Let's go.........RANDOM!

The place to hang out and talk about totally anything general.
User avatar
Cooper42
level4
level4
Posts: 810
Joined: Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 pm

Postby Cooper42 » Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:44 pm

Feud wrote:Is it the best habit for a President to have?
Which I think underlines the major problems many people have with Romney.

He is an example of a whole range of habits, attitudes and actions which are hardly best suited to a presidential role.
But, then again, the US electorate haven't always been best at selecting presidents upon how well they suit a serious role; what with radio / film personalities and someone who hears voices telling them what to do having taken the role in the past.

That photo is a joke. It's such poor resolution such that the 'smirk' may simply be a result of angle and the lighting. It's the worst kind of spin on a press photo. It's not like the Democrats even NEED more ammunition. Romney's screwing things up pretty well by himself; no need to spin smiles and smirks into it.
Whoever you vote for, the government wins.
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Tue Sep 18, 2012 9:39 am

Speaking of more ammunition. . . .

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... overnment/

Might not be the best idea to accuse almost half the population of the country of being dependent and lazy because they, apparently believe to be “entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it.”

Man, what horrible people, expecting healthcare from their government, where do they think they are, any First World country apart from the United States? :P
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 3:55 pm

You must remember this is America, which still remembers it's pioneer days and is still somewhat fond of the (old) 'independent' American spirit (vs 'dependent'). America doesn't have the history of Europe, which was dependent on kings and land owners for centuries (i.e. government).

I'm sure no sane person would want to deny healthcare for the people who need it and can't afford it and are not able to provide the means themselves of affording it.

If anything, he should have said that publicly; he would still be blasted for it for sure, however, he'd be able to say "hey, at least I'm honest with the people about what I really think." :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Sep 18, 2012 5:08 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:You must remember this is America, which still remembers it's pioneer days and is still somewhat fond of the (old) 'independent' American spirit (vs 'dependent'). America doesn't have the history of Europe, which was dependent on kings and land owners for centuries (i.e. government).

I categorically reject the premise of your assertion. This is not a question of independence vs dependency, and has nothing to do with some unquantifiable American spirit or zeitgeist. Everyone is dependent to some degree or another. Rather, the question is "What are the responsibilities of a society to its members?" Personally, I think that a properly functioning society should ensure that everyone has easy access to base of Maslow's hierarchy: food, water, shelter, health, &c. If an individual cannot provide these things for themselves, then it is the responsibility of society to help. Frankly, I doubt that you disagree with that statement. Rather, I am guessing that the area of disagreement is in what segment of society should do the helping.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:19 pm

You are half right, I don't disagree with your statement (you are correct there), however I think that all society should help, government included, when we're talking about those that can't help themselves. That's an important qualifier.

Medical conditions, mental conditions, age, etc are part of life and as human beings I think we are obligated to help our fellow man. The government should have programs that provide assistance to those who need it in whatever basic area it's needed (e.g. food, housing, healthcare). Citizens should also contribute. You'll get no argument from me there.

All right, there are 47 percent who are with him [Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitle to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. That that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what.

I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.

That's direct quoting. Clearly, he's not talking about people who can not take care of themselves. He's talking about people who will not take care of themselves and expect the government to do it for them. There is a big difference between someone who is down and out, needs a helping hand, and is doing all they can to improve their life (i.e. become 'independent' as much as their potential will allow) and those who think they have zero personal responsibility and are owed a free lunch as a way of life. He is talking about the latter, not the former. He's speaking to a group of potential (?) donors who most likely understand exactly what he is saying, so context is important.
User avatar
ynbniar
level5
level5
Posts: 2028
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Home again...

Postby ynbniar » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:39 pm

The tricky thing is identifying those who need help...this is a big issue over here where many beleive the govt uses the excuse that there are too many lazy cheats on benefits to cut help to a large number who need it.

The good for nothing benefit cheat is a great smokescreen for welfare cuts...even better if they are immigrants.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 6:53 pm

I'd agree there as well, the governments of the world are not altruistic (:wink:) in their motives and actions. Both sides (citizens/government) suffer from the same terminal illness; their made up of human beings. :p

As a side note, I was disappointed by the statement Romney made regarding ignoring the 47%. To me, that's more troubling than making broad statements about that groups general tendency. If he were seeking power for the proper reason (government for the people), he'd be honest with them in public and still find a way to talk to them about how he is the right leader in spite of everything else. Now, I realize in practice, especially today, that might seem as impossible as peace in the Middle East, so why even try. :P Nevertheless, it would show decent character; honesty, courage, and genuine concern for all Americans. It's harder to argue with that sort of person even when they are wrong.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:25 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:That's direct quoting. Clearly, he's not talking about people who can not take care of themselves. He's talking about people who will not take care of themselves and expect the government to do it for them. There is a big difference between someone who is down and out, needs a helping hand, and is doing all they can to improve their life (i.e. become 'independent' as much as their potential will allow) and those who think they have zero personal responsibility and are owed a free lunch as a way of life. He is talking about the latter, not the former. He's speaking to a group of potential (?) donors who most likely understand exactly what he is saying, so context is important.


And here, again, I disagree with the premise of the quote and your analysis thereof. Do you really believe that 47% of the population is unwilling to take care of itself? Do you really believe that 47% of the people in the United States would prefer to sit on their asses and unproductively suckle from the government teat? If so, how do you reconcile this point of view with your assumption that there is some kind of American spirit of independence? If 47% of the population is made up of parasites, how can you reasonably claim that there is a foundational desire for independence in the American soul?

It seems, rather, that the 47% cited by Romney do not represent a homogeneous group, and it is almost certain that many or most of them are (i) in real need, or (ii) not actually dependent upon the federal government for their livelihood. Hence the premise of the quote is wrong.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 7:49 pm

My gut reaction is to say of course I don't think 47% of the population fit that description, but I could be wrong. :P I'm certain it's much, much lower, but probably higher than both of us would expect.

Phil Izzo, Wall Street Journal (blog) wrote:49.1%: Percent of the population that lives in a household where at least one member received some type of government benefit in the first quarter of 2011.

Cutting government spending is no easy task, and it’s made more complicated by recent Census Bureau data showing that nearly half of the people in the U.S. live in a household that receives at least one government benefit, and many likely received more than one.

49.1% * approx 310m/p = 152+ million people. That's a large number to play with. What percentage of 152 million fit his description, I don't know, hopefully a minority.

Don't get me wrong, Obama isn't going to 'fix' anything, and neither is Romney. Both will make foreign and domestic problems worse, it's simply a matter of how and in which specific areas. Sure, there's been some good, and there will be some good from whomever is elected, but the problems will outweigh the solutions.
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:04 pm

"Some government benefit" is so very poorly defined. Lumping everyone who receives "some government benefit" into one large category of leeches and parasites is disingenuous at best. If you have kids, pay a mortgage, or go to school, you may receive a benefit in the form of tax deductions. If you are poor, you may receive benefits in the form of SNAP (about $4-5 dollars per day for food) or a welfare check. If you are a farmer, you may receive a benefit in the form of a subsidy. If you are a rancher or miner, you may receive a benefit in the form of access to public land for grazing or mining. If you live in the US (citizen or not), you may receive benefits in the form of functioning highways, free public education, and FDIC insurance.

Moreover, even if we accept that your 49% figure is in some way representative of people who are living on the dole, you have done nothing to separate out those who cannot take care of themselves from those that choose not to take care of themselves. Throwing around large numbers is pretty pointless if those numbers don't connect to the argument that you are trying to make.

xander
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 10:28 pm

Which is why I specifically said I didn't know how many fit his description. You don't honestly expect me to be able to figure out how many are choosing not to take care of themselves? :P

By the way, the article itself (link was provided) had some percentages for various specific benefits. For example, 46 million (15%) for food stamps.
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
xander
level5
level5
Posts: 16869
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 11:41 pm
Location: Highland, CA, USA
Contact:

Postby xander » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:29 pm

Ace Rimmer wrote:Which is why I specifically said I didn't know how many fit his description. You don't honestly expect me to be able to figure out how many are choosing not to take care of themselves? :P

If you are going to defend someone who says that 47% of the population is unwilling to take care of itself, you're damn right I expect you to break it down.

xander
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:30 pm

Because people on food stamps are lazy? The problem in the states is the lack of a minimum wage that is at the level required for to be considered a "living wage." This means that people working even multiple jobs often have difficulty providing enough food for their families to survive, and that's where food stamps come in.
User avatar
Ace Rimmer
level5
level5
Posts: 10803
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 9:46 pm
Location: The Multiverse

Postby Ace Rimmer » Tue Sep 18, 2012 11:46 pm

All people on food stamps, obviously not. :P

Minimum wage is a whole different can of worms, and two cans are enough for me right now, thank you very much. :p

Perhaps we can agree on the following:

1. Too many abuse government assistance (e.g. food stamps, welfare)
2. The (U.S.) government doesn't provide enough assistance in some areas to those in need, and too much in other areas to those not in real need.
3. Politicians like to exaggerate, sometimes greatly, regardless of political affiliation or beliefs.
4. Mint cho... er, Ice cream is delicious. :P
Smoke me a kipper, I'll be back for breakfast...
User avatar
Xarlaxas
level5
level5
Posts: 1525
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:48 pm
Location: Edinburgh
Contact:

Postby Xarlaxas » Wed Sep 19, 2012 12:34 am

I don't agree on the first point, where is the proof for that?

Minimum wage isn't really a whole different can of worms because low wages are the root cause behind many people needing food stamps (and other forms of welfare) in the first place.

Number 2 we can agree on the first half, but I'd again want to see evidence of too much assistance being provided to those who are not in "real" need.

The third will be true forever!

Ice cream is delicious, at least that's a universally accepted truth!

It's true that people abuse welfare all over the world, but the degree to which this takes place seems to be exaggerated by conservatives so they can justify cutting welfare, it's the whole Dickensian idea of the "deserving" poor that disturbs me, especially when it's coupled with an attitude that stopping benefit cheats is more important than helping those in need.

Return to “Introversion Lounge”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Jackmine11, jameslovely and 16 guests