portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Would you say, then, that the $2000 had made you better off or worse off? Worse off, I don't need a T.V...... Plus when I actually get the T.V. in my house I will not appreciate it because I did nothing to EARN it........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Worse off, I don't need a T.V......Plus when I actually get the T.V. in my house I will not appreciate it because I did nothing to EARN it........ Knowing, then, that you would make an irrational decision with that money before you made it, why would you go ahead and make that decision? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Knowing, then, that you would make an irrational decision with that money before you made it, why would you go ahead and make that decision? Because someone was irrational enough to give me free money when I do not need it.... :doh: Why not try to get to your point if you have one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Best thing to do is cut this figure in half. I didn't infer that the victims will use the money for crack. What I want is to ficilitate more economic growth. Take half of the money and use it to entice enterprise in the area that can give these guys employment, and maintain their funds so they can get on their feet. The first thousand can be used for provisions. Tell me what you are going to do with 1000, no house, no car, no home, nothing. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Because someone was irrational enough to give me free money when I do not need it.... :doh: Why not try to get to your point if you have one. Round and round we go, where it stops nobody knows. Portis, will you ever hold a conservative accountable for anything? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Because someone was irrational enough to give me free money when I do not need it.... :doh: Why not try to get to your point if you have one. Because I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. And what if that irrational person were a dead relative passing on their wealth? OK, you want a point? Here's one. Sorry if I'm skipping several steps. A capitalist economy (and, indeed, our government) is founded partly on the principle that individuals make choices that further their happiness. In general, we don't want to interfere with the free choices of individuals because we reckon that they are the best people to decide how to improve their situations (or not, as they see fit). Now, what we have here is a situation in which people have been very adversely affected by circumstances outside their control. We want to help. One effective way of helping them is by giving them wealth, which empowers their choices--for example, to buy food or purchase gasoline so that they can move about freely. It is obvious to almost everyone how this "helps" them. However, you have presented this weird scenario where a person is not helped by being given wealth. You have added to your convolutions by sticking with your story, implying that something that's not "earned" (whatever that means) cannot benefit someone, and that people can only make irrational choices when presented with "unearned" wealth. This position is untenable, but I wanted to see how far you'd go sticking with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Giving 2000 dollars to the victims in debit cards is a stupid idea. Instead of giving them a card with a value of 2k, they should give them 2k dollars worth of supplies they will actually use. Im not saying all of them will go waste it, though some will, but not the majority. I cant believe this is the best idea they came up with. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It's really amusing to see conservatives arguing for governmental decisions over the free choices of individuals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Because I'm trying not to put words in your mouth. And what if that irrational person were a dead relative passing on their wealth?OK, you want a point? Here's one. Sorry if I'm skipping several steps. A capitalist economy (and, indeed, our government) is founded partly on the principle that individuals make choices that further their happiness. In general, we don't want to interfere with the free choices of individuals because we reckon that they are the best people to decide how to improve their situations (or not, as they see fit). Now, what we have here is a situation in which people have been very adversely affected by circumstances outside their control. We want to help. One effective way of helping them is by giving them wealth, which empowers their choices--for example, to buy food or purchase gasoline so that they can move about freely. It is obvious to almost everyone how this "helps" them. However, you have presented this weird scenario where a person is not helped by being given wealth. You have added to your convolutions by sticking with your story, implying that something that's not "earned" (whatever that means) cannot benefit someone, and that people can only make irrational choices when presented with "unearned" wealth. This position is untenable, but I wanted to see how far you'd go sticking with it. Ok I see what you are saying. And all I am saying is that not everyone needs $2,000 just like not everyone need social security. It is likely that the people who get $2,000 and really "need" it, probable need ten times that amount given their circumstance. So lets be honest for a minute. Do these poor souls need money? Or do they need housing and food? But most importantly, does America need to give these poor money so they can get housing and food? And as far as our last few passes on this thread, I see no relevance as to what would happen if someone gave me $2,000. I see that you are trying to use that argument to apply to this disaster. These people do not need to earn anything right now. Just so you know where I stand on that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 It's really amusing to see conservatives arguing for governmental decisions over the free choices of individuals. Amusing? I am sickened by the fact that our country has wasted billions upon billions promising a social utopia that will never exist. Forcing social experiments upon our country with no track record of success. And because of this, our country is in a position where we can not give proper assistance when it is really needed. You see, a conservative reads the Constitution a little differently than a liberal. When I read "promote the general welfare" in the Preamble I think of a government prepared to help people in desparate needs such as now. I liberal reads "promote the general welfare" and thinks nanny state. Amusing? No, sad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 1) Who exactly am I stereotyping??Victims of this disaster. The article states that they will get 2000 debit card, and you responded with asking how much crack it could buy. Please don't tell me you developed a yellow stripe after reading my response and now plan to back off the spirit of your original response. 2) Ever heard of an ATM machine?? What is this ATM you speak of? heh. Seriously though it didn't mention that they'd be able to withdraw cash, nor was I relying heavily on crack dealers taking plastic to prove my point. 3) How is a $2,000 hand out "helping" people?? Hmm let's see....you don't have a damn thing left that you didn't carry on your back yet you are asking me how 2,000 would help? Well for starters it puts food on the table, provides you with money to get some clean clothes, and allows you some breathing room to start planning. You state that you would go out and buy a TV in another response, which shows your lack of thought. If your house is destroyed a TV is rather useless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Victims of this disaster. The article states that they will get 2000 debit card, and you responded with asking how much crack it could buy. Please don't tell me you developed a yellow stripe after reading my response and now plan to back off the spirit of your original response. What is this ATM you speak of? heh. Seriously though it didn't mention that they'd be able to withdraw cash, nor was I relying heavily on crack dealers taking plastic to prove my point. Hmm let's see....you don't have a damn thing left that you didn't carry on your back yet you are asking me how 2,000 would help? Well for starters it puts food on the table, provides you with money to get some clean clothes, and allows you some breathing room to start planning. You state that you would go out and buy a TV in another response, which shows your lack of thought. If your house is destroyed a TV is rather useless. The spirit of my original response? That giving out $2,000 is a poor way to help people in a time of need. A debit card requires a PIN entry that can be used to withdraw funds....... And I will ask you if $2,000 is required to put food on the table, clean clothes on their backs. Will $2,000 make a dent in the long term assistance that will be needed for these people? I say not even close. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I am sickened by the fact that our country has wasted billions upon billions promising a social utopia that will never exist. Forcing social experiments upon our country with no track record of success. And because of this, our country is in a position where we can not give proper assistance when it is really needed. I am sickened that you think anyone is dumb enough to confuse this bit of delusional rhetoric with a serious response to the answer posed to you by Ancalagon the Black. He made a wonderful point about the schizophrenic position you and a few conservatives are promoting and you respond with an ideological rant attacking a liberal and welfare boogymen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 The spirit of my original response? That giving out $2,000 is a poor way to help people in a time of need. Sorry I didn't get that from asking how much crack you can get for two grand. In fact you are doing what I predicted, you are backing off your original comment. A debit card requires a PIN entry that can be used to withdraw funds.......Not all debit cards are created equal. But even if they can get cash, so what?And I will ask you if $2,000 is required to put food on the table, clean clothes on their backs. Will $2,000 make a dent in the long term assistance that will be needed for these people? I say not even close.It's not meant to secure their futures. It's meant to help in the short term, which is exactly what is needed. The money buys them time to get their situation in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 I am sickened that you think anyone is dumb enough to confuse this bit of delusional rhetoric with a serious response to the answer posed to you by Ancalagon the Black. He made a wonderful point about the schizophrenic position you and a few conservatives are promoting and you respond with an ideological rant attacking a liberal and welfare boogymen. What has the welfare system that has been in existence for decades done to pull these poor people from out of the back streets of New Orleans? Before you blast me for my position, consider where these people would be today if they were actually challenged and responsible for their own future. Instead of a government promise and a gimmie check. Chances are they would not have been fully dependant upon the government for their lives..... :2cents: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
portisizzle Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Sorry I didn't get that from asking how much crack you can get for two grand. In fact you are doing what I predicted, you are backing off your original comment. No, you are trying to get me to say that a poor, black, crack whore would waste the money on drugs and then still expect the Salvation Army to feed them. Sorry, but you are not going to get me to say that.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raub Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Giving 2000 dollars to the victims in debit cards is a stupid idea. Instead of giving them a card with a value of 2k, they should give them 2k dollars worth of supplies they will actually use. Im not saying all of them will go waste it, though some will, but not the majority. I cant believe this is the best idea they came up with. :doh: This is the best post in this thread. You give some people $2000 in plastic and they will trade it for $1000 in cash so they can buy something that the funds were not intended for. Give them vouchers redeemable at gov't aid stations, not blank checks to spend $2k at Mickey D's. Everyone is so afraid they're going to hurt someone's feeling by speaking the truth. You all know deep in your hearts that many, many of these people will not use these funds for their original intent. It's human nature. How many people misused the funds set aside for the victims of 9/11? And before you go saying I don't care, and I'm heartless, and I eat small babies for breakfast, let me say this: I agree that aid should be given, I just don't agree with this plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 You don't understand Destino. These people who got displaced, they're stupid and they're poor. They just aint smart enough to use that money for food. they are also mostly black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ancalagon the Black Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 You all know deep in your hearts that many, many of these people will not use these funds for their original intent. It's human nature. So what? Let them live with the consequences. Or do you not believe in personal responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkLadyRaven Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 How many people misused the funds set aside for the victims of 9/11? . Speaking of which- how come no one on this thread chided the goverment for giving money to the victims families. People are murdered on the inner city everyday but does the goverment give them money...no. Im sorry for the vitims but they should have had life insurance. For the governments sake of consistancy if they gave money during 9/11 then they must give money to these people as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 Does really nobody else see the very obvious benefit of this? Where it was previously impossible to find out how many people were affected by Katrina, who survived, or where people are now staying, we can now obtain that information for the low cost of $2000/person. This will help us get a better handle on the situation and will help us find missing people, and it won't involve flying around in helicopters or sending people around with clipboards - people will actually line up to give the information to the government. I don't think $2000/person is a very large price to pay to accomplish those goals, especially when it serves the dual purpose of providing victims with the ability to choose how to help themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 the only real benefit of this is so you can buy smokes and drink(alcohol), I do both so I can say that I would like that. Really though, that money could be spent much better in real supplies even though that would mean I would be jonesing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dreamingwolf Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 would also like to add, point about djtj's verbage that the action is along the right wing line of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boobiemiles Posted September 8, 2005 Author Share Posted September 8, 2005 Then what exactly DID you infer?Nothing qualified at all in that statement. Poor people spend money stupidly. OK, instead of crack maybe you meant booze, color TVs or floppy hats, but the principle is the same. You know how it is. I use to be poor, and me first years out of school I spent my money on stupid things, things that depreciate. And any time you get money and you don't work for it you don't appreciate it the same way. Dumb things can be anything, from booze to a new car. What I want to do is give the people power, not welfare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 8, 2005 Share Posted September 8, 2005 What has the welfare system that has been in existence for decades done to pull these poor people from out of the back streets of New Orleans?Before you blast me for my position, consider where these people would be today if they were actually challenged and responsible for their own future. Instead of a government promise and a gimmie check. Chances are they would not have been fully dependant upon the government for their lives..... :2cents: Who are "these people" portisizzle? Do you have numbers on how many of these people were on welfare, or is this yet another assumption? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.