Random Politics & Religion #01

I agree with everything but this.

I'd say that about Liberals, Democrats and todays Republicans.

However, Conservatives at the very least care for people that care for themselves and want to better those around them. If everyone would work on bettering those closest to them in your circle, that would eventually make it all the way around and everyone would be better off.

Basically, it all starts with family then moves to friends so on and so forth.

The problem with Liberals, Democrats and todays republicans. They all want to do away with family and have the government take its place.

inb4.. but I don't have family or my family sucks! The Government "society" owes me! I guess you suck at making friends?

Not to speak for Raev, but I would say it's more like stop expanding all these programs and start trimming away some bureaucracy. Not to mention things that you have mentioned lead to things like Obamacare that the VAST majority never wanted in the first place. Who knows what will be next the way this government is spending our tax money!

You're forgetting the other two pieces of the psychology Triforce, chief. They are driven by what they want, what they fear, and what they believe in. Know all three and you will know everything a person will do.

it's a double edged sword people will be on the wrong side of either way give them enough to survive etc they won't better themselves, give them nothing and they will starve/resort to crime etc.

personally being the epitome of self made i absolutely try to help folks out because it does feel good to know that you helped someone not have to live the shitbag life you did

Various posters here have supported such extreme measures in the past on various threads. They have also vilified, and then emotionally attacked anyone with an opposing viewpoint. Things along the lines of 100% inheritance tax, 70~100% income tax on incomes over various values to go along with the general demonization of capitalism.


I support public services that everyone directly benefits from. Police, hospitals, fire fighters, defense, water, parks and such. After that it's very selective, every social program that distributes wealth from the wealthy to the poor is an economic burden and hurts the economy. Now some of these are necessary to prevent the poor from becoming easily manipulated and rioting to overthrow the "evil capitalists". It becomes a balancing act, you sacrifice some economic prosperity for social stability.

Sacrifice too much and you start a death spiral where the wealth being siphoned off the wealth generators is more then what they can sustain and the result is less and less being fed back into the economy system. Eventually the generators can no longer support the system and it crash's as they make their exist. This is what Ms. Thatcher meant when she made that famous quote about socialism running out of "other people's money".

Again we can rationally discuss how much economic sacrifice is necessary, hard core capitalists will argue for absolutely none, while hard core progressives will argue that any amount of sacrifice is worth the social justice it would create. In actuality there must be a middle ground where the solution is tailored the a societies specific demographics and cultures. The USA has a particularity difficult situation due to the sheer number of different cultures and demographics involved, what benefits and provides social stability to one may be a detriment and create instability in another.


Those are also incentives. Incentives are not just economic, though economic ones are the easiest to deal with. Bill Gates didn't donate that massive sum on money out of an economic desire, nor out of a desire to help people, but out of the egotistical desire to create something bigger then himself. Once he had reached a certain wealth status, what other accomplishment could he have done? The only thing left was immortality, so he immortalized himself by creating something bigger then him that will go down in the history books. His name will be spoken and remembered long after his and his children's deaths.

BTW, that's the same motivation Trump has for becoming President. Not to serve some political overlord, or to become successful or to create some accomplishment, but to be forever remembered as a President of the USA. Wealthy individuals tend to have motivators that are outside pure economical ones, which is why if you want to get them to voluntarily transfer their wealth, you need to create an incentive that address's their ego or sense of self. Instead of holding a gun to their head, calling them evil oppressors, and then demanding their money, you do the exact opposite.

You help others because doing so gives you a kick of self satisfaction and validation. Not because it helps them, but because it helps you feel better about yourself and provides grounds for moral superiority.

There is nothing wrong about that, it's perfectly normal and acceptable.

People need to start accepting that it's OK to be flawed and imperfect. That it's OK to do things for selfish reasons. Being human is not something to be ashamed of.

while i get where you're coming from i don't do it to feel good that's a side effect and the people i help damn well earn it

Ignoring the pages of strawmanning, sovietic paranoia and endless projection of one's own faults into everybody else... (wonder who that is)

To those who think "only a conservative is good". That speaks loads about yourself. Without even touching the "liberals hate people" which is so stupid it's not worth debating at all, let's talk about the socio-economic models.
There is a lot of good in both capitalism and socialism. To think otherwise means to be too fixated and not elastic enough. One values self-actualization(which is very important mind you)and vertical growth; the other universalism and the importance of the whole community(without it we would have gone extinct).
The hard part is finding a good balance between them. And no, we're not going to solve it today here on this website, philosophers have been debating it literally for centuries and still haven't agreed.

I now see the light. Since everything good humans ever do has some materialistic explanation in the form of self-interest, that means the inverse must also always be true. Eat ***, evolutionary biology.

Appeals to nature are completely valid and should be a guiding principle in building society.

Just in case you forgot we're actually on a video game forum.


TODAY MIGHT BE THE DAY, YOU DON'T KNOW


I've been saying this for years. Glad y'all are finally on my level.


While I subscribe to more altruism than I think you do, this is an important point to remember no matter where you fall on the political spectrums.

Why would you care about other people !

The middle ground is just enough socialism to maintain corporate welfare and keep "capitalism" afloat. There's no room for using some of those tax dollars to bring our infrastructure and medical systems out of the 1950's.

It's no wonder you see the light:

That avatar hurts my eyes. ><

Also NINE PAGES!!

So let me see if I get this.... I busted my *** to get where I am in life, so now I have to bust my *** to get you to a good place in life because you choose not to?

Nine pages without childish name call a new record !

No, Josiah is Canadian. There's no helping him.

Good enough?

think of it this way:

If you help to provide opportunities for the poverty stricken, maybe they won't rob your convenience store. there are plenty of selfish reasons we can apply here.

Actually, most taxes go into the General Fund which can be used for anything and everything the government spends cash on. Either for public works or welfare. Specific taxes, like gas taxes, are earmarked for specific uses, such as road maintenance.

As for income taxes, I'm a tax accountant and I see the point in having an income tax. Hell, we wouldn't have a hundredth of our current technology and/or social services if it wasn't for the federal income tax.

Generally speaking. There is a lot of governmental waste that goes on. Such as substandard repair work due to the contractors who are hired by the government "bidding low, charging high." By law, an agency is supposed to hire the contractor for any project at the lowest bid, but also they are supposed to pay for all work done. Meaning, if a contractor bids the lowest, they can then charge the highest to complete the project. Bait-and-switch schemes are prevalent to contract work. (Disclaimer: It's not every governmental contract work that does it, but it is commonplace, especially in construction and road work).

Medicare is a boon to the population, but it's also not giving the proper care one would receive if they paid for the treatment on their own. Again, substandard work for government pay.

There is a reason why Sander's "economic solutions" are considered to create more problems than good. He wishes to halt investments, halt innovations, and halt lending (your example of bringing back Glass-Steagall shows that).

If you want to limit securities trading in commercial banks, fine, let's go after that (It doesn't exist, by the way). Let's not touch lending ability also associated with it. Besides, the whole purpose of Glass-Steagall was to separate commercial and investment banking. That's already in place. Since Glass-Steagall was repealed, guess what, commercial and investment banking stayed separated.

So, bringing back Glass-Steagall will have no effect on the original problem presented in 1932/1933 (when the acts were first signed into law), but instead put a hamper on the small aspects of the law, which is basically lending abilities of banks. How is that helpful to the economy, which is debt driven, again?

If you help them, they can afford more *** to pile in their yards that we all have to look at.

The easy solution is for poor people to stop being poor !

Please, nobody gives a real ***about the public good. They say they do so they can be elected, then ***on everyone by passing outlandish laws that benefit nobody but the person in power and his/her donors.

Case in point, 2009-2011.

That's true Bernie Sanders told me he likes young boys...to vote for him !

Look I get it I came from nothing. No one paid my way I worked for it. I joined Army right out of high school because I knew my parents could not afford to send me to college, i was the youngest of 3. My brother joined the Air Force right out of high school as well because he too knew my parents could not afford to send us to college. I was 19 when I had my first child and was away from that child when deployed. Had second child at 21. I knew I needed to bust my *** to make it because people depended on me. After Army was over I went to school and became a RN then on to Nurse Practitioner. I never touched a welfare program because I did not want a handout. I also did not want to spend 1 year x2 in a far distant war zone, but I did what I had to do to support my family. Others have the same opportunity I had they just refuse to grasp it.