Republican Presidential Debate

[Guard Dog]

Back to the points raised on the previous page. There is one thing I absolutely KNOW to be true when it comes to redistributive economics. And it is this: Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving. The government is a not-for-profit organization. It does not earn money, it takes it. It does have a certain number of functions it must perform and it uses some of the money it takes to perform them. Then it gives the rest away in the form of welfare and social programs. The decision every voter must make before they touch that screen is simple. How much of your sweat, time, and labor are the recipients of that money entitled to? How much of the income you use to support your family can they demand of you and yours? The democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would tell you "A lot". Bernie Sanders would tell you "Almost all of it". The Republicans are all over the map on that one. If you have a job, work hard to support yourselves and those you love voting really is all about choosing how much less your family gets and who is doing the taking and who ultimately benefits from the work you did.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Back to the points raised on the previous page. There is one thing I absolutely KNOW to be true when it comes to redistributive economics. And it is this: Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving. The government is a not-for-profit organization. It does not earn money, it takes it. It does have a certain number of functions it must perform and it uses some of the money it takes to perform them. Then it gives the rest away in the form of welfare and social programs. The decision every voter must make before they touch that screen is simple. How much of your sweat, time, and labor are the recipients of that money entitled to? How much of the income you use to support your family can they demand of you and yours? The democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would tell you "A lot". Bernie Sanders would tell you "Almost all of it". The Republicans are all over the map on that one. If you have a job, work hard to support yourselves and those you love voting really is all about choosing how much less your family gets and who is doing the taking and who ultimately benefits from the work you did.

 

To be fair, research shows income over 70k dollars a year or somesuch doesn't meaningfully increase happiness, so there's that.

[Darkpriest]

 

Back to the points raised on the previous page. There is one thing I absolutely KNOW to be true when it comes to redistributive economics. And it is this: Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving. The government is a not-for-profit organization. It does not earn money, it takes it. It does have a certain number of functions it must perform and it uses some of the money it takes to perform them. Then it gives the rest away in the form of welfare and social programs. The decision every voter must make before they touch that screen is simple. How much of your sweat, time, and labor are the recipients of that money entitled to? How much of the income you use to support your family can they demand of you and yours? The democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would tell you "A lot". Bernie Sanders would tell you "Almost all of it". The Republicans are all over the map on that one. If you have a job, work hard to support yourselves and those you love voting really is all about choosing how much less your family gets and who is doing the taking and who ultimately benefits from the work you did.

 

To be fair, research shows income over 70k dollars a year or somesuch doesn't meaningfully increase happiness, so there's that.

 

 

It depends how much you have to work for it. Usually people have to spend significant amount of time at work, on top of a few years of experience, certificates, etc. to enter income that high. I know people basically tied to their BlackBerries (or some other similar device) and working even in their "off time". I remember myself doing stuff like waking up at 5-6 in the morning, to check some data and then push for reports to some shared service center in other timezone, which i could review before a management meeting at 10am, then you get a ton of various leads on projects, sales, etc. then in the evening you are still on the mobile phone/mail because in another timezone there might be something or someone that needs attention, etc. and then you go to sleep at around midnight.

 

But there are also times where it is slightly slower paced and then you start to appreciate the higher income, and spend some more money on various means of entertainment or traveling - or invest in various things to retire at 50-55 and enjoy the life from there on.

 

It is always funny when people who never really understood the concept of making money are demanding to take money from others and give it to them.

Edited December 22, 2015 by Darkpriest

[aluminiumtrioxid]

Usually people have to spend significant amount of time at work, on top of a few years of experience, certificates, etc. to enter income that high. I know people basically tied to their BlackBerries (or some other similar device) and working even in their "off time". I remember myself doing stuff like waking up at 5-6 in the morning, to check some data and then push for reports to some shared service center in other timezone, which i could review before a management meeting at 10am, then you get a ton of various leads on projects, sales, etc. then in the evening you are still on the mobile phone/mail because in another timezone there might be something or someone that needs attention, etc. and then you go to sleep at around midnight.

 

Sounds like a pretty miserable existence.

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

[Darkpriest]

 

Usually people have to spend significant amount of time at work, on top of a few years of experience, certificates, etc. to enter income that high. I know people basically tied to their BlackBerries (or some other similar device) and working even in their "off time". I remember myself doing stuff like waking up at 5-6 in the morning, to check some data and then push for reports to some shared service center in other timezone, which i could review before a management meeting at 10am, then you get a ton of various leads on projects, sales, etc. then in the evening you are still on the mobile phone/mail because in another timezone there might be something or someone that needs attention, etc. and then you go to sleep at around midnight.

 

Sounds like a pretty miserable existence.

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

yes, I can't say it's perfect, but then again people want to spend money, while not everyone is willing to earn it. There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them. Middle management is the worst though, and a lot of people burn out at that point. I had to take myself over a year of break from work, but then again i could use my assets to do so, travel around, do other various things, but i retained experience and achievements, that allowed me to come back to a well paid job, with better work/life balance.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

 

How about this; If people are not working harder to earn more who will pay the taxes that funds the welfare for those who don't work.

[Darkpriest]

 

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

 

 

and the alternative is what? if people want recognition, want more money, want more goods, luxury items and such, why not let them do that? As it is, it gives you the choice. Ultimately it is YOUR choice, and every single decision has alternative costs. The problem I have with redistribution is that you want to take away from people who worked hard for what they have, just to give it to lazy/stupid/without foresight or otherwise people unable or unwilling to make decisions that would allow them to earn what they want.

 

Why YOU as collective (you/me/society) should be the judge of someone else's life choices and their career? They know the trade offs they made and is up to those people, and not someone else to decide how their money should be spent. If it was legally acquired, then it's none of your or mine business.

 

There are though universal values, that should be protected - personal safety, safety of your assets, personal freedom, basic medical help, in case of life threatening incidents, and environment of equal chances at the birth and elementary education. From there it is the life of your choices and choices of your family.

 

EDIT: the best government would be the one, which takes only this much as to protect the values above, and was able to create laws that enable people to make more money and increase their standard of living through their own work. There would be some exceptions like disabled on birth and creating environment of as equal chances as you can get for them and those who had some unfortunate event and became disabled. 

 

You can argue on the form of certain laws regarding the various details, but government institutions should be minimal. Remember that redistribution beurocracy does not create any added value, it just takes away a portion of money you want to redistribute. The more money in redistribution cycle the higher % cost of it.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Darkpriest

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

 

 

How about this; If people are not working harder to earn more who will pay the taxes that funds the welfare for those who don't work.

 

 

So you agree paying the welfare of those who don't work is a desirable goal in and of itself?

[Hurlshort]

This was a pretty good story:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1221/US-troops-to-American-Muslim-child-iwillprotectyou-video

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

The problem I have with redistribution is that you want to take away from people who worked hard for what they have, just to give it to lazy/stupid/without foresight or otherwise people unable or unwilling to make decisions that would allow them to earn what they want.

 

 

 

Is there inherent value in letting people freeze on the streets because they were unable or unwilling to make decisions that would allow them to earn enough to keep their homes? Is there inherent value in letting people die of diseases because they were unable or unwilling to make decisions that would allow them to have access to basic healthcare?

 

Because at one point, you have to decide whether your abstract principle of "no money should be taken away from people who earned it, even if it impacts their quality of life in a minuscule manner" is more valuable than the actual human lives that are lost because of this policy.

 

 

 

 

Why YOU as collective (you/me/society) should be the judge of someone else's life choices and their career?

 

 

Exactly. Why should we judge people's life choices and come to the conclusion that certain people should live below the poverty line, even if they took maximal advantage of the opportunities at their disposal, even if they do work hard, because they deserve it for not going to a business school?

Edited December 23, 2015 by aluminiumtrioxid

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

 

 

How about this; If people are not working harder to earn more who will pay the taxes that funds the welfare for those who don't work.

 

 

So you agree paying the welfare of those who don't work is a desirable goal in and of itself?

 

No, I do not. It has to be done, I don't have to like it. I was just trying to answer your question.

[Guard Dog]

In the story of the grasshopper and the ants the ants work and the grasshopper doesn't. They survive and he dies. We are a bit more civilized that that. Some of the ants labor goes to support the grasshopper (no matter how deserving or undeserving of it he may be). That is always going to happen. The question is how much of the labor of the workers are the lazy entitled to?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

In the story of the grasshopper and the ants the ants work and the grasshopper doesn't. They survive and he dies. We are a bit more civilized that that. Some of the ants labor goes to support the grasshopper (no matter how deserving or undeserving of it he may be). That is always going to happen. The question is how much of the labor of the workers are the lazy entitled to?

Apparently the difference between the ant's wages and the value of what he produces.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Remind me again, what societal good is achieved by heavily incentivizing people to do that to themselves?

 

 

There is always some trade off, and some people are willing to make some sacrifices in hopes of various other things that money might give them.

 

 

Doesn't quite answer my question.

 

Why should society as a whole incentivize people to ruin their physical and mental health in pursuit of the incentives said society offers for doing so?

 

 

How about this; If people are not working harder to earn more who will pay the taxes that funds the welfare for those who don't work.

 

 

So you agree paying the welfare of those who don't work is a desirable goal in and of itself?

 

No, I do not. It has to be done, I don't have to like it. I was just trying to answer your question.

 

 

If it didn't have to be done, what would be your answer?

 

The question is how much of the labor of the workers are the lazy entitled to?

 

Unless you have a very specific and reliable method of determining who's "lazy", that question can hardly be answered.

[Namutree]

In the story of the grasshopper and the ants the ants work and the grasshopper doesn't. They survive and he dies. We are a bit more civilized that that. Some of the ants labor goes to support the grasshopper (no matter how deserving or undeserving of it he may be). That is always going to happen. 

It's always going to happen? Who says?

 

Not that this whole scenario isn't a bit misleading as government welfare isn't the only or even best way to help those who could use assistance. People being "lazy" is hardly a major issue anyway. The biggest problem is by far people whom reach adulthood with no marketable skills. This is usually the fault of bad parenting and a broken education system; especially in high schools.

 

 

In the story of the grasshopper and the ants the ants work and the grasshopper doesn't. They survive and he dies. We are a bit more civilized that that. Some of the ants labor goes to support the grasshopper (no matter how deserving or undeserving of it he may be). That is always going to happen. The question is how much of the labor of the workers are the lazy entitled to?

Apparently the difference between the ant's wages and the value of what he produces.

 

I see what you did there.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Namutree

[ShadySands]

Some numbers

[Wrath of Dagon]

This was a pretty good story:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1221/US-troops-to-American-Muslim-child-iwillprotectyou-video

"In 2008, ABC asked two actors to play the role of an unwelcoming shop keeper and a Muslim customer in a Waco, Texas, bakery. Over and over, the female actor would enter and attempt to order a pastry; over and over, the man posing as the sales clerk insulted her faith and refused to serve her." The media has to stage anti-Muslim incidents because they can't find any in real life.

 

As far as social and entitlement programs, I'm not that bothered by their existence. Realistically you're not going to be able to get rid of them, whether desirable or not. The real challenge is keeping them from bankrupting the country and trying to minimize creating dependency on the government. What's really outrageous is that not only are we now expected to provide for our own citizens, but also any third world invader that breaks into the country, as well as their innumerable children.

 

Edit: How vile and full of burning hatred do you have to be to do something like this: http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/2015/12/22/ted-cruz-strikes-back-at-washington-post-cartoonist-for-mocking-his-daughters-theyre-out-of-your-league/

Edited December 23, 2015 by Wrath of Dagon

[Calax]

 

 

Back to the points raised on the previous page. There is one thing I absolutely KNOW to be true when it comes to redistributive economics. And it is this: Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving. The government is a not-for-profit organization. It does not earn money, it takes it. It does have a certain number of functions it must perform and it uses some of the money it takes to perform them. Then it gives the rest away in the form of welfare and social programs. The decision every voter must make before they touch that screen is simple. How much of your sweat, time, and labor are the recipients of that money entitled to? How much of the income you use to support your family can they demand of you and yours? The democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would tell you "A lot". Bernie Sanders would tell you "Almost all of it". The Republicans are all over the map on that one. If you have a job, work hard to support yourselves and those you love voting really is all about choosing how much less your family gets and who is doing the taking and who ultimately benefits from the work you did.

 

To be fair, research shows income over 70k dollars a year or somesuch doesn't meaningfully increase happiness, so there's that.

 

 

It depends how much you have to work for it. Usually people have to spend significant amount of time at work, on top of a few years of experience, certificates, etc. to enter income that high. I know people basically tied to their BlackBerries (or some other similar device) and working even in their "off time". I remember myself doing stuff like waking up at 5-6 in the morning, to check some data and then push for reports to some shared service center in other timezone, which i could review before a management meeting at 10am, then you get a ton of various leads on projects, sales, etc. then in the evening you are still on the mobile phone/mail because in another timezone there might be something or someone that needs attention, etc. and then you go to sleep at around midnight.

 

But there are also times where it is slightly slower paced and then you start to appreciate the higher income, and spend some more money on various means of entertainment or traveling - or invest in various things to retire at 50-55 and enjoy the life from there on.

 

It is always funny when people who never really understood the concept of making money are demanding to take money from others and give it to them.

 

Honestly, from my perspective, what's ultimately happened is that you've created this situation for yourself. You're deliberately doing the job of more than one person in order to promote yourself in the eyes of your bosses, which means you're effectively underpaid for your position, and are doing the job for "intangibles".

 

The Studies have shown that a forced 2 week vacation every so often actually makes people happier because it allows them to reset and get their lives in order.

 

As to the post/article I linked. My issue with it is that it doesn't differentiate between those who are working, but are still eligable for those social programs because the minimum wage is woefully inadequite for anyone to live on (seriously GD, we have two options, raise the minimum wage, or force McDonalds/Walmart to pay for the social programs their employees are forced to use), and those who are (in the words of the ex-friend) "getting free cell phones and complaining about how wealth needs to be redistributed".

[Zoraptor]

 

In the story of the grasshopper and the ants the ants work and the grasshopper doesn't. They survive and he dies. We are a bit more civilized that that. Some of the ants labor goes to support the grasshopper (no matter how deserving or undeserving of it he may be). That is always going to happen.

It's always going to happen? Who says?

 

Not that this whole scenario isn't a bit misleading as government welfare isn't the only or even best way to help those who could use assistance. People being "lazy" is hardly a major issue anyway. The biggest problem is by far people whom reach adulthood with no marketable skills. This is usually the fault of bad parenting and a broken education system; especially in high schools.

 

 

Not necessarily, there's plenty of stuff that required real skill and qualifications that has been obsoleted by advancing technology or changing circumstance. If you were a car assembly guy in his mid fifties who got replaced by a robot in year 2000 there wasn't really much you could do- as a 20 year old in 1965- to know that the job you were getting and the skills you were learning would be obsolete a third of a century later, and not much you can do to upskill as a 55 year old in year 2000 either when employers are looking for younger people. That has been a big problem here since the 80s, we imported lots of cheap Pacific Island labour to do what would now be regarded as basic labour in factories and the like and when there was no more protectionism those people who had made honest choices based on the world they lived in at the time suddenly found that they had no desirable skills in the New Zealand of the late 80s and have never recovered from that.

 

While it's nice to think that people who find their skills obsoleted could all start successful businesses or whatever current right wing theory believes such people should do it isn't even slightly practical for everyone which leaves being a Greeter at Walmart or other crap 'job'.

[Hurlshort]

 

This was a pretty good story:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1221/US-troops-to-American-Muslim-child-iwillprotectyou-video

"In 2008, ABC asked two actors to play the role of an unwelcoming shop keeper and a Muslim customer in a Waco, Texas, bakery. Over and over, the female actor would enter and attempt to order a pastry; over and over, the man posing as the sales clerk insulted her faith and refused to serve her." The media has to stage anti-Muslim incidents because they can't find any in real life.

 

 

[Darkpriest]

 

 

 

Back to the points raised on the previous page. There is one thing I absolutely KNOW to be true when it comes to redistributive economics. And it is this: Every dollar someone receives without working for someone else worked for without receiving. The government is a not-for-profit organization. It does not earn money, it takes it. It does have a certain number of functions it must perform and it uses some of the money it takes to perform them. Then it gives the rest away in the form of welfare and social programs. The decision every voter must make before they touch that screen is simple. How much of your sweat, time, and labor are the recipients of that money entitled to? How much of the income you use to support your family can they demand of you and yours? The democrats including Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton would tell you "A lot". Bernie Sanders would tell you "Almost all of it". The Republicans are all over the map on that one. If you have a job, work hard to support yourselves and those you love voting really is all about choosing how much less your family gets and who is doing the taking and who ultimately benefits from the work you did.

 

To be fair, research shows income over 70k dollars a year or somesuch doesn't meaningfully increase happiness, so there's that.

 

 

It depends how much you have to work for it. Usually people have to spend significant amount of time at work, on top of a few years of experience, certificates, etc. to enter income that high. I know people basically tied to their BlackBerries (or some other similar device) and working even in their "off time". I remember myself doing stuff like waking up at 5-6 in the morning, to check some data and then push for reports to some shared service center in other timezone, which i could review before a management meeting at 10am, then you get a ton of various leads on projects, sales, etc. then in the evening you are still on the mobile phone/mail because in another timezone there might be something or someone that needs attention, etc. and then you go to sleep at around midnight.

 

But there are also times where it is slightly slower paced and then you start to appreciate the higher income, and spend some more money on various means of entertainment or traveling - or invest in various things to retire at 50-55 and enjoy the life from there on.

 

It is always funny when people who never really understood the concept of making money are demanding to take money from others and give it to them.

 

Honestly, from my perspective, what's ultimately happened is that you've created this situation for yourself. You're deliberately doing the job of more than one person in order to promote yourself in the eyes of your bosses, which means you're effectively underpaid for your position, and are doing the job for "intangibles".

 

The Studies have shown that a forced 2 week vacation every so often actually makes people happier because it allows them to reset and get their lives in order.

 

As to the post/article I linked. My issue with it is that it doesn't differentiate between those who are working, but are still eligable for those social programs because the minimum wage is woefully inadequite for anyone to live on (seriously GD, we have two options, raise the minimum wage, or force McDonalds/Walmart to pay for the social programs their employees are forced to use), and those who are (in the words of the ex-friend) "getting free cell phones and complaining about how wealth needs to be redistributed".

 

 

Sure, it was my choice to work hard, but it let me get from an entry level position to managing a 40mil BU within 5-6 years and then moved form there at a slower pace. Why should I be taxed extra for my already extra effort put into getting to where I am?

 

Companies like Walmart have been known for their practices for a veeeery long time. Personally I find some of them disgusting, but if there are people willing to work for such a fee in certain conditions, why would you want to pay more? Nobody is telling them to work there at a gunpoint, right?

 

When I was 30-31, together with my friend we decided to have an extended "gap year". During that time we traveled and talked about various things. At one point we decided to experiment, what would happen if we would start things over from the scratch. We both altered our resumes and concealed some of our experience, then moved to another country.

We both found a simple job in NA for around 11-12 USD per hour. I was working in an entertainment, in some bigger company, my friend decided to work in a small food shop.

 

After 6 months, I was praised for my work, had excellent rapport with clients, to the point where they were individually shaking my hand, and thanking me for the time spent with them, when it was my last week. I could have advanced there if I wanted to and i was getting a significant amount of cash in form of gratuity. My friend did even better, she managed to get to a position of a shop manager within 3 months, improving the client service, revenues and after 6 months she was even talking with the owner of the shop about possibility of introducing a new food product, which she tested on her own, where she would be getting 50% of revenue from it.

 

We both were living for what we earned there, so I had to manage my small finance after spending around 700USD for a bachelors apartment, it wasn't the most comfortable life, but it was okish. I did not starve, I had cloths, and could go out for a beer or two once in a while with some people i've met there.

 

The point is, if you really want, you can change the way you live and earn more money, even if you are coming as an "immigrant". The problem is that a lot of people simply do not want to do so, they go with an attitude that they just want to do the job with a minimum effort get the pay checque and then complain how hard it is for them. I know it first hand, I was working surrounded by such people in that 12USD per hour job.

 

The only problem I found with things like hourly based job, was that the employee was not guaranteed to have those 40h a week. If companies can overstaff and then just have employees working for 28-30h a week as a "full time" job, then something is not ok with it. If I get a full FTE I should have it guaranteed that I will be working the FTE and not 60% of it.

Edited December 23, 2015 by Darkpriest

[Barothmuk]

When I was 30-31, together with my friend we decided to have an extended "gap year". During that time we traveled and talked about various things. At one point we decided to experiment, what would happen if we would start things over from the scratch. We both altered our resumes and concealed some of our experience, then moved to another country.

We both found a simple job in NA for around 11-12 USD per hour. I was working in an entertainment, in some bigger company, my friend decided to work in a small food shop.

Actual picture of Darkpriest and his friend

 

 

 

[Darkpriest]

Nice try, we were both white slavs, and she was the pretty one.

[Guard Dog]

 

 

This was a pretty good story:

 

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/1221/US-troops-to-American-Muslim-child-iwillprotectyou-video

"In 2008, ABC asked two actors to play the role of an unwelcoming shop keeper and a Muslim customer in a Waco, Texas, bakery. Over and over, the female actor would enter and attempt to order a pastry; over and over, the man posing as the sales clerk insulted her faith and refused to serve her." The media has to stage anti-Muslim incidents because they can't find any in real life.

 

 

 

I get the feeling you are not taking WoD seriously anymore!