The News Thread
- Thread starter Jimmy... Dead.
- Start date
rms
Active Member
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
rms
Active Member
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
It's double sided and always will be, you know that. 0 handouts will perpetuate poverty on a far greater level, imo.
Dak
mentat
rms
Active Member
Isn't the question "What's the better alternative?" -- and I still haven't seen one, this topic seems to come up as often as Opeth discussions in the controversial thread 
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
no, 0 handouts will end poverty.
- 0 handouts means they will be too sick or malnourished to make more poor babies. for which they will also expect more handouts.
- they will eventually die off and voila there will be no more poor.
- 0 handouts means less of a drain on the middle class. instead of becoming poor themselves they can strive for higher goals.
rms
Active Member
Arg you act as if everyone is as callous towards others as you are. The poor have always existed and will always exist, especially when businesses thrive off it.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Matt
Active Member
rms
Active Member
Einherjar86
Active Member
Jesus fucking christ, people here seem to think that if you cut off all handouts poverty will miraculously disappear.
Cut off all handouts and what happens - either crime erupts or, if arg's dumbass plan works out, all the poor die off. And then presto chango! No more poverty!
But that isn't how it fucking works. If competition and market transactions are the name of the game, then time will merely see a new impoverished class come into being as some private enterprises succeed, and some fail. It doesn't end poverty; poverty will always be there! It's an effect of deregulated market relations.
This belief that ending handouts will somehow miraculously end poverty is just purely willful ignorance. All it will do is invite open (i.e. violent) hostilities between classes.
Cut off all handouts and what happens - either crime erupts or, if arg's dumbass plan works out, all the poor die off. And then presto chango! No more poverty!
But that isn't how it fucking works. If competition and market transactions are the name of the game, then time will merely see a new impoverished class come into being as some private enterprises succeed, and some fail. It doesn't end poverty; poverty will always be there! It's an effect of deregulated market relations.
This belief that ending handouts will somehow miraculously end poverty is just purely willful ignorance. All it will do is invite open (i.e. violent) hostilities between classes.
Dak
mentat
Ending institutionalized handouts won't end poverty (talk about a utopian ideal), and if all you did was just cut off the gimmedats, there most certainly would be rioting or worse, and probably some amount deaths via starvation/exposure/etc. But that doesn't mean it doesn't perpetuate it/make the problem worse either.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
maybe, but the "new poor" would not be as poor as the ones that died off. they'd have shitty jobs but at least not be dependent on handouts. that would be a huge improvement over the situation today.
arg
Active Member
- Jun 4, 2008
- 5,745
- 1,442
- 113
diminishing returns
- welfare creates more welfare kids
- more welfare kids stretches the welfare education budget
- shitty underpaid teachers + too many kids in a class = crap education quality
- so you have a shitload of kids with lousy education
- education is less effective
whereas if you have less or no welfare kids and a bigger budget, education quality improves
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
I think there needs to be a great deal of rolling back of the welfare state in my own country, don't know about America.
But this shit need to be dealt with and white people just trying to solve it with even more hand outs is troubling.
But this shit need to be dealt with and white people just trying to solve it with even more hand outs is troubling.
CiG
Harbinger of Metal
Dak
mentat
Mr Self certainly acquits himself far better than US "gunophobes", I'll give him that. He is right that there's a sort of political schizophrenia in the US, but these firearmphobics are asking the wrong questions and so of course, getting the wrong answers - nevermind a basely stupid causation argument.
Similar threads
