Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Don't you just love welfare/food stamp policy

darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 3:52:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Apparently to qualify for food stamps, you only need to have a certain level of income, but it doesn't take into consideration the amount of assets or wealth that you have. So you can be a millionaire and still get food stamps. Awesome!

http://consumerist.com...
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 11:57:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
In sociology 101 they specifically tell you that the government paying any attention to the assets as opposed to income of welfare recipients is eeevvvvvvvilllllllllll racism. :)
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:01:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I actually was JUST thinking about this a week ago.

Screwed up indeed.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.
signature
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:21:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.

Bryan Caplan in his book "the myth of the rational voter" explains that voters tend to have systematic biases that make them very ill-informed at good policy. They do this because they are "irrationally rational". There irrationality doesn't cost them anything.

However, the saving mechanism is that politicians are more likely to be informed, or have advisors that are informed. They are left between a rock and a hard place, because they can't follow the whims of the people or else major problems will occur and they'd be kicked out of office. Likewise they can't follow good policy since the masses will also be disgusted by it. So they are left between a rock and hard place.

So basically direct democracy just allows even worse problems. Direct democracy has a bad track record.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:25:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.

but who're the dozens of millions of people gonna exploit? themselves? there's not really any room for corruption. the majority at the least would benefit. with just 300 as government that leaves dozens of millions of people (minus 300) to be exploited.
signature
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:29:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:25:33 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.

but who're the dozens of millions of people gonna exploit? themselves? there's not really any room for corruption. the majority at the least would benefit. with just 300 as government that leaves dozens of millions of people (minus 300) to be exploited.

mob rule anyone? The majority at the exepense of the minority. Also short term gains in exhcange for long term prosperity.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:30:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:21:52 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.

Bryan Caplan in his book "the myth of the rational voter" explains that voters tend to have systematic biases that make them very ill-informed at good policy. They do this because they are "irrationally rational". There irrationality doesn't cost them anything.

well your not gonna accept some dude's corruption as your own just cos you voted for him. you're just gonna call the dude a sneak. that's why voters stay consistently uninformed i think. but then bring the democracy directly to them, make the implications of their decisions unavoidably theirs, then they'd get informed i think.

However, the saving mechanism is that politicians are more likely to be informed, or have advisors that are informed. They are left between a rock and a hard place, because they can't follow the whims of the people or else major problems will occur and they'd be kicked out of office. Likewise they can't follow good policy since the masses will also be disgusted by it. So they are left between a rock and hard place.

pffftt... they're all a shower of corrupt bastards.

So basically direct democracy just allows even worse problems. Direct democracy has a bad track record.

as in for example switzerland and their highest standard of living in the world?
signature
badger
Posts: 11,793
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2011 12:33:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/30/2011 12:29:51 PM, darkkermit wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:25:33 PM, badger wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:15:02 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 10/30/2011 12:06:24 PM, badger wrote:
same over here. hey, would you look at that, representative government's inefficient. who'd have thought? i mean sure they've got all that money to spend and all those high class hookers to be snorting cocaine off of...but you wouldn't think that'd get into the way of progress would you?

i imagine a direct democracy would provide much greater efficiency.

Yes, instead of getting maybe 300 corrupt leaders, get dozens of millions of them.

but who're the dozens of millions of people gonna exploit? themselves? there's not really any room for corruption. the majority at the least would benefit. with just 300 as government that leaves dozens of millions of people (minus 300) to be exploited.

mob rule anyone? The majority at the exepense of the minority. Also short term gains in exhcange for long term prosperity.

is democracy not supposed to mean mob rule anyway? i mean those dudes are supposed to our representatives, right? otherwise you proposing a dictatorship? and what minorities do you think witch hunts will be lead against?

and what short term gains in exchange for long term prosperity? i'm thinking direct democracy would just work better for, well, ever!...
signature