Board 8 > Rick Santorum: "I don't want to make black people's lives better"

(+) Yeah! (+)

Looking at the second video Santorum was aware of the quote but had no idea when he said it. I really don't think he meant to say "black," he's just stuttering.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/fitgirljpgta.jpg

Yeah, I'd like to see him lay out a plan explaining how he'd create jobs and such.

It's certainly nothing as bad as the other Republican Rick in any case.

--
See You In Another Life, Brother.

Yeah, I'd like to see him lay out a plan explaining how he'd create jobs and such.

1. Abolish all government
2. ????
3. Prosperity

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

But... uh wouldn't they get more money if they had the opportunities available to make more money?

this is also questionable, but isn't the real question. the real question is if there's a better solution for the overall status of the nation and economy. if getting rid of welfare results in a net loss then it was a bad idea to do that. and there's very few things that can result in a net gain.

--
The King Wang.
Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.

if getting rid of welfare results in a net loss

That is literally impossible.

learn2economics

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I'm not sure how abolishing all government would create jobs. Especially with all the... you know... government jobs disappearing and all.

--
See You In Another Life, Brother.

I'm not sure how abolishing all government would create jobs. Especially with all the... you know... government jobs disappearing and all.

Government jobs do not exist in a vacuum. They leech resources away that could be used for actual productive efforts.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

if getting rid of welfare results in a net loss

That is literally impossible.

It's quite possible.

Someone with no job and no welfare has a high probability of become a criminal (if they don't just commit suicide which I don't consider an acceptable alternative, although you might), which not only loses the whole system money from property damage, etc., but we pay bills trying them and incarcerating them, which is notably more expensive than just giving them welfare in the first place.

Regardless, compared to the how safe our society is and other quality of life indicators, welfare (which is likely very close to a net neutral one way or another) is pretty obviously worth it.

Be a smart libertarian and go after the government policies which actually cost us money, please.


inb4 some idiot thinks that cutting all welfare will just cause these people to get jobs: the presence of welfare does not impact unemployment rate.

--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion

What 'productive efforts' will suddenly appear with the government abolished, that isn't appearing now?

--
See You In Another Life, Brother.

inb4 some idiot thinks that cutting all welfare will just cause these people to get jobs: the presence of welfare does not impact unemployment rate.

There is no involuntary unemployment on an unhampered market. Try again.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

There is no involuntary unemployment on an unhampered market. Try again.

is this one of those "people who are unemployed starve to death" kind of things

There is no involuntary unemployment in an unhampered market? What?

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

.

There is no involuntary unemployment on an unhampered market. Try again.

how would an unhampered market guarantee that enough jobs exist for the people who want them

--
For your SuperNiceDog.
At least Kupo has class and doesn't MESSAGE the people -Dr Pizza

From: red sox 777 | #062
There is no involuntary unemployment in an unhampered market? What?

I've told you before, I don't have time to do your research for you.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I think those on welfare who aren't disabled should at least have to do community service or something.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/fitgirljpgta.jpg

I think those on welfare who aren't disabled should at least have to do community service or something.

at that point it's pretty much a government job

OmarsComin posted...
I think those on welfare who aren't disabled should at least have to do community service or something.

at that point it's pretty much a government job

Fine with me

--
http://img.imgcake.com/fitgirljpgta.jpg

I think that those who are on welfare, that don't have GED's or high school diploma, should be required to be pursue one while receiving payments.

But I'm alone there >_>

--
See You In Another Life, Brother.

the idea of those on welfare actually doing something to earn it - community service or furthering education - are both those that frankly make sense. >_>;

--
The King Wang.
Listen up Urinal Cake. I already have something that tells me if I'm too drunk when I pee on it: My friends. - Colbert.

It's quite true that in an unhampered market, some people might starve to death.

Of course we know that starvation doesn't happen now. ESPECIALLY never in countries with large, oppressive governments.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

SmartMuffin posted...
From: red sox 777 | #062
There is no involuntary unemployment in an unhampered market? What?
I've told you before, I don't have time to do your research for you.

http://mises.org/rothbard/mes.asp

Is this book based in actual historical fact, or is it an unproven theory about what could be in an ideal world, much like the Communist Manifesto?

--
From his looks Magus is Macho Man Randy Savage as an anime zombie. The black wind howls, and one of you will snap into a Slim Jim ooh yeeeah! -sonicblastpunch

Is this book based in actual historical fact, or is it an unproven theory about what could be in an ideal world, much like the Communist Manifesto?

Both.

I mean, it's hard to talk historically about an "unhampered market" when historically it has never existed, but generally speaking, the theories have proven to be true.

Unless you're one of those idiots who believes that Keynes and FDR saved us from the great depression or something...

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

In any case, I'd really rather not be lectured on "historical fact" by a crowd that believes government prevents starvation :)

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Thinking that an unhampered (meaning no government) market would lead to zero unemployment is about as idealistic as believing in the Communist Manifesto. If unhampered means also unhampered by practical reality, then okay. What practical reality? The reality that people don't go into the marketplace thinking, if I'm offered x dollars, I'll choose to work y hours. People don't generally get to set their hours with any level of precision.

Maybe it's rational for people to all act this way, but..........people are stupid.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Of course we know that starvation doesn't happen now. ESPECIALLY never in countries with large, oppressive governments.

Funnily enough the countries with welfare have lower starvation rates than countries that don't! Gee, I wonder why. It's the height of foolishness to say that welfare doesn't reduce starvation. Giving some money to people who would otherwise have none kinda does that.

I do love how similar Muffin's pie in the sky theorycraft is with the communism he so despises.

--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion

Funnily enough the countries with welfare have lower starvation rates than countries that don't! Gee, I wonder why. It's the height of foolishness to say that welfare doesn't reduce starvation. Giving some money to people who would otherwise have none kinda does that.

I guess it depends on how you define "welfare." I mean, are you alleging that there is no welfare in China, or that there is no starvation in China? In either case you would be wrong.

Maybe it's rational for people to all act this way, but..........people are stupid.

Wrong. Everyone acts rationally to advance their own standard of living according to their own standards. However, all exchange must be for mutual benefit. If someone insists they won't work for anything less than $10 an hour, and nobody on the labor market thinks they are worth $10 an hour, then they must either lower their price, or not work. Not working might mean living off the charity of others. If they cannot find said charity, they may starve.

I love how the socialists all assume that if there were no government, there would be no charity, or that charity wouldn't be "enough." The fact that we collectively allow welfare to happen suggests that most of us DO in fact care about the suffering of our fellow man and would not like to see them starve, if for no other reason than our own selfish purposes (bums on the street are an eyesore). Eliminating welfare will simply put that choice at the individual, rather than the collective level. Those who are truly outraged at poverty, for whatever reason, will be free to continue to provide welfare, if they so desire. Those who disagree will no longer have their money confiscated from them in order to do a much worse and more inefficient job at charity.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Nah, people are pretty irrational. They really don't know what they want. Or they base their thinking on logical fallacies, like, "I already paid for it, so I have to use whatever I bought, even though I don't want to use it anymore and would not pay a cent for it at this time. I don't want to lose what I already paid."

Alternatively, if you prefer, people are rational, but the model that says rational people will act in such a way as to produce zero unemployment is wrong.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

And to remind you, a person is irrational if:

1. Given A and B, they do not know which they prefer (they also do not know that they prefer them equally).
OR
2. They prefer A > B > C > A.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Austrian 'Math's too hard' School of Economics

--
A mystical magical favor

[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]

From: red sox 777 | #078
2. They prefer A > B > C > A.

Or as I like to call it, the "Brawl > Melee complex"

The fools.

--
Yoblazer: http://oi53.tinypic.com/2hd0dh1.jpg
Watch and you'll see... SuperNiceDog own me... in the Guru!

1. Given A and B, they do not know which they prefer (they also do not know that they prefer them equally).
OR
2. They prefer A > B > C > A.

Barring some sort of mental illness or insanity, I fail to see how this is possible. The fact that human action exists means that people have preferences. To act in any way is to express a preference. Let's say I have $60 and someone offers to sell me Skyrim or Arkham City for $60. If I choose to purchase Skyrim, that is what I prefer. If I choose to purchase Arkham City, that is what I prefer. If I choose to purchase neither, I prefer the $60. Those are my only three options and I must choose one of them. Even if I decide by flipping a coin or something, I am then taking action to prefer leaving my decision to a coin flip. In any possible case, a preference is selected.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: Brayze_II | #079
Austrian 'Math's too hard' School of Economics

You can't use math to model human behavior. Economics is not a science because it is the result of human action, therefore you cannot subject it to repeatable and measureable experimentation.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

I guess it depends on how you define "welfare." I mean, are you alleging that there is no welfare in China, or that there is no starvation in China? In either case you would be wrong.

Oh, that poor straw man! You monster, he never stood a chance!

Ahem. Never did I say welfare prevents all starvation. I said they have a lower starvation rate. This is empirically so.

love how the socialists all assume that if there were no government, there would be no charity, or that charity wouldn't be "enough."

Um, because it wouldn't?

You act like this hasn't been tried. Please go compare poverty rates before and after various countries introduced welfare to combat it.

Though honestly, it's common sense. The simple fact of the matter is that free market capitalism (specifically the maddeningly egotistical brand espoused by the followers of Ayn Rand) does not encourage charity, at least on the scale required to affect meaningful change. After all, if I give up money for no gain to myself and my business competitor doesn't, that could be the difference between her business succeeding any mine going under. This encourages me not to be charitable even if I would like to (for reasons of being nice to my fellow man or whatever) or at most only slightly charitable. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma; the best overall outcome is if we both do what's individually less beneficial for both of us.

--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion

i like how smuffin goes so far wrong he's almost right, except he never quite finishes the circle, so he's merely very, very wrong.

--
Coincidence that a self-avowed Communist is so against democracy and traditional marriage? - SephG after misquoting me hilariously

I said they have a lower starvation rate. This is empirically so.

Really? I'm curious as to what you are basing that on.

You act like this hasn't been tried. Please go compare poverty rates before and after various countries introduced welfare to combat it.

"Poverty rate" is a completely meaningless statistic made up and controlled by government bureaucrats. What a shocker that the statistic they made up indicates that they are doing a good job, but also that they need much more of our money.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

SmartMuffin posted...
From: Brayze_II | #079
Austrian 'Math's too hard' School of Economics
You can't use math to model human behavior.

instead let's just make up a model of human nature and base all our theories on that, because our made up notions can be used to determine how people act far more accurately than working backwards from data obtained from actual previous behaviours

--
A mystical magical favor

Barring some sort of mental illness or insanity, I fail to see how this is possible. The fact that human action exists means that people have preferences. To act in any way is to express a preference. Let's say I have $60 and someone offers to sell me Skyrim or Arkham City for $60. If I choose to purchase Skyrim, that is what I prefer. If I choose to purchase Arkham City, that is what I prefer. If I choose to purchase neither, I prefer the $60. Those are my only three options and I must choose one of them. Even if I decide by flipping a coin or something, I am then taking action to prefer leaving my decision to a coin flip. In any possible case, a preference is selected.

Have you considered that people are insane?

Or as I like to call it, the "Brawl > Melee complex"

The fools.

And there's the proof! (Don't take this seriously; of course it's not solid, definitive, proof, Smuffin.)

You can't use math to model human behavior. Economics is not a science because it is the result of human action, therefore you cannot subject it to repeatable and measureable experimentation.

But if that's true, then we can subject it to math, and better than with science. With science, experiemental data can never be as precise as mathematical theory, but if in economics, as you say, we don't need empirical data, and we know that people are rational, then math is extremely powerful.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

Though honestly, it's common sense. The simple fact of the matter is that free market capitalism (specifically the maddeningly egotistical brand espoused by the followers of Ayn Rand) does not encourage charity, at least on the scale required to affect meaningful change. After all, if I give up money for no gain to myself and my business competitor doesn't, that could be the difference between her business succeeding any mine going under. This encourages me not to be charitable even if I would like to (for reasons of being nice to my fellow man or whatever) or at most only slightly charitable. It's a classic prisoner's dilemma; the best overall outcome is if we both do what's individually less beneficial for both of us.

Why are you only thinking about businesses? What about individuals?

This is honestly my biggest problem with government in general, and with socialism in particular. Socialists love to spout out cliches about how government is "representative." How "we are the government." How "majority rules." To a certain extent, this is correct in every form of government, from direct democracy to a constitutional republic to an outright dictatorship. Even in a dictatorship, the dictator most likely enjoyed the support of the majority at one point or another and certainly enjoys enough support to prevent a coup or revolution or what have you.

So the socialist says, "Look, we've all gotten together and voted that we should have welfare." or "The majority of Americans want unemployment benefits" or whatever. The only thing is, if that were true, government programs would not be necessary. If you're so confident that most Americans want people to be given money even if they don't work, you should be fine with eliminating unemployment benefits, right? All of the majority who believes in those benefits would continue to provide them. If you're convinced that it "wouldn't be enough" (remember, we're constantly told that it already isn't enough), then perhaps the majority doesn't agree after all.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

From: NeoElfboy | #058
inb4 some idiot thinks that cutting all welfare will just cause these people to get jobs: the presence of welfare does not impact unemployment rate.

You really think that someone faced with the possibility of death from starvation wouldn't try harder to find work?


I don't agree with the principle, but it would be foolish to think that Welfare has no impact whatsoever

--
yE frE me Kweku Ananse Papa
me:http://img235.imageshack.us/img235/1508/masterplumgm3.jpg

The only reason this guy is getting so much support in the Caucus is because the Democrat-friendlies are voting for him in high numbers knowing he can't win against Obama.

--
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=5364544
Congrats to SuperNiceDog! Guru Champ!

From: junk_funk | #091
The only reason this guy is getting so much support in the Caucus is because the Democrat-friendlies are voting for him in high numbers knowing he can't win against Obama.

He has a better chance than Romney.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

So the socialist says, "Look, we've all gotten together and voted that we should have welfare." or "The majority of Americans want unemployment benefits" or whatever. The only thing is, if that were true, government programs would not be necessary. If you're so confident that most Americans want people to be given money even if they don't work, you should be fine with eliminating unemployment benefits, right? All of the majority who believes in those benefits would continue to provide them. If you're convinced that it "wouldn't be enough" (remember, we're constantly told that it already isn't enough), then perhaps the majority doesn't agree after all.

I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. As any basic course in game theory will show you there are plenty of instances where the outcome people want will only come about through compulsion due to the great desire to cheat.

--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

I'm sorry, but that is not how it works. As any basic course in game theory will show you there are plenty of instances where the outcome people want will only come about through compulsion due to the great desire to cheat.

Then they don't really want it after all now do they?

What everyone wants is for someone else's money to go towards helping the homeless or the sick or the unemployed. Well guess what, you don't have any right to someone else's money, whether the majority agrees with you or not.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

Then they don't really want it after all now do they?

What everyone wants is for someone else's money to go towards helping the homeless or the sick or the unemployed. Well guess what, you don't have any right to someone else's money, whether the majority agrees with you or not.

*sigh*

http://www.econport.org/content/teaching/modules/NFG/Hockey.html

lrn2incentives

--
SubDeity wants to vote for Calvin Coolidge. [Evil Republican]
Play Der Langrisser.

From: SubDeity | #095
Then they don't really want it after all now do they?

What everyone wants is for someone else's money to go towards helping the homeless or the sick or the unemployed. Well guess what, you don't have any right to someone else's money, whether the majority agrees with you or not.

*sigh*

http://www.econport.org/content/teaching/modules/NFG/Hockey.html

lrn2incentives

Absolutely terrible analogy. You can't compare private-sector and government "incentives." If someone wants to play hockey without a helmet, they can, just not in the NHL. You can opt-out. You can't opt-out of the government.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

You're not getting it. Read his link. Closely.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.

He would also annul all gay marriages.

http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10520&MediaType=1&Category=26

...

--
http://www.backloggery.com/myimmortal

No, I get it, but it misses the point entirely.

Government intervention in the economy is always inefficient, economically speaking. That's an undisputed fact. The prisoner's dilemma doesn't apply here. UNLESS your goal isn't economic efficiency, but rather something like "economic equality." In that case, yes, government intervention is likely to be more "successful" than leaving it up to the free market.

All the economic "science" mumbo jumbo in the world does not change one simple fact. You have no right to spend my money. Whether "you" represents you individually or 99% of the country.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized - http://img.imgcake.com/smartmuffin/barkleyjpgde.jpg
http://dudewheresmyfreedom.com/

You have no right to spend my money.

Then you are saying that government action is immoral, not that it is inefficient. That's fine, but it is not true that all government action must be inefficient in 100% of situations.

--
Congratulations to SuperNiceDog, Guru Winner, who was smart enough to pick
your 7 time champion, Link.