Enter your username and password below to sign in to your PewterReport account.
What is your point? I was wrong? Ok. You win. I was wrong.
Quote from: CBWx2 on March 22, 2013, 08:00:18 PM Anyone with half a brain can see that your non-plan to help the hungry is only going to lead to the hungry not being helped. 1. The hungry are helped every day through charity . So your point is patenly false .
Anyone with half a brain can see that your non-plan to help the hungry is only going to lead to the hungry not being helped.
2. It only costs as much as the coins we can find under the cushions , remember ?? What's the problem ?
3. Anyone with half a brain knows that if we can only help those in need through force , we are doomed as a race regardless.
Although Illum would probably make the case that this is simply survival of the fittest, natural selection making the race stronger by weeding out the weak and stupid of the herd.....bad news for people like you who need thier hand held.
So, when you used that quote , and left out the part when Mises said fascism is "evil" and a "fatal error" ( in the same article , and in some cases the same SENTENCE ) , you weren't taking anything out of context right ??
It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aiming at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has, for the moment, saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.
As long term institutions, I am totally against dictatorships. But a dictatorship may be a necessary system for a transitional period. [...] Personally I prefer a liberal dictator to democratic government lacking liberalism. My personal impression – and this is valid for South America – is that in Chile, for example, we will witness a transition from a dictatorial government to a liberal government.
I am fooling no one but myself
My bad. Your non-plan will lead to countless hungry people not being helped, not all hungry people not being helped. Happy now, Delirious?
Really? You are shrooming, dude. I'd venture to guess that all those "doomed, nanny state" societies of Western Europe will survive much longer than this country will with it's cluster f**k of a government that prizes corporate greed over the welfare of it's citizenry. We are doomed as a race if governments feed their poor? Wow. There are no words to describe that degree of idiocy and detachment from reality.
Quote from: CBWx2 on March 21, 2013, 01:18:24 PMor to justify ending the program, which is of course the ultimate goal that very few of them will openly admit. Funny that the only person to have mentioned this is you.I am beginning to sense a touch of bitterness.
or to justify ending the program, which is of course the ultimate goal that very few of them will openly admit.
You say . . . that the government is . . incompetent, and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector, and then on the other hand suggest that your criticism of their handling of food assistance is not aimed at eliminating the program? Those two positions are at odds with one another.
As does any plan . However , I have a feeling the amount of people left to die on the street would be a lot less than you are claiming it would. Especially since you yourself admitted the cost of feeding them is no more than the "money we find under our seat cushions" We already lead the world in charitable donations. There is no shortage of people in this country who already feel the need to help voluntarily , whether you are stealing money from their paycheck for the same purpose or not.Corporate welfare is no better than any other welfare , you'll get no argument here. The point , which you were too stupid to grasp , was that if we as a species are so cruel , greedy , and uncaring that we would starve one another unless forced at the point of a gun to do otherwise , then we are fundamentaly flawed as a species , and it's all going to come crashing down eventually anyways. There's plenty of proof to show we do try to help those around us willingly , if given the chance.
Would my way be perfect ?? No. Am I claiming the ticket to Utopia ?? No. I'm not even claiming it would be easier , because with freedom comes much more responsibility . I'm simply claiming it is RIGHT.
Sam Adams said it best:“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen”In short , piss off you socialist piece of trash.
Quote from: CBWx2 on March 23, 2013, 06:06:51 PMYou say . . . that the government is . . incompetent, and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector, and then on the other hand suggest that your criticism of their handling of food assistance is not aimed at eliminating the program? Those two positions are at odds with one another. HUH?The government is not "incompetent and incapable of doing anything as well as the private sector." The government does well providing for the national defense.The problem arises when the FEDERAL government moves in to offer services because the service provider does not operate under a profit motive and becomes the mechanism for social welfare and becomes an inefficient behemoth. That is why you have, as an example, the Postal Service where the private sector has FedEx, UPS, etc.Food Stamps and programs like it struggle in the eyes of many because even though noble in concept it is awful in practice. Part of that is due to your liberal brethren who use food stamps (and similar social welfare programs) as a means to garner votes (btw, what's that whole joint Mexican-American food stamp program? lol). All AID should be AID -- which means it is temporary in nature. And it only makes sense that one would try to get the fraud out of the system -- that is, if the goal is truly to help as many needy people as possible - because fraud robs AID from the needy, right? Private sector companies try to prevent fraud because it impacts profit. What incentive do federal government programs have to do the same IF their budgets are automatically growing every year. This disconnect from regular market dynamics makes the federal government VERY INEFFICIENT in taking money from its citizens just to redistribute it to its citizen, hence the massive federal government we have now.Lastly . . . note your (liberal) choice of language and the fear tactic, here it is: " aimed at eliminating the program" Who cares about THE PROGRAM? The point is the aid. Well, the point for people other than you and people that share your mindset . . . . .because THE PROGRAM is arguably more important that the aid . . . . right?
Just a little more than you can find "under the seat of your cushions" :...and look it steadily goes up :How is this possible !!! I thought only the Comrade and his socialist mob care about giving , and in order to "give" they will TAKE - by force - or we all die in the streets . So says the Comrade. So bend over and enjoy it , you simply don't know what's good for you.
That billions upon billions are already donated by people , of thier own free will , outside of any government coercion. Your suggestion that charity is simply a fairy tale that can't possibly help many people couldn't be more wrong.About 4 times as much money is raised in charity than it takes to fund your precious food stamp program. "Coins under the cushions" for the charitable givers , you might say.