Where's the Outrage?

[TheGoodShepherd]

So I don't get it? All of the free-market toolbags on this site. The losers who are always saying crap like "let the market sort itself out," where have they gone?

Where's the outrage? Why are you guys not rallying against the Bush/Congress stimulus plan?

Will all of you free-marketeers rip up your rebate checks if they come in the mail? Or will you pinworms expose yourselves for the hypocrites you are?

How can anyone be against something like a universal healthcare system; yet at the same time favour, support and advance the idea that Washington should come to the rescue of the economy?

Or is it only "ok" when "you" suckle on the government tit and not poor young black mamas?

Where's the outrage?
<!-- / message -->

[kybillsfan]

There is a good bit of outrage on the thread about the stimulus plan. I am a free marketeer that will be cashing my check. Does that make me a hypocrite? Hell no, I would be stupid not to cash it, I have paid in a fortune and will likely continue to, besides if I sent it back it wouldnt make a difference. I am curious how one might be a loser for supporting the rights of free individuals, that one I dont understand, please fill me in.

[sukie]

Okay... I'm for a one time Government shot for healthcare. Give every American 500 bucks to go get a physical with blood tests and urinalysis...Heck even throw in a EKG... One time. The money has to be used for that...

That would cause outrage from the recipients of such a deal.

[CoachC.]

.......support and advance the idea that Washington should come to the rescue of the economy?

I see it as the opposite of that.

Washington is giving money back to the people so that the people can determine how to spend it rather than the government keeping their money and deciding for them.

So, the government is counting on the people to rescue the economy by putting their money back into it and "stimulating" it.

[sukie]

Yes Coach, that may be true but how dare this deal offer incentives to corporations to retool etc... Oh the horror.

[pmoon6]

So I don't get it? All of the free-market toolbags on this site. The losers who are always saying crap like "let the market sort itself out," where have they gone?

Where's the outrage? Why are you guys not rallying against the Bush/Congress stimulus plan?

Will all of you free-marketeers rip up your rebate checks if they come in the mail? Or will you pinworms expose yourselves for the hypocrites you are?

How can anyone be against something like a universal healthcare system; yet at the same time favour, support and advance the idea that Washington should come to the rescue of the economy?

Or is it only "ok" when "you" suckle on the government tit and not poor young black mamas?

Where's the outrage?
<!-- / message -->This has nothing to do with the government tit. The money was payed to the government by the taxpayer.

They are giving a little back.

It also has nothing to do with poor young blacks or unauthorized foriegn visitors that don't pay taxes, but use our hospitals and services.

[sukie]

Geez that is a modding problem, pmoon... Can ya substitute another word for the one in question? Please? Seriously?

[pmoon6]

Geez that is a modding problem, pmoon... Can ya substitute another word for the one in question? Please? Seriously?Ok, ya pansy.

Wouldn't want to offend Chimp's tender sensibilities.

[sukie]

I like it... Ya coulda went with "Criminally present". LOL

[pmoon6]

I like it... Ya coulda went with "Criminally present". LOLWe all gotta do the PC bit, doncha know.

I just like to see the youngster pop a blood vessel in his head and start screaming "Racist".

[anEinherjer]

Pelosi crowed that this "project" put money back "in the hands of hard-working Americans".... meaning, of course, that she understands that WE can fix the economy, government can't. It's better for the economy if WE have the cash, not government.

It's a completely stupid idea from an economic standpoint, and won't "rescue" the economy at all. But it's telling that she'd admit that.

[Glowtoad]

Or is it only "ok" when "you" suckle on the government tit and not poor young black mamas?

Where's the outrage?
<!-- / message -->
Here is why there is no outrage

Government taking my money and giving it to others who did not work for it = BAD
Government taking my money and giving it back to me = GOOD

Of course, this is very simplistic. Nevertheless, it is the basic premise.

[Green Lantern]

Here is why there is no outrage

Government taking my money and giving it to others who did not work for it = BAD
Government taking my money and giving it back to me = GOOD

Of course, this is very simplistic. Nevertheless, it is the basic premise.

Most of your money does not go to people who did not work for it. Unless you include military in your definition.

[Woody]

http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/7720/outrage4yvdj3bf67oqfz1.jpg

[Canisius85]

I'll use it to pay down debt just to stick it to them....

[35Pete]

This has nothing to do with the government tit. The money was payed to the government by the taxpayer.

They are giving a little back.

It also has nothing to do with poor young blacks or unauthorized foriegn visitors that don't pay taxes, but use our hospitals and services.

Uhh. No. They are not.

They are borrowing it on our behalf and we'll have to pay it back, with interest.

[jimmifli]

Uhh. No. They are not.

They are borrowing it on our behalf and we'll have to pay it back, with interest.
No they're paying back what they took. They're borrowing for the war.

Nanananana

[notacon]

I see it as the opposite of that.

Washington is giving money back to the people so that the people can determine how to spend it rather than the government keeping their money and deciding for them.

So, the government is counting on the people to rescue the economy by putting their money back into it and "stimulating" it.

This is the most hackneyed, misused and overused demagoguery that has little basis in fact.

In all actuality, this is not "giving money back"...since it is all borrowed money anyway, it is robbing from our kid's future to give even more to the well off today.

The "stimulus" package is terrible.

[zootvman]

>>>>>All of the free-market toolbags on this site. The losers who are always saying crap like "let the market sort itself out..."

Yes, I am a free market toolbag, but unfortunately we no longer have a free market system in America. We are entering a new era of unrestrained mercantilism.

I suppose you prefer big nanny government socialism to free markets? Let the government control the means of production, right? History proves you wrong, over and over and over again. When will people learn that government is the problem, not free thinking people?

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hitlery, Lenin, Clinton, Gore, Trostsky, Bush, etc...they're all socialists, and socialism always results in dictatorships....the modern versions being Bush and Hugo Chavez.

I am against the stimulus plan, and the check I receive is going to be cashed and the money is going to be sent directly to Ron Paul. Thousands plan on doing the same, and Ron Paul is going to raise millions - from the government!

Oh the irony...

The US government is bankrupt. There is no money for a stimulus, so they are going to have to borrow the money from China, or print it thus creating more inflation and more interest. Every American will end up paying back what they received in the form of higher prices and higher taxes to pay off the interest.

The combination of interest rate cuts with the proposed economic stimulus plan will exacerbate the problem and make things worse.

We would be much better off letting the "market sort itself out," but the government will not let that happen.

There is an agenda to devalue the U.S. dollar to the point where a new currency will be offered as the "solution."

Of course the government created the problem - it's called the Hegelian dialectic - create a PROBLEM, people give their predictable REACTION, and then the nanny government comes to the rescue and offers the SOLUTION.

It's called the "Amero," and when the dollar crashes this new currency - to be used by Mexico, Canada and the United States - will replace the U.S. Dollar.

This is factual information, but many will dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."

Here are 473,000 articles to prove my point:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=amero+currency&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Most people in here can't see the forest from the trees, so nevermind, go back and....

[Sparx]

It's going straight to savings.

[TheGoodShepherd]

I don't get the lesson at all.

Deep down inside Americans know they are selfish pricks who will do anything to get ahead. Even if it means cheating themselves.

How do I know this?

Because most Americans understand the rebate isn't really a rebate at all. Even by their own admission the stimulus solution will exarcabate the financial problems of the U.S.

Yet American selfishness, and the need for immediate gratification is so intense, so pervasive in American culture; Americans would crucify those polticians who would now call for a recall on the rebate.

LOL at the irony.

It's kinda like putting a donut in front of a really hungry fat whale of a kid who is have a serious donut craving. You tell him he can have a dozen more donuts, if and only if, he can stare at the first donut for only five mouth watering minutes.

The kid is so freaking fat. So freaking hungry. And so freakin selfish, that only seconds later he stuffs the first donut down his throat. His chances for 12 more tasy glazed treats, gone.

That's how fat he is. That's how selfish he is. That's how hungry he was.

America, face it. You are that terribly fat kid.

And that my friends, in a nutshell, is what I think of the rebate issue.
<!-- / message -->

[35Pete]

I don't get the lesson at all.

Deep down inside Americans know they are selfish pricks who will do anything to get ahead. Even if it means cheating themselves.

How do I know this?

Because most Americans understand the rebate isn't really a rebate at all. Even by their own admission the stimulus solution will exarcabate the financial problems of the U.S.

Yet American selfishness, and the need for immediate gratification is so intense, so pervasive in American culture; Americans would crucify those polticians who would now call for a recall on the rebate.

LOL at the irony.

It's kinda like putting a donut in front of a really hungry fat whale of a kid who is have a serious donut craving. You tell him he can have a dozen more donuts, if and only if, he can stare at the first donut for only five mouth watering minutes.

The kid is so freaking fat. So freaking hungry. And so freakin selfish, that only seconds later he stuffs the first donut down his throat. His chances for 12 more tasy glazed treats, gone.

That's how fat he is. That's how selfish he is. That's how hungry he was.

America, face it. You are that terribly fat kid.

And that my friends, in a nutshell, is what I think of the rebate issue.
<!-- / message -->

I think you are wrong on part of this. The fat kid won't wait at all. He'd shove aside the server and gobble that dougnut in 3 seconds.

Then, packing the most sophisitcated and accurate firearms possible, he'd invade the kitchen, killling most of the staff (sugar cravings are hell), and hold the doughnut chef at gunpoint while he cooked up another batch of doughnuts.

Eventually the cook is going to run out of flour, sugar, and cooking oil.

That's OK though. His fatso friends have already been working on the Tim Horton's down the street. Spreading rumors of cockroaches in the kitchen among the clientele, putting a credit embargo on the franchise, and randomly poisoning doughnuts and coffee, driving off all allied customers of the joint or turning them against it.

They'll walk right into that Tim Hortons's, under Operation Mighty Sugar Feast, and take it over until the kitchen supplies are gone.

Then it's on to Dunkin Doughnuts.

[pmoon6]

Americans eat donuts?

I'll have to think on that while I enjoy my coffee and plain blueberry bagle.

I do agree with Chimp on alot of Americans being selfish and need instant gratification.

I think they mostly tend to be big city folk.

It wasn't always this way, the Me first generation is a product of the '80's and '90's. Liberal child rearing, spoiling our children, being a buddy instead of a parent all have contributed to this attitude.

[Green Lantern]

>>>>>All of the free-market toolbags on this site. The losers who are always saying crap like "let the market sort itself out..."

Yes, I am a free market toolbag, but unfortunately we no longer have a free market system in America. We are entering a new era of unrestrained mercantilism.

I suppose you prefer big nanny government socialism to free markets? Let the government control the means of production, right? History proves you wrong, over and over and over again. When will people learn that government is the problem, not free thinking people?

Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Hitlery, Lenin, Clinton, Gore, Trostsky, Bush, etc...they're all socialists, and socialism always results in dictatorships....the modern versions being Bush and Hugo Chavez.

I am against the stimulus plan, and the check I receive is going to be cashed and the money is going to be sent directly to Ron Paul. Thousands plan on doing the same, and Ron Paul is going to raise millions - from the government!

Oh the irony...

The US government is bankrupt. There is no money for a stimulus, so they are going to have to borrow the money from China, or print it thus creating more inflation and more interest. Every American will end up paying back what they received in the form of higher prices and higher taxes to pay off the interest.

The combination of interest rate cuts with the proposed economic stimulus plan will exacerbate the problem and make things worse.

We would be much better off letting the "market sort itself out," but the government will not let that happen.

There is an agenda to devalue the U.S. dollar to the point where a new currency will be offered as the "solution."

Of course the government created the problem - it's called the Hegelian dialectic - create a PROBLEM, people give their predictable REACTION, and then the nanny government comes to the rescue and offers the SOLUTION.

It's called the "Amero," and when the dollar crashes this new currency - to be used by Mexico, Canada and the United States - will replace the U.S. Dollar.

This is factual information, but many will dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory."

Here are 473,000 articles to prove my point:

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=amero+currency&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

Most people in here can't see the forest from the trees, so nevermind, go back and....

I have read Hegel and I am pretty sure that is not how the dialectic works.

[35Pete]

I have read Hegel and I am pretty sure that is not how the dialectic works.

So have I. It's called Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis.

[Green Lantern]

So have I. It's called Thesis -> Antithesis -> Synthesis.

That is what it has been called since the Ancients. Hegel does not claim that one 'creates' a problem. Hegel does not claim that one then waits for the peoples' natural reaction before offering up a pre-prepared solution.

He was a philosopher, for God's sake.

[35Pete]

That is what it has been called since the Ancients. Hegel does not claim that one 'creates' a problem. Hegel does not claim that one then waits for the peoples' natural reaction before offering up a pre-prepared solution.

He was a philosopher, for God's sake.

True. Then we have a semantics issue here. I think we're talking about using the Hegelian Dialectic as a tool or instrument for directed or pre-orchestrated plans.

Creating the "problem" naturally generates a thesis (healthcare crisis for example as a "problem") with the thesis being market reforms, the anti-thesis being state control, and the synthesis being something less repulsing to both camps than the opposite but still not a compete manifestation of either. It'll be the establishments predesired goal but will come across like "we had a say in it". "The people have spoken through their representatives...blah...blah...blah...yakkity, yakikty, yak".

Do you think that those generating the thesis and anti-thesis are well meaning common folks? I certainly don't.

[Green Lantern]

True. Then we have a semantics issue here. I think we're talking about using the Hegelian Dialectic as a tool or instrument for directed or pre-orchestrated plans.

Creating the "problem" naturally generates a thesis (healthcare crisis for example as a "problem") with the thesis being market reforms, the anti-thesis being state control, and the synthesis being something less repulsing to both camps than the opposite but still not a compete manifestation of either. It'll be the establishments predesired goal but will come across like "we had a say in it". "The people have spoken through their representatives...blah...blah...blah...yakkity, yakikty, yak".

Do you think that those generating the thesis and anti-thesis are well meaning common folks? I certainly don't.


This is, in my view, an extremely shallow, watered-down version of a dialectic, Hegelian or otherwise, if what you are equating a dialectic to a pre-orchestrated show whose sole purpose is achieve a desired end by reverse-engineering both the question and the response. I could not even in good conscience call it a dialetic.

A dialogue is a give and take and neither party knows where it will go; it is extemporaneous.

If you are governing the rules of debate by choosing the battle ground; saying 'how much government control is good', thereby presupposing some amount of government control to be good because you build "how much" as the limiting factor; you are not, I think, engaging in Hegelian dialectic. Focusing on how one sets and defends the parameters of a debate would require more a deconstructionist approach or post-modern. Cite Foucault then.

[35Pete]

This is, in my view, an extremely shallow, watered-down version of a dialectic, Hegelian or otherwise, if what you are equating a dialectic to a pre-orchestrated show whose sole purpose is achieve a desired end by reverse-engineering both the question and the response. I could not even in good conscience call it a dialetic.

A dialogue is a give and take and neither party knows where it will go; it is extemporaneous.

If you are governing the rules of debate by choosing the battle ground; saying 'how much government control is good', thereby presupposing some amount of government control to be good because you build "how much" as the limiting factor; you are not, I think, engaging in Hegelian dialectic. Focusing on how one sets and defends the parameters of a debate would require more a deconstructionist approach or post-modern. Cite Foucault then.

You're right. It's not a real dialectic. It's a charade masked to look like one. Now mind you, this is just a working hypothesis but it seems to fit the model of historical events better than anything else that I have studied. Unless you have a better fitting idea to share?

[Green Lantern]

You're right. It's not a real dialectic. It's a charade masked to look like one. Now mind you, this is just a working hypothesis but it seems to fit the model of historical events better than anything else that I have studied. Unless you have a better fitting idea to share?

I do not dispute what is happening, only calling it Hegelian. Read Jacques Derrida or Chantal Mouffe and get to know framing of understanding, if that is your interest in public discourse. Hell Heidegger goes on and on about 'enframing', but it is not a dialectic. What you guys are talking about is a dictatorship of discourse.

Another flaw in this comparison, as I understand it, is that a synthesis, as the final product of a dialectic, does not claim the position of truth. Having a broader understanding of an issue does not assume that you are thereby right.