Spitfire
New member
What did you think I meant?
And that's why I always think it's funny when I hear capitalists accusing people of being liberals as though they should think it's a bad thing.
Ebenezer Scrooge: Conservative or Liberal?
- Thread starter vegascowboy
- Start date
And that's why I always think it's funny when I hear capitalists accusing people of being liberals as though they should think it's a bad thing.
genuineoriginal
New member
As soon as you started talking about taxpayers and welfare programmes, you stopped talking about society and started talking about government.
You need to find out what the difference is between the two.
Because it's always just that easy.
genuineoriginal
New member
There is no reason to think it will be easy.
Genesis 3:19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. |
That makes vegas's comment fairly flippant.
genuineoriginal
New member
Lets find out....
Nope. It is not a flippant remark.
He is saying that when the artificial comfort provided by the welfare programs is removed, then people will take responsibility for their lives and will labor to improve them.
But, as long as there are people willing to provide handouts to keep the poor out of sight, then the poor will remain in bondage to those handouts.
I read vegas's comments, thanks. And I still disagree with them. I think they're naive, and completely unrealistic. There's a real heartless undercurrent to this dismissal of the harsh realities the poor and impoverish face that's of course quite ironic considering vegas's original intention with this thread. "Go out and just get a job"? Yeah, if only it was that simple. Not everyone on welfare is some kind of freeloader.
Buzzword
New member
Granite said:
Especially given the number of EMPLOYED people who are impoverished because their employers refuse to pay them enough to actually live on.
There are thousands of Americans who are employed (sometimes in multiple jobs) yet can't earn enough for basic necessities every month.
What did you think I meant?
And that's why I always think it's funny when I hear capitalists accusing people of being liberals as though they should think it's a bad thing.
You clever girl.
At what point, exactly, did I state a belief that it would be easy?
"Simplistic" might be a better way to put it.
As for me, I never said that. In fact, I indicated the opposite. It is a matter of proportion in my mind. There are far too many people that use the welfare system as a crutch. This will ever be the case as long as they exist. They are not the answer. Like all goverment programs - that may or may not be well-intentioned - once the are implemented THEY NEVER END. They become big, ugly monsters demanding more and more resources from people who have no choice but to give them.
So many liberals love to play the BOO HOO card. Conservatives dare to suggest that immigrants come into this country by the front door and suddenly we hate Mexicans. Conservatives dare to suggest that public handouts from the goverment paid through tax dollars are not the sollution to poverty and suddently we hate children and poor people. Conservatives dare to suggest that adoption or abstinence is a viable alternative to abortion and suddenly we hate women.
I am not suggesting that we get rid of poor people. I am not suggesting that we ignore the unemployeed. I just believe that there are different - and better - ways of dealing with what is obviously an tragic problem.
some other dude
New member
But of course! Jesus loved lazy people and wanted us to wait on them hand and foot.
some other dude
New member
Nope. That's the conservative way. Notice Buzzword, who is more left than right, is suggesting that such reduction is an unpleasant consequence, whereas traditional conservatives have endorsed the idea of the "natural consequences" of unrestricted population growth. The argument is that population will stabilize at a sustainable level, as it will be impossible for everyone to survive above a certain population level.
The left, when it recognized the Malthusian argument at all, has favored an aggressive birth control program, e.g. India or China.
Buzzword says:
Do you not agree that much of the suffering going on in the world today would be alleviated by a reduction in the number of people competing for a very finite amount of resources?
Overpopulation is already happening in many areas of the planet, and in the U.S. it's really only a matter of time before some type of winnowing, whether more abortions, more contraceptives, or outright sterilizations, starts occurring because we simply can't feed and house everybody.
In that, Scrooge (pre-ghost) was a classic conservative.
genuineoriginal
New member
You know the truth. Now let yourself believe it.
I do. But you aren't ready to accept it yourself.
Absolutely! there are great rewards that await the lazy sluggard. :nono:
Unions are socialist and minimum wage is one of the worst ideas to ever be implemented.
And no transportation? Really? He didn't have two feet and a heartbeat?
I understand that it was winter at the time of the story but it wasn't always winter in the Victorian era.
No he doesn't. He suggests imprisoning them or putting them in workhouses.
You really think there would be a single person for whom no one would care? You're stupid.
If there is anyone in your family who is truly unable to work you should be participating in helping them and the government should keep its hand out of my pocket regarding your family.
If you save your money then you don't need "benefits" if you lose your job.
If Bob had found another job Scrooge would have had to hire someone else and if no one would have been willing to accept his pittance he would have gone out of business as he had no one to help him.
None of these are right-wing arguments.:nono:
Liberal wasn't always a bad word.