momma and dadda give you an allowance of 20 dollars a week

but, dad says that you have to give to the home fund before you can enjoy that allowance.

so dad takes half of it from you for the house.

you now have 10 dollars.

next week you complain.

so dad says he will give you a dollar more

so dippy here walks off happy, why?
he thinks he won.

he now gets ll dollars.
and dad still keeps pocketing 9
and telling him he is a good boy and helping
even though dad is only taking back the money he gave.

isnt dad clever? he gets to control the son by pretending to give him money, and instead takes it right back…

by circulating the cash through the boy, he gets to dictate to the boy for nothing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

our poor misunderstood person here wants us to be like that boy.

he does get it.
however he believes that you win a debate by refusing to concede to the facts!!!!!!!!!

if he refuses to concede and fillibusters you, he thinks he won. he beomes a legend in his own mind by holding out for the truth.

but thats not how it works.

he is playing old maid to your wist, and thinks he won when he lost.

because he was taught the same way the people of germany were taught by the socialists.

that everyone is equal (the same) and so those who are earning more couldnt do that unless they were cheating, and if they are cheating, taking waht they got by cheating is not stealing.

this is the argument he refuses to actually verbalize, but its the core of his position.
and i am afraid i came to the party too late for him to get it.

in germany they described the jews as being only 3% of the popyulation but owned 10-20% of the bsinesses.

how did they get good people to go along with the bad? the EXACT same way that is being pushed here.

they convinced good people with a sense of honor and propriety, by using faulty logic and math, to seem to perceive that some people are cheating.

they bank on his ignorance…
if he is a ceo and he is not cheating, he will just disbelieve, so the propaganda doesnt work there.

if he is a conservative with economics knowlege and no propaganada, he will percieve it like the ceo, and people here, and say the point is bs.

but if he is sitting around in complete ignorance with his thumb up his but incapable of imagining honest earning to that degree (because we are all weual to him the person with their thumbutt)!!!

its SOOOOO much easier for him to sit at home and promote this false view, becasue if he sells us on it, he thinks he did somthing good.

why? cause his masters told him,. he is incapable of thinking for himself.

he confuses parroting and memorizeing speaking points as being clever and erudite and intelligent.

a african grey can learn all of the gettysburg adress, but doesnt understand it, despite repeating it.

to those who are also ignorant
they would think the bird was really smart
its not…

its only smart RELATIVE to even less capable things.

and thats what he is shopping for.
a place wher parrots havent been taught where he can enter and foment the ideas that are so good… and thereby be the big man on the tiny branch of heirarchy, and take up some pretend cargo cult version of respect.

usually, they get trashed and dont understand why, they go back to their thumbutts, and stew (not ruminate), and learn more lines to parrot as if they didnt have the right combination, and then go find another group to see if the clouds open the horns blow and the holy host and see bows before his grandeur.

after 40 years of this, they change sides and realize what a dupe they were.

🙂

What you describe as being “given” is the state not taking as much from them as you’d like.
That’s not “given”, except for lefties.

And the point remains, obfuscate and distract as you will, that we were talking about the human cost of becoming dependent on welfare. Not the dollars.

It’s like you don’t actually get it or something.

What, by ignoring my argument? Your reasoning is fundamentally flawed. Taking money from someone at a lesser rate is not a cost. Paying someone money they didn’t earn is a cost. Equating them is like comparing apples and rocks.

Why do you feel you’re entitled to someone’s else hard-earned money to the point that you think by not taking it from them you’re giving it to them? When exactly did you earn it?

Thank you, Richard. Then it follows that those upper 2% who’ve been given a nearly 1 trillion dollar tax cut per year might’ve also become addicted. Now add up the cost of the welfare addicted vs the cost of the trillion dollar tax-cut junkies. I eagerly await your conclusions.

Sorry, no.

See if you can understand this fundamental difference. (And I’m granting you the whole 2% concept which I think is probably full of ….) Those 2% went out and earned money. Those on welfare didn’t earn a dime. Not taking money out of the pocket of someone who has earned it is not “being on the dole”. It’s their money. They got it through working. The idea that you’ve decided to confiscate less of it from them through the power of government coercion doesn’t mean it wasn’t theirs in the first place.

On the other hand, welfare recipients are just the opposite. You’re giving them money they didn’t earn. It wasn’t theirs in the first place. That is truly the meaning of being “on the dole”. When someone else is paying you’re living expenses, you’re on the dole.

“So then, if one resorts to pragmatism, those qualified to have received those tax breaks given the upper 2% cost this country a whole lot more than those addicted welfare.”

It hasn’t cost anything. The fact that I walk past a person on the street and decide not to hit him over the head and take his wallet does not cost me anything. Or, if I hit him over the head and take $20 from his wallet but leave him the other $10, that doesn’t mean he just cost me $10. It wasn’t my money to begin with.

But if I’m walking down the street and a beggar accosts me and I give him $10, then yes, that cost me $10. I have $10 less in my wallet than before I met the guy. Surely you see the difference.

“I, troglaman, would actually like to have this argument ’cause I humbly think I’ll win.”

I humbly think you’re full of it if you think you can win an argument based on the concept that not stealing money from someone is the equivalent of giving it to them.

Whoppi Goldberg in a bikini?

Um… “Ew”.