Unfortunate repercussions if OWEbama gets re-elected

SmarterthanYou said:
i'd like an answer to my questions first, before you start asking questions to deflect away from the issue. thanks.
Click to expand...

Deflect from the issue?

You asked in msg #217,
the 'others' getting more would be the beneficiaries of the taxes that uncle sam takes from me for my work, by your theory. but how am I to help those less fortunate if you implement economic policies that cause me to lose the job that does that?
Click to expand...

I asked in msg #219,
I hear a lot about economic policies but never see/hear an actual policy. What, specifically, is so damaging to business?
Click to expand...

Don't try stalling, STY. That was a legitimate question and pertinent to the discussion. You want me to assume you will lose your job and I need to know why before I accept that premise. Maybe what your boss is telling you is bull. If you don't know ask him/her. Get it right from the horse's mouth or the horse's ass, as the case may be.

If the company you're working for is polluting the environment then there is certainly no net gain by you contributing to it so that you can pay the cleaning lady. Or if the company is against ensuring everyone has medical care then contributing to the 45,000 people who die every year from a lack of medical insurance is a hell of a price to pay in order to employ the charwoman.
 
apple0154 said:
I have never sugggested one should go without so someone else can have it. I don't know where you got that idea from?


Then by definition, you are putting your wants and needs above someone else's and by your standard, that makes you greedy. It isn't up to anyone else to decide what someone needs or wants. That is central planning, and I would think history has taught us that it is a failure.


Why? Why should you help and others not? And who are the others who don't want to help? Only those who can afford to do so are asked so those who object must do so out of greed and not out of need. Why would you support the right to greed while watching your neighbor in need? Is that your definition of morality?

It is called freedom. Ever hear of it? You are essentially saying you don't believe in freedom and your are justifying tyranny. How do you know what people can afford or can't afford? Like I said, if someone can help and doesn't that is their issue to reconcile. It is not up to me to say, "Hey, I think you should do more so I am going to steal from you". In your view, two wrongs make a right. You are still stealing someone else's property. That you use the force and will of the government through a majority vote makes it no less vile and despicable. That is why the founding fathers abhorred direct democracy. They saw it for what it is; tyranny of the majority

No, I don't. What does your neighbor having an abortion have to do with you?

My neighbor having an abortion has nothing to do with me personally just as my neighbor getting raped has nothing to do with me personally. My neighbor starving has nothing to do with me personally. I will still eat. However, my neighbor being raped and killing an unborn baby has to do with infringing on the rights of another human being and at a bare minimum that is what government should do. Protect the rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

It's human nature to want to better ones self, to make a comfortable life. By helping your neighbor it will keep their spirit alive, their enthusiasm, their mental well-being. That, in turn, will result in them being less stressed, more determined to get a job instead of falling into depression. That, in turn, helps you. They will be more energetic. They will look after their home. They will try harder to meet their mortgage payments because they will have hope. At least their family will be fed. They can concentrate on getting a job.

Everyone benefits. Their children will do better in school.

While it can be considered moral to help it's also logical. That's the point. There are concrete rewards.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether or not it is moral to help ones fellow citizens. That isn't the question. The question is what is the best mechanism to help. You made a comment that the government sees the big picture whereas I do not? Where is your proof for that claim? They live in Washington DC. What big picture do they see? You put your faith in ONE man. I put my faith in 300 million people to do the right thing. I like my odds a whole lot better than yours. Will there be people who won't do the right thing? You betcha. But, it doesn't justify infringing on their freedom so you can satisfy your conscience. If you can't see the distinction between voluntarily helping a neighbor in need and using coercive government force to do so then there is no point continuing this conversation because for me that is the basic underlying issue. We aren't arguing if people need help or not, we are arguing about how best to achieve it. Your way has failed since the Great Society, but instead of reevaluating your assumptions about whether government is the best vehicle, you just think you haven't confiscated more of your fellow citizens wealth. As you pursue this blind ideology, you will eventually find yourself the target of your own belief system going "What the fuck?"
 
apple0154 said:
I have never sugggested one should go without so someone else can have it. I don't know where you got that idea from?


Then by definition, you are putting your wants and needs above someone else's and by your standard, that makes you greedy. It isn't up to anyone else to decide what someone needs or wants. That is central planning, and I would think history has taught us that it is a failure.


Why? Why should you help and others not? And who are the others who don't want to help? Only those who can afford to do so are asked so those who object must do so out of greed and not out of need. Why would you support the right to greed while watching your neighbor in need? Is that your definition of morality?

It is called freedom. Ever hear of it? You are essentially saying you don't believe in freedom and your are justifying tyranny. How do you know what people can afford or can't afford? Like I said, if someone can help and doesn't that is their issue to reconcile. It is not up to me to say, "Hey, I think you should do more so I am going to steal from you". In your view, two wrongs make a right. You are still stealing someone else's property. That you use the force and will of the government through a majority vote makes it no less vile and despicable. That is why the founding fathers abhorred direct democracy. They saw it for what it is; tyranny of the majority

No, I don't. What does your neighbor having an abortion have to do with you?

My neighbor having an abortion has nothing to do with me personally just as my neighbor getting raped has nothing to do with me personally. My neighbor starving has nothing to do with me personally. I will still eat. However, my neighbor being raped and killing an unborn baby has to do with infringing on the rights of another human being and at a bare minimum that is what government should do. Protect the rights to life, liberty and the PURSUIT of happiness.

It's human nature to want to better ones self, to make a comfortable life. By helping your neighbor it will keep their spirit alive, their enthusiasm, their mental well-being. That, in turn, will result in them being less stressed, more determined to get a job instead of falling into depression. That, in turn, helps you. They will be more energetic. They will look after their home. They will try harder to meet their mortgage payments because they will have hope. At least their family will be fed. They can concentrate on getting a job.

Everyone benefits. Their children will do better in school.

While it can be considered moral to help it's also logical. That's the point. There are concrete rewards.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't whether or not it is moral to help ones fellow citizens. That isn't the question. The question is what is the best mechanism to help. You made a comment that the government sees the big picture whereas I do not? Where is your proof for that claim? They live in Washington DC. What big picture do they see? You put your faith in ONE man. I put my faith in 300 million people to do the right thing. I like my odds a whole lot better than yours. Will there be people who won't do the right thing? You betcha. But, it doesn't justify infringing on their freedom so you can satisfy your conscience. If you can't see the distinction between voluntarily helping a neighbor in need and using coercive government force to do so then there is no point continuing this conversation because for me that is the basic underlying issue. We aren't arguing if people need help or not, we are arguing about how best to achieve it. Your way has failed since the Great Society, but instead of reevaluating your assumptions about whether government is the best vehicle, you just think you haven't confiscated more of your fellow citizens wealth. As you pursue this blind ideology, you will eventually find yourself the target of your own belief system going "What the fuck?"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I would think that the answer is obvious. I know that having just very recently become a permanent employee at my company, complete with wonderful benefits, the possibility of getting laid off if Obama is re-elected is very real and will just be one more reason I will forever hate liberals/democrats.
Click to expand...

What a waste of mental energy. You get a wonderful job and your wife and family are sure to benefit from the health plan, but you're focusing on what may or may not happen if Obama wins the election. And you didn't factor in that you may or may not get laid off if Rmoney wins. All business is a crap shoot and there's no employer loyalty anymore. It's about the bottom line.

Lighten up STY, the world will look a whole lot better to you when you change your attitude.
 
christiefan915 said:
What a waste of mental energy. You get a wonderful job and your wife and family are sure to benefit from the health plan, but you're focusing on what may or may not happen if Obama wins the election. And you didn't factor in that you may or may not get laid off if Rmoney wins. All business is a crap shoot and there's no employer loyalty anymore. It's about the bottom line.

Lighten up STY, the world will look a whole lot better to you when you change your attitude.
Click to expand...

What about employee loyalty?
 
FactsRStubborn said:
I had to have a difficult conversation with our cleaning lady yesterday who happens to be a person of color that voted for OWEdummy in 2008 and plans to vote for him in 2012. I told her that if B. Hussein Yobabymama wins re-election, we will have to let her go. If I am going to have to pay higher taxes, then I am going to have to cut expenses. That is just how it works. It is unfortunate for our cleaning lady because she has a son in college and she makes $100 a week cleaning our house, all in cash. I don't know where she will make up that $4800 a year, but, it is what it is.
Click to expand...
Good for her, she can go find employment where they will treat her better!
 
Bijou said:
:rofl2: Tell us how 'loyal' your employer is to you.
Click to expand...

Actually, my employer is extremely loyal to me Twatly Dum. I am self employed. How about that? I look after my own interests. I used to be in that rat race like you but I learned really quickly, only I can be responsible for my success and well being.

Rely on someone else whether it be your employer or the gobblement and you will be forever disappointed.

But, even if I were still employed by someone else, I would expect no loyalty, just as I would have no loyalty to them with regards to whether I stay employed or not. You see, I would only expect them to pay me a fair wage for my efforts based on my marketable skills. If I determine that the wage is unfair, I ask for more or seek employment elsewhere. Unlike you, I have marketable skillsets that are in demand. I just have chosen another path. Just like an employer can fire you on a whim, you can leave your employer on a whim and leave them hanging in the lurch. You are unfortunately laboring under the premise that you are owed something. That because you managed to make it out of your mothers snatch without being butchered by a coat hanger that the world owes you something; whether it be your healthcare, a job, a house, food, retirement etc.
 
Bijou said:
Even when Alias is supposedly off-line and doing something else, he is still obsessed with this forum. He thinks of us when making decisions about his life.

Of course, the cleaning lady doesn't exist, anyway.

:rofl2:
Click to expand...


He actually spends time envisioning scenarios he believes will aggravate anonymous message board posters...

THAT MIGHT BE THE SADDEST THING I'VE READ THIS MONTH.
 
christiefan915 said:
What a waste of mental energy. You get a wonderful job and your wife and family are sure to benefit from the health plan, but you're focusing on what may or may not happen if Obama wins the election. And you didn't factor in that you may or may not get laid off if Rmoney wins. All business is a crap shoot and there's no employer loyalty anymore. It's about the bottom line.

Lighten up STY, the world will look a whole lot better to you when you change your attitude.
Click to expand...
are you trying to say that nobody should worry about the future, because politics doesn't play any role in business advancement, therefore we should just roll on along and depend on government when we need to?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top