How is Robbing Someone With a Government Morally Superior to Robbing Them With a Gun?

Well... there are other options. That penalty for success only exists because it's part of the law we all share. There is nothing to say you cannot work to change those laws.




​

 

Money chooses which candidates get to run. If you control the candidates you control the election.

And why did you bring up black voters when we were talking about poor people? Most black people aren't poor and most poor people aren't black.

 

Who said most Americans are poor? Most Americans aren't poor. Brewskier is making the ridiculous claim that poor people control the government.

And the two major parties candidates don' t need to get petitions signed to get on the ballot. That's part of the wealth advantage.

 

Who do you think elected Obamao?

 

That certainly says a lot about the poor, doesn't it? Maybe the "give us money or we'll show up at your door with pitchforks" can become the Democrat talking point going forward while they make their case for higher taxes and increased immigration.

 

I think you answered your own question: Brewskier seems to be saying it. And since 'poor' is a poorly defined word... even if you and I disagree with his opinion, I don't think either of us can demonstrate it's not true.

Candidates from the major parties do need to get those signed. It's just trivial for them to accomplish it. And if you're holding that up as a demonstration that there are advantages in life to having wealth... well no demonstration is required. Most folks would agree that it's good to have wealth.





​

 

I always thought that was their motto...





​

 

Welfare is extortion/blackmail. A left-wing Democrat just admitted it.

 

You are mistaken, majority does rule here. The majority have established our laws and the majority can change any of them, even to a point where you or I may consider them unfair. They have in the past, they will again in the future.

The line you perceive in the sand, is a law. One example is the the fourteenth amendment to the U.S. constitution. Established by the majority and removable by the majority. Provided they do so by the process established by the majority.

The only thing keeping America a "mostly fair" nation, is the judgement and choice of American's that it is and should remain "mostly fair." And a majority of Americans can change that.





​

 

Because I mentioned the last two elections.

 

He doesn't speak for Democrats (even if he thinks he does). His admission doesn't demonstrate their opinion and in any case it doesn't resolve a question of fact. He could admit gravity doesn't exist, that doesn't make it so.

It sure feels like extortion though.





​

 

It is not a Democratic talking point, it is learning a lesson from history. Because if people start starving (and that's what would happen if the welfare opponents get their will and cut of the "leeches"), they'll not just do it quietly while admiring their "successful" billionaire masters. A civilized society doesn't let their weakest members starve.

Or you could cut off welfare and tell the welfare recipients "let them eat cake". That didn't end so well for Marie Antoinette, and history will repeat itself if the same mistakes are made again. But, I guess the starving leeches in France in the 1700s were also just lazy moochers who wanted to steal from the successful.

 

Can you point to mass starvation occurring during the 1920's, when none of the current welfare programs were in existence?

I'd rather the poor get a job, but then I realize how much of a motivator dependency on the Government is for Democrat elections. I don't blame you for having that position.

 

You believe these people are so incapable that their only options are to have food provided for them or starve?

If you are right, I suppose the threat you believe they represent justifies class warfare... a systematic campaign of pacifying and containing those incapable of providing for themselves so they do not rampage.

I hope you are wrong. But it would explain the recent "let them smoke marijuana" legislation.





​

 

Let's cut to the chase, shall we?

Socialism is theft masquerading as altruism. Surrender your freedom and cash.

There's nothing moral about it...
.

 

And that had what to do with the question of whether or not poor people control government?

 

Rich people get plenty of benefits from the government. There is nothing wrong with charging them more for it.

 

The poor receive more federal spending than do the rich, and unlike the rich, the poor pay virtually nothing for these benefits.

 

If you want to be a part of a civilized society, you do/pay your part. NONE of us live here without sacrifice, that means paying your freaking taxes and contributing to the well-being of the commons in various other ways.

If you can find yourself and island and pull your life off of the WORLD GRID... then do it. Otherwise, some of us are reasonably content to live where MANY people work, cooperate and contribute to a community.

It's not perfect here (or anywhere), but I am sick of the whining over contributing to a society.

 

It isn't, but it's necessary.

 

Maybe there was no mass starvation, but starvation existed and there was mass hunger during the great depression. Even Stossel retracted his ill-conceived statements regarding this topic:

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/john-sto...iming-no-one-starved-during-great-depression/

In fact, the social programs were instated in part so that the conditions of the great depression would not be repeated. If you want to go back to those times, fine with me. I don't.

 

There is more to benefits than direct federal spending. Over all, the rich benefit far more. Even most of benefits we pay to the poor are a favor we do for business owners so that they can pay lower wages.

 

I disagree. Poor is a relative term. Any individual's personal definition doesn't change the fact that there is no place in this world where those at the bottom of the economic ladder (poor) have more political power than those at the top. His opinion is not only wrong, it is laughable.

In addition, it's pretty clear that when Brewskier says "poor" he really means "not white". Such ignorance should always be challenged.

 

P.S.: You realize that forcing the welfare recipients on the job market would result in another huge hit to median wage, which is already way too low to begin with.

P.S.2: I apologize for the wrong quote. This was in response to Brewskier's :"I'd rather the poor get a job, but then I realize how much of a motivator dependency on the Government is for Democrat elections."