kokigami

Member
  • Posts

    4,896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kokigami

  1. I understand the system design but its not helping the truely needy its assisting the lazy so what I was trying to say if its the lazy that are getting the assistance then I think everybody should because I am paying their bills when they are just sitting on their butts not trying to help their selfs.

    seems a sweeping, and unsupported statement. Though, I suspect some people who get support are lazy, the large majority are working poor..

  2. anyone look at the link? It gives a pretty good survey response to this question. It effectively refutes Youch claim that "In case that was not clear, virtually none in the Muslim community has denounced any of their global terrorism". It doesn't rely on personal anecdote.

    The vast majority of Muslims in several very Islamic areas of the world, oppose attacks on civilians as a means of achieving their largely shared objective of getting us (the US) out of their part of the world. But, as we saw with the fight over universal background checks, the majority can not always get the minority to act a certain way.

  3. If it had worked, it would not have been supplanted by another system. That is why the internal combustion engine has not lost its dominance yet. evolution isn't just a biological event. It is social and political.

    I think you tell a lot with your terminology above. You don't say charitable opportunities that present themselves, but "confront me". You really don't approve of charitable requests. Taxes are just your excuse.

  4. right, and that is why we now have welfare. We tried the kindness of strangers thing long enough to know it doesn't work.

    Also, you must admit that welfare wasn't the only change in US policy around that time. International warfare, led to seeking and trying to maintain superpower status, a long and expensive cold war, and some pretty creative neo imperialism certainly helped drain the coffers.

  5. One problem with everyone relying on the government for help is that we assume everyone is taken care of, and good deeds are no longer necessary. Society grows cold and we forget how to help each other. You've got a good attitude lordie, a good Christian would also have compassion and help the people you mentioned, but there aren't many good Christians around these days who help the infirmed. "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction" (James 1:27). I think we get so caught-up with all the "Thou shall not" rules in the bible, that we forget about the "do's". Jesus said; "For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.... ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me" (Matthew 25:35-45).

    historically, good deeds didn't get us as far as welfare has in taking care of the poor. Just sayin...

  6. well, I would go to the person who told you this, and ask them for references.. They may have it all wrong, having learned if from someone who had it all wrong.. or maybe just mostly wrong.. My bet is they can't cite references, which makes the claim a bit suspect..

    But, you can then contact some other places that do this, and inquire if they know of such policies or the source. The agencies that do this are far more likely than we, here, are to know something about the rules governing their operations, though they may well have them.. as I say.. all wrong. Someone likely knows from whence they arise..

  7. Providing for the common defense and securing the blessings of liberty for ourselves and our posterity is NOT waging war. It is PREPARING for war, should anything threaten us. Yes, this does mean, occassionally, having to actually wage war, but that is not the ultimate goal.

    it is the closest on the list. Where as, taxing and spending, redistributing wealth, etc, all fall loosely under establishing justice and promoting the general welfare. Which is topical. I am simply refuting the claim that the federal government is exclusively a war/defense administration agency.

    That's all well on paper, but do not confuse what was written, with how our founding fathers acted, or what they individually intended. The army existed long before the Constitution, and was reassembled within a year of the ratification of the Constitution in order to enforce tax collection and to protect its tax collectors. It failed at the former mainly because there were not enough tax collectors.

    The Constitution was written to replace the Articles of Confederation for two specific reasons to have a centrally controlled military and to collect taxes so the the central government could effectively act. The need for these was brought out by Shay's Rebellion and by foreign states seeking to divide and conquer the confederation.

    At the beginning of the national government it existed as an extension of the state governments and as a means for them to act together. It was not intended by most of the signers to replace the state governments. A state meant a separate country. We were the United Countries of America.

    Hamilton was the main architect of the end of individual state power. His frustration with the decentralized nature of the Continental Congress during his time in the military in the revolutionary war brought him to seek a more militarily efficient centralized government. His contributions to our constitution were meant to create a centralized mercantile empire like England at the time. We are lucky Aaron Burr put a musket ball in him. The states were not finally subdued until Lincoln fifty years later in a war to collect taxes. It Hamilton had lived another twenty years and accomplished more of his political machinations the "Civil" war would have never happened, and slavery would still have ended as it did elsewhere without military action. The tariffs alone, if collected, would have crushed the plantations and ended slavery, or they could have been seized, paid for and freed by the national government. The only reason for the war was to solidify a centralized government and eliminate state power to oppose it.

    well, that is a view, I guess.

    Panpareil, I believe it may have been just a few more than fifty years. But as to the rest, you forgot one thing. The Civil War was only about slavery after it had ended. The Southern Sates had a real problem with not being autonomous, which is why they seceeded. They demanded, and expected to receive, that autonomy. When they realized they weren't autonomous, and were, in fact, accountable to the centralized government, they got a little peeved about that. The Emancipation Proclamation was only the icing, if you will. The cherry on top? Over 50% of non-whites in the South were not slaves, and some, (over 25%) were born free. Some even owned slaves of their own.

    The rest? Yeah, that's about right.

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm

    I think you are incorrect, though this doesn't account for any Hispanic or Asian populations.. I don't think they would have skewed the results much..

    Hamilton's death 1804 - Fort Sumter 1861 = 57 years. Yeah should have rounded up not down.

    And I do realize the war was only about slavery to the abolitionists during the war, but was added to the history after the war to make Lincoln look better. Everything he wrote and everything he signed in to law, regulation, or outright order, did not favor the abolishment of slavery one iota. He was also entirely opposed to integration of blacks on an equal level into white society. He instead favored Liberia as the solution.

    Before the war the several states interpreted the constitution to allow states to declare federal law unconstitutional if they determined it was so. Thus nullifying the enforcement of any federal law in a state that found it unconstitutional. These nulllifications were generally about tariffs that protected northern industrialists and allowed them to collect higher prices for their goods. In effect redistributing wealth from the south to the north, much the way subsidizing of green energy while regulating carbon energy redistributes wealth from one group of industrialist to another in our present times. In both cases the ultimate financial burden falls on the consumer in the form of inflated prices. The northern states were will to do that in exchange for more jobs, and higher salaries. The south on the other hand just got the inflated prices, and because the tariffs decreased imports it also affected the price of their crops overseas.

    As far as autonomy, there would never have been a United States if such a centralized government were ever outright proposed. They were sold a federation of states and instead received a government much like what they had fought to free themselves from.

    Lincoln didn't start the war. Sumpter was attacked by the south. The south seceded over slavery issues. (several of the states mention this in their declarations of secession.). Ergo, the war was about slavery. I know historical revision is a popular debate technique, but it is also the reason we so often repeat history.

    Songster,

    You miss the point that there were MORE slaves in the NORTH then in the SOUTH, and the Emancipation Proclaimation only freed those in the SOUTH. Slavery was only PART of the issues, not the whole thing.

    In short, you are as WRONG! as you've decided to call my wife. They did hype up the slavery issue AFTER the war ended. After all, history, victors, etc.

    http://www.bowdoin.edu/~prael/lesson/tables.htm again..

  8. All these problems that you mention happen because the government is not the proper place to turn to if you want to fix your life. The primary task the government was designed for is to wage war. This is the template for all the other departments grafted onto government. Hence the war on drugs, the war on poverty, etc. The progressives saw the first two world wars as marvelous examples of organizing to solve social problems. Their success is such that even a cut to the increase in spending on these programs will send us careening right back to where we started. Making it seem that they have made no progress at all. The problem of poverty is still as bad as ever, as is the drug problem. On poverty alone we are spending enough money to give each man woman or child in poverty a check for almost $290 each week. But the bulk of the money never ends up in the hands of the poor. Instead it helps fund the paychecks of those who live in the wealthiest counties in the country, those that ring Washington DC.

    We the People of the United States,

    • in Order to form a more perfect Union,
    • establish Justice,
    • insure domestic Tranquility,
    • provide for the common defence,
    • promote the general Welfare, and
    • secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,

    do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

    waging war was one of 6 items listed for the formation of the federal governement. Not even the first. Governing efforts are patterned after a war theme because the war theme tends to stir motivation, not to justify their existence.

  9. As in came to my attention you all assume my abstract writing is wrong well as foryou that like it i thank u for you all that don't i don't care .u c i am the one who has to live w myself and therefore i do what i want even tho some of u cannot stand my writing style

    instead of reading w an open mind u read w a closed mind as the way u were taught. i was taught the same but u should see my teachers faces when i was tested and the examiner told the teachers they ate teaching wrong . it was great and. my one teacher taught me to be open minded .not close .if you all can't read it learn it

    show respect don't hate .

    I can't speak for others, but, here, you mis -characterize my position. I think. I don't think your abstract writing is wrong. I think it is difficult to read and distracting.

  10. Not really. What creates ease of understanding is familiarity, not adherence to rules. Following set rules makes it easier to create familiar patterns, but those rules are not necessary for it to happen. This is proven by the fact that we are all able to communicate fairly effectively long before we know about things like grammar, simply because of our innate ability to parrot our parents.

    chicken egg problem. The familiar patterns form the rules. We didn't invent the language, it evolved. the protocols are a function of the language. The specifics of Grammar are an attempt to trap the evolutionary process. The mind is pretty good as sussing out the intent of a message even when the protocols are breached, but it is a distraction.

  11. Linguistic authoritarianism is an ugly thing. The prejudice it causes brings out ugliness in everyone who embraces it. Fair warning

    yeah, there is that. I have generally been a person who believes that spelling is a minor fascism foisted upon us by the previous century.. on the one hand. However, the closer one adheres to protocols of spelling and grammar, the more easily one can be understood by others familiar with the protocols. It is a balancing act.

    Language is an interesting tool of social engineering. I read somewhere, though I am not sure it is true, that the words we consider obscene are mostly the anglo saxaon terms, suppressed by the normans in their cultural conquests. So we can now say fornicate, but we must refer to the anglo saxon as the F word.

    I am not sure where I stand on this.

  12. I am happy for churches to be tax free.

    Making them taxed. Makes them exactly no different than large corporations. It also empowers them to have all the influence that large corporates have.

    Large corporates can do far more in society than any church.

    Why are all the Atheists focussing on Churches, yet say nothing about the large corporates who give massive subsidies and who pay little tax (through evasion)??

    It's because the Atheist lobby seems to have little grasp on business and Economics.

    If people think taxing churches will dis-empower them, they are surely mistaken.

    Give the money to the elderly? The tax becomes the government's money. Last time I checked Republicans work full time to cut welfare and pass subsidies and tax breaks along to..... Corporations (that are taxed).

    well, this agnostic, objects to corporations as well. I make no distinction between the two. And my experience with atheists has been a mixed bag of libertarians, socialists, and the apolitical. I think you are making an inaccurate generalization.

  13. still, there are at least two salient points in there. One is that he is mostly unemployable. Not that he can't work, necessarily, but that few would hire him, when there are others, more capable, to hire. Which leads to a second point, that he is unlikely to make a living wage at any job he might be able to get. These are both problems that arise from a work force that is too large for demand.

    It is a sensible, and financially sound decision at an individual level. But on an aggregate level, it creates a tension that puts the system at risk, if too many people make it. Much like the anti vaxers put the general health at risk.

    It is not like no contribution is being made to the social matrix. Buskers, at least good ones, help to make a locality unique, and of interest to visitors, at least. They are a mixed blessing, however, as some hate them. (at least it isn't street mime, eh?)

  14. Once we say that God has little if anything to do with the Bible -- We are left with an unknown God.

    well, maybe.

    First, the bible is not the only possible source of info that claims to describe God. So knowledge of God may still exist.

    Second, it is possible that God had little or nothing to do with the bible because God does not exist. Just like My Aunt Emma had little or nothing to do with the bible. I don't have an aunt Emma.

    And, of course, it is a popular religious trope that we can't really know God anyway.. because of the difference in scale, or righteousness or what ever. (this is generally brought up when trying to explain why God might have - say - allowed someones child to die: the whole God works in Mysterious ways thing..) So it is quite possible a God of that nature has not intended for us to "know" them..

    Just options..

  15. The government says I'm too disabled to work and I was born with cerebral palsy and have diabetes type two all I had to do was build on these and with a good lawyer a judge said I couldn't work backed by doctors. Fortunately pain and difficulties with complex situations mentally are kind of nebulous and adding those in as problems was easy. It was all done perfectly legal they never went into self-employment skills like my Busking or making jewelry or doing astrological charts as areas of work and I never offered this information since it wasn't asked for. And even my few former employers backed up my difficulty at doing assigned tasks as a reason for my being fired.

    I for one just did what corporations would do exploit the rules for their benefit, I did for mine. Blame the government for having standard for disability so broad you can drive a truck through it if you stick to the rules and I didn't need to lie I have foot and hand issues, and pain all I did was write it down and say I need pain management for it which my primary care provider does. No one delved into that much and I never offered voluntary add-on points at the advice of council.

    while you have a valid point, re doing just what a corp would do, do you not see how puts you on a par with said corporations? You appear to fall into the complicated area of the the semi deserving poor. You are obviously clever enough to work the system, which means you are probably clever enough to work in the "system".

    There are those who feel if you can work, you should stuggle along with the rest of us, and eek out a minimal existence. That is, in large part, because, the way the system currently works, the burden of your support is falling to those who are only marginally better off.

    I don't have exact answers for this. Tax reform, moving more of the burden up the pyramid, seem like a good plan. Better screening and removal of corporate welfare would also help.

  16. The difference is, you think everyone should pay, but Everyone does not agree. Joe Q. Everyone. I will represent Everyone in this argument, and you will represent you. Since you can't make Everyone pay, you support legislation, or nowadays Presidential Fiats, that mandates a certain activity/behavior (the first time ever in American History, mind you) the your neighbors/Everyone WILL comply by threat of force or confiscation (Robert's Unconstitutional Tax, and a host of other Sec'y of HHS fines and penalties). Everyone believes in everyone, and you believe in a small group of functionaries with loyalties to only their elites, who are so far removed from your best interests, and fully unmoored from the Constitution, that your health needs are not a concern and even more sad, they have long ago taken your vote for granted because1) they know you are a drone, and 2) they don't care about Everyone.....how could they/it possibly!!!

    You can't represent everyone in this arguement, because you don't represent everyone. Everyone includes us both. Semantically, it would be more correct, I think, to say "not everyone agrees". Which is my point, yes. You don't. Neither does Pan. But you both agree I should help pay for the military. See how the compromise works. I help pay for the military, which, in my view is bloated and wasteful, and you help pay for Welfare, which in your opinion is bloated and wasteful. I have always been curious what would happen if we allowed society to earmark their taxes themselves. The bill would remain the same, but the citizen would be able to assign it as percentages for different spending. That would be an interesting experiment.

    Have you heard the polls show that acceptance, even appreciation, of Obamacare is on the rise? Still early in the life of this particular bill, but, it will be interesting to watch how it all pans out..