this straight: Hoover was the first president to refuse to create government-funded programs to help the poor, and that's what caused the Great Depression. OK, I gotta go throw out my history books now. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #34 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. And for those that can't take care of themselves? (orphans, among many others)? Well, orphans usually become wards of the state if there is no family member willing to take responsibility for them. They then become the state's responsibility and should be cared for. As for the disabled, they should work to the extent that they can, and I have no problem with the government providing housing, food, and clothing directly. It's when the government provides cash to be spent as the individual sees fit that problems arise. I'm sick of reading about situations where people with disabilities could get a job and then don't, because the job would pay less than their disability, and they'd lose their disability benefits because they are now working. Nobody should have to say "I can't afford to get a job." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #35 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. This is my libertarianism 'tag line' - thank you Beats having to explain it 'the old way' to people like the OP. Jen You're welcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #36 August 23, 2006 QuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #37 August 23, 2006 >Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #38 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. Don't know if I could ever make it as a librarian; at least not until they got rid of that stupid Dewey Decimal System. If I were king for a day, I'd just put all the books on the shelves in alpha order by title. If you didn't know the title, you must not be that interested in the topic. Having so many titles start with "The" might be a problem though. I think if Robin Hood were alive today what he'd be is alone. Think of the stench they must have carried, no running water, no toilet paper, haliotosis, and so on and so forth. A sinus infection inhibiting all ability to smell would have been a blessing in those days. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and Rosanadanarama humor, are not suppressed." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 August 23, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's why the US economy was below 1934 levels from 1938 until 1946. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had zero to do with the banking crash and subsequent Great Depression. Probably the toughtest internal times in teh US, perhaos absent the Civil War, and you can criticize? HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm. Sure I can criticize. Look at the time frame. There was a pretty hefty recession that occurred in 1937. This means that the economy was recovering but then took a few steps back. Why? Can you state for a fact that the Depression would have been worse if not for FDR, i.e., worse unemployment, etc? No, you can't. Can I state for a fact that the Depression would have been much shorter had FDR's policies not taken effect? No. But I sure can make an educated opinion based upon my beliefs of economic theory that interference with a market correction merely postpones the market correction. I think that instead of three years of misery, the US was embroiled in 10 years of pain because the New Deal policies, while softening the blow, spread the blow out over a longer time. It's like having to go into ice water and get back out: you can either jump in and then get out quickly - which provides a pretty good shock to the system but is over quickly - or you can gradually and over a period of minutes or hours or days submerge yourself. Sure, the instant shock isn't as great, but you will have to get it done eventually, and you'll be out of it sooner. That's how I look at the Depression. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong, which is why there is debate over it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #40 August 23, 2006 Quote>Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. "insurgent", Bill, the word is "insurgent" Librarians are scary, what with their funny glasses, briefcases, pinky rings, and thirst for human blood. At least they can only come out at night, and government approved holidays, like Mondays. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
pirana 0 #31 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteNo. Libertarians don't believe that privatizing welfare will solve all society's problems (though I think it'd be a start). Libertarians simply believe that it is not the job of the government to take from some individuals to give to others. The job of the government is ensuring the safety of its citizens from outside factors, not playing Robin Hood. QuoteNo. Libertarians don't believe that privatizing welfare will solve all society's problems Please post what the official take on social welfare is then. Feel free to post a citation. Quote(though I think it'd be a start). So you think if we cut all social spending, unemployment, medicare, medicaide, social security, disability, and any and all social programs and somehow privatize them we would be a better nation. [nighingale gets in a paralizing car wreck tomorrow and has a 180 degree paradigm shift fatser than Chris Reeves]. QuoteLibertarians simply believe that it is not the job of the government to take from some individuals to give to others. Well this is the theme of my thread, which everyone seems to ignore. Hoover thought like a Libertarian. So what is your answer to the elderly, the sick, the disabled? Do we have trucks that go around and scoop up the bodies? Then your kids see this and it ... let's say, "alters them." Actually it depraves them as the word, "humanity" takes on a whole new meaning. Libertarians mean well, they just don;t think things thru. PROBLEM: Too much spending on social programs SOLUTION: Cut all spending and wear blinders and respirators AGREED, on to the next problem. It is pure avoidance to ignore social problems and they would turn into violent confrontations in many cases when people get sick / hungry enoughm so crime would be huge. It's really a ridiculous approach. The Libertarians are considered very obscure for their take on social welfare, IMO, and might be taken more seriously if they remedied that. QuoteThe job of the government is ensuring the safety of its citizens from outside factors, not playing Robin Hood. As in foreign forces? It's also to ensure minimal economic stability, protect the children, care for the elderly, etc.... I don't recall anyone calling to cut ALL spending. But it needs to be reasonable, we need to be cool and objective on the criteria, we need to seriously go after the abusers. Like I said, being on the dole should be uncomfortable enough to motivate anyone who can get off to get off." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #32 August 23, 2006 QuoteAnd for those that can't take care of themselves? (orphans, among many others)? Those are the exceptions, and they must be cared for, the extent to which would need to depend on some sort of reasonable critieria. That's where I'm sure a lot of the disagreement would occur - or as they say, the devil is in the details. I'm not unsympathetic to those truly in need and incapable. I have a cousin with mental health problems who got thrown in the street (literally) when Reagan decided that most crazy people should have a go of it on their own. I also have a brother with cerebral palsy who lives partially on the dole. Then again, even in my own little world, at least half the people I've met who are getting some form of assistance don't really NEED it and have turned it into a permanent lifestyle. I know of 3 families personally that brought new lives into this world just for the sake of increasing their dole. Despicable. I concede that there are people truly not capable; the rest need to: 1 - Get off their asses. 2 - Suffer the consequences of their action (or inaction)." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SpeedRacer 1 #33 August 23, 2006 So let me get this straight: Hoover was the first president to refuse to create government-funded programs to help the poor, and that's what caused the Great Depression. OK, I gotta go throw out my history books now. Speed Racer -------------------------------------------------- Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #34 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. And for those that can't take care of themselves? (orphans, among many others)? Well, orphans usually become wards of the state if there is no family member willing to take responsibility for them. They then become the state's responsibility and should be cared for. As for the disabled, they should work to the extent that they can, and I have no problem with the government providing housing, food, and clothing directly. It's when the government provides cash to be spent as the individual sees fit that problems arise. I'm sick of reading about situations where people with disabilities could get a job and then don't, because the job would pay less than their disability, and they'd lose their disability benefits because they are now working. Nobody should have to say "I can't afford to get a job." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Nightingale 0 #35 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. This is my libertarianism 'tag line' - thank you Beats having to explain it 'the old way' to people like the OP. Jen You're welcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #36 August 23, 2006 QuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #37 August 23, 2006 >Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #38 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. Don't know if I could ever make it as a librarian; at least not until they got rid of that stupid Dewey Decimal System. If I were king for a day, I'd just put all the books on the shelves in alpha order by title. If you didn't know the title, you must not be that interested in the topic. Having so many titles start with "The" might be a problem though. I think if Robin Hood were alive today what he'd be is alone. Think of the stench they must have carried, no running water, no toilet paper, haliotosis, and so on and so forth. A sinus infection inhibiting all ability to smell would have been a blessing in those days. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and Rosanadanarama humor, are not suppressed." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 August 23, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's why the US economy was below 1934 levels from 1938 until 1946. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had zero to do with the banking crash and subsequent Great Depression. Probably the toughtest internal times in teh US, perhaos absent the Civil War, and you can criticize? HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm. Sure I can criticize. Look at the time frame. There was a pretty hefty recession that occurred in 1937. This means that the economy was recovering but then took a few steps back. Why? Can you state for a fact that the Depression would have been worse if not for FDR, i.e., worse unemployment, etc? No, you can't. Can I state for a fact that the Depression would have been much shorter had FDR's policies not taken effect? No. But I sure can make an educated opinion based upon my beliefs of economic theory that interference with a market correction merely postpones the market correction. I think that instead of three years of misery, the US was embroiled in 10 years of pain because the New Deal policies, while softening the blow, spread the blow out over a longer time. It's like having to go into ice water and get back out: you can either jump in and then get out quickly - which provides a pretty good shock to the system but is over quickly - or you can gradually and over a period of minutes or hours or days submerge yourself. Sure, the instant shock isn't as great, but you will have to get it done eventually, and you'll be out of it sooner. That's how I look at the Depression. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong, which is why there is debate over it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #40 August 23, 2006 Quote>Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. "insurgent", Bill, the word is "insurgent" Librarians are scary, what with their funny glasses, briefcases, pinky rings, and thirst for human blood. At least they can only come out at night, and government approved holidays, like Mondays. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
Nightingale 0 #35 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuote You're saying that the government exists to make us be nice and take care of each other. You're wrong. The government exists in order to provide an environment in which we can take care of ourselves. This is my libertarianism 'tag line' - thank you Beats having to explain it 'the old way' to people like the OP. Jen You're welcome. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #36 August 23, 2006 QuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites billvon 3,120 #37 August 23, 2006 >Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites pirana 0 #38 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. Don't know if I could ever make it as a librarian; at least not until they got rid of that stupid Dewey Decimal System. If I were king for a day, I'd just put all the books on the shelves in alpha order by title. If you didn't know the title, you must not be that interested in the topic. Having so many titles start with "The" might be a problem though. I think if Robin Hood were alive today what he'd be is alone. Think of the stench they must have carried, no running water, no toilet paper, haliotosis, and so on and so forth. A sinus infection inhibiting all ability to smell would have been a blessing in those days. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and Rosanadanarama humor, are not suppressed." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites lawrocket 3 #39 August 23, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's why the US economy was below 1934 levels from 1938 until 1946. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had zero to do with the banking crash and subsequent Great Depression. Probably the toughtest internal times in teh US, perhaos absent the Civil War, and you can criticize? HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm. Sure I can criticize. Look at the time frame. There was a pretty hefty recession that occurred in 1937. This means that the economy was recovering but then took a few steps back. Why? Can you state for a fact that the Depression would have been worse if not for FDR, i.e., worse unemployment, etc? No, you can't. Can I state for a fact that the Depression would have been much shorter had FDR's policies not taken effect? No. But I sure can make an educated opinion based upon my beliefs of economic theory that interference with a market correction merely postpones the market correction. I think that instead of three years of misery, the US was embroiled in 10 years of pain because the New Deal policies, while softening the blow, spread the blow out over a longer time. It's like having to go into ice water and get back out: you can either jump in and then get out quickly - which provides a pretty good shock to the system but is over quickly - or you can gradually and over a period of minutes or hours or days submerge yourself. Sure, the instant shock isn't as great, but you will have to get it done eventually, and you'll be out of it sooner. That's how I look at the Depression. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong, which is why there is debate over it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites rehmwa 2 #40 August 23, 2006 Quote>Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. "insurgent", Bill, the word is "insurgent" Librarians are scary, what with their funny glasses, briefcases, pinky rings, and thirst for human blood. At least they can only come out at night, and government approved holidays, like Mondays. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 2 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
rehmwa 2 #36 August 23, 2006 QuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #37 August 23, 2006 >Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #38 August 23, 2006 QuoteQuoteLibertarians simply believe that ....., not playing Robin Hood. I still think Robin Hood wasn't a liberal or socialist. He stole from the nobility (i.e., the government) because the government selfishly took too much wealth from the people that earned it. And then he gave it 'back' to the people that were taxed out of it. Robin Hood is an analogy for tax cuts........ If Robin Hood was a lefty, he'd steal from the rich (of all kinds), kick them in the shins and say "shame on you", then keep half the money and then give the rest to his friends. Of course if Robin Hood was one of today's righties, it would be the exact same thing other than he'd not pause for the kick and diatribe he'd just skip straight to the money part. Thus he must be a libertarian. Don't know if I could ever make it as a librarian; at least not until they got rid of that stupid Dewey Decimal System. If I were king for a day, I'd just put all the books on the shelves in alpha order by title. If you didn't know the title, you must not be that interested in the topic. Having so many titles start with "The" might be a problem though. I think if Robin Hood were alive today what he'd be is alone. Think of the stench they must have carried, no running water, no toilet paper, haliotosis, and so on and so forth. A sinus infection inhibiting all ability to smell would have been a blessing in those days. don b - dispensing wisdom wherever the truth, and Rosanadanarama humor, are not suppressed." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #39 August 23, 2006 Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Quote -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It's why the US economy was below 1934 levels from 1938 until 1946. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Had zero to do with the banking crash and subsequent Great Depression. Probably the toughtest internal times in teh US, perhaos absent the Civil War, and you can criticize? HHHHHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmm. Sure I can criticize. Look at the time frame. There was a pretty hefty recession that occurred in 1937. This means that the economy was recovering but then took a few steps back. Why? Can you state for a fact that the Depression would have been worse if not for FDR, i.e., worse unemployment, etc? No, you can't. Can I state for a fact that the Depression would have been much shorter had FDR's policies not taken effect? No. But I sure can make an educated opinion based upon my beliefs of economic theory that interference with a market correction merely postpones the market correction. I think that instead of three years of misery, the US was embroiled in 10 years of pain because the New Deal policies, while softening the blow, spread the blow out over a longer time. It's like having to go into ice water and get back out: you can either jump in and then get out quickly - which provides a pretty good shock to the system but is over quickly - or you can gradually and over a period of minutes or hours or days submerge yourself. Sure, the instant shock isn't as great, but you will have to get it done eventually, and you'll be out of it sooner. That's how I look at the Depression. I can't prove I'm right and you can't prove I'm wrong, which is why there is debate over it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #40 August 23, 2006 Quote>Thus he must be a libertarian. Actually, today he'd be a terrorist. There'd be a War on Hood. "insurgent", Bill, the word is "insurgent" Librarians are scary, what with their funny glasses, briefcases, pinky rings, and thirst for human blood. At least they can only come out at night, and government approved holidays, like Mondays. ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
