Born Losers

[legion]

How about France Supe? How do you explain France?

You keep ignoring my posts, which must mean you cannot dispute anything I've said.

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
Supe, you must believe that altruism motivates people. It does not. People work for their own benefit. Take away a person's ability to better his situation, and you have also taken away his motivation to do his job.

And when no one is motivated to work, who is there to tax?

Again, it was about thirty years ago that I was introduced to the notion that some folks believe motivational principles are few and simple. Fear and money. Machiavelli's claim to fame is that he believed as you do and wrote it all down.

There are no compensation analysts who agree with that. These are people whose life work is to study what motivates people at work. Pay is #1 in workers' minds up to the point where they are making enough to pay for their necessities. Past that, money moves at least down as far as third place, or farther.

Your believe is false. The presence of other motivators is qualtifiable and well documented. I personally know a fairly large number of people whose prime motivation is definitely not money. I know a large number of people who could be making a great deal more money than they are. I happen to be one of them.

But perhaps from your perspective, this is hard to imagine. Good luck trying to convince me in the future that one of your motivations is charity, or concern for the less fortunate. Your real position is glaringly apparent.

Tim, I suspect we both recognize the same general ethical principles. I think we differ on the subject of what impact this or that kind of program might have.

[legion]

Where in my quote did I specifically mention money? Money is just one means to bettering one's situation. I'm sure all of your "other motivators" are also things that better one's situation. So you already know what I said is true.

So...make it so that someone who works for what they have is no better than someone who gets it for free (to them) from the state, and see how many people are left working. Only a sucker would continue to work when everything can be gotten for free.

[Tim Hancock]

SUpe, I will agree that money is not the only driving factor of ALL successful people, but it IS the driving factor for people who are not yet making enough money to get by on. I have worked at my day job for 15+ years and for the first 7 or so, I nearly quit and took other jobs on many occasions which meant my employer offered me more to stay. I now could make more if I wanted at another bigger company, but I am comfortable with my current financial situation so I choose to remain where I am. People who have never had much and are getting by in life by living off of others, often are in a similar sitution in that they are relatively comfortable with their present situation and have no real need to change.

Why would anyone who has been living in govt subsidized housing, been fed and given health care all while sitting on the couch watching TV ever want to go get a starting level type job that would jeopardize their current easy lazy lifestyle? The only way to get them to start paying their own way would be to cut them off and create a real need for them to take control of their own destiny. I guess what I am saying is that they need "tough love", not a lifetime of govt spooned out mediocracy.

[red-beard]

Supe, you are wrong. Moral principles are culturally based. Your morals are not mine. What you find to be perfectly moral, I do not. It is obvious that you do not think that homosexuality is immoral. I do not agree.

Your "voting" analogy is flawed. We are speaking of taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another, and not very efficiently. This is against my will. We are not speaking of a road, or a bridge, or an Army to defend us, or some other common good. We are discussing reditribution of wealth. And some are suggesting that if this is not done, violent revolution will occur.

Some people are smarter, or better looking, or have more ambition, etc. And some are not. We are not discussing the physically or mentally ill. We are discussing otherwise healthy individuals without the motivation, or ability to achieve greatness, or wealth. Unfortunately, these people need to be happy with their lot.

[Superman]

Originally posted by legion
Where in my quote did I specifically mention money? Money is just one means to bettering one's situation. I'm sure all of your "other motivators" are also things that better one's situation. So you already know what I said is true.

So...make it so that someone who works for what they have is no better than someone who gets it for free (to them) from the state, and see how many people are left working. Only a sucker would continue to work when everything can be gotten for free.

I wonder if guys like you do this deliberately to make sure nobody has a productive discussion with you. If you make it so that nobody benefits from their own efforts then yeah. Things come unglued. Nobody is suggesting that. When somebody mentions that taxes might have to be paid, you pretend that they said nobody gets to keep any of their earned money. Knock it off. That's the debate equivalent of the kid that throws himself on the floor and pounds with his hands and fists while yelling. It's not real, it;'s not what we're talking about and it's nto honest. My wife used to use terms like "never" and "always" very very frequently. Perhaps you too. Exaggerate all you want, but please do that in discussions that aren't going anywhere anyway. Here, we are trying to discuss something.

And yes, I know people who work to better the situations of OTHERS. Many of them could make WAY more money doing something else. I think it is sad you not only don't understand this, you can't even believe it happens.

[Superman]

Originally posted by Tim Hancock
SUpe, I will agree that money is not the only driving factor of ALL successful people, but it IS the driving factor for people who are not yet making enough money to get by on. I have worked at my day job for 15+ years and for the first 7 or so, I nearly quit and took other jobs on many occasions which meant my employer offered me more to stay. I now could make more if I wanted at another bigger company, but I am comfortable with my current financial situation so I choose to remain where I am. People who have never had much and are getting by in life by living off of others, often are in a similar sitution in that they are relatively comfortable with their present situation and have no real need to change.

Why would anyone who has been living in govt subsidized housing, been fed and given health care all while sitting on the couch watching TV ever want to go get a starting level type job that would jeopardize their current easy lazy lifestyle? The only way to get them to start paying their own way would be to cut them off and create a real need for them to take control of their own destiny. I guess what I am saying is that they need "tough love", not a lifetime of govt spooned out mediocracy.

This, believe it or not, is a post I can agree with pretty completely and enthusiastically. Some of the language at the end is a bit unhelpful, but most of the post is spot-on. I vigorously agree with the first paragraph especially.

[red-beard]

30%+ of my hard earned money is too much! And this does not count the hidden taxes we pay in the price of higher cost goods.

[Superman]

Originally posted by red-beard
Moral principles are culturally based. Your morals are not mine.

This is simply untrue. Anthropologists and other scientists have noticed that not only do basic moral principles not vary from culture to culture, they also do not vary over time. Lying is lying, and there has never been a culture that regards that as acceptable. And so on with all the other basic moral principles.

Our view on homosexuality do not rely on any basic moral principles. They are a function of indoctrination.

And before you go off with an angry reply, you should know this: I am a practising Catholic who believes that homosexual behavior is sinful. I can love homosexuals and care about them and help them. And I do, in fact. To the degree that they yield to those urges, I believe they are sinning. Then again, I can do nothing to indict them in this sin or to forgive them in that sin. That's between them and another Being.

[Superman]

Originally posted by red-beard
30%+ of my hard earned money is too much! And this does not count the hidden taxes we pay in the price of higher cost goods.

We might agree here. I would prefer that you pay less taxes. I'll leave it at that for the moment.

[legion]

Supe, why don't you put your money where your mouth is? Send every dime that is above what you need to subsist on to the IRS. You obviously feel that they can do more good with your money than you can. Why do you need to use the government to take my money? Surely there are enough people not motivated by money in this country to make these voluntary contributions.

[Tim Hancock]

Supe, you do the same thing. You bring up disabled or mentally challenged people when defending the current welfare state. If any one argues with you, you insinuate that that person must be the type who would push a disabled person down the stairs (no offense Tabs ).

Most here that argue against you on this topic simply believe that a VERY large portion of current welfare recipients abuse the system and are opposed to typically the left hwo want to give them even MORE of our hard earned money. Your condescending tone only ratchets up the rhetoric.

[scottmandue]

This seems to be boiling down to two different philosophies.

[This a very liberal paraphrase of what my friend described, perhaps one of you business degree guys could explain it better for me]

As a businessman friend of mine described it there are two management styles. One is where you believe most people are basically good and provided with the proper materials and incentive will work hard unsupervised. The other is where you believe most people are lazy bums who need to be monitored to preform.

[Superman]

No, I won't. You've got a Porsche and a house and property and toys. I don't think your 35%+ tax problem is bigger than hunger and disease. I look at the hunger and disease problems, and then I look at your sad situation where you are quite comfortable but you wish you had that extra 36%, and I don't even place those two alternatives in the same Universe. Would I go to bat for your precious 36% while noticing folks who need our help? Nope.

Then again, we're probably not talking about the same thing. To you, and Tim, welfare recipients are a bunch of lazy black people who stay drunk and high all day. If I agreed with that, you guys wouldn't have me to argue with.

[JCF]

Originally posted by legion



Do you remember that this country was founded because of excessive taxation? You think coddling those who won't do for themselves avoids revolution, but completely ignore that taking too much from people who do produce meets the same end.

Interesting point.

Wasn't one of the principle reasons that those taxes levied by the mother country were so high a result of a familiar attitude amongst the privileged that the losers in society should maintain the lifestyle of the landed gentry ?
That those not fortunate to be amongst the WINNERS should pay for the wars that brought more wealth to the wealthy ?
That those with great wealth living on vast estates worked by the losers felt no responsibility to give back more than a bare minimum to keep that system running ?
Of course the difference there was by birth in most cases - now , here advantage comes in other ways.
While it may be true many who work hard here now can succeed
it is not true at all that all who work hard do succeed.

Wasn't it precisely the LOSERS from the old country who left that old country to invent THIS country ?

[Superman]

Originally posted by scottmandue
This seems to be boiling down to two different philosophies.

[This a very liberal paraphrase of what my friend described, perhaps one of you business degree guys could explain it better for me]

As a businessman friend of mine described it there are two management styles. One is where you believe most people are basically good and provided with the proper materials and incentive will work hard unsupervised. The other is where you believe most people are lazy bums who need to be monitored to preform.

Precisely. Perfect seguey. Tim, I heard you and don't disagree. Here is an observation I think is important. Both management styles have some truth. There are workers who do need to be monitored, and workers who do not. Some of the ones needing monitoring will always need monitoring. One of the most interesting management principles I have noticed is that monitored workers can be turned into unmonitored ones. Often these cheating workers are simply playing a game they feel was in place before they got there. Cat and mouse. Why do dogs chase cats? BECAUSE THEY RUN! Unfortunately, it takes a long period of trust before they figure out that the workplace is not a "gotcha" place. If they feel truly appreciated, and if they feel truly secure and free to pursue their jobs, then they sometimes stop playing those games. It's a pretty interesting transformation. They start working longer hours and they start using their imaginations and pretty soon they're making the kinds of breakthroughs that give managers orgasms.

Some welfare people are just not going to contribute. That's sad, but it's the way it is. But I am certain that is not true for all of them. Some of them really want to work hard and succeed right now. Others will be more energized the more they find that is possible and within their reach. If we had the right programs in place, we would find that some of those people are simply in a state of dispair. They don't believe in those opportunities. They don't see them. They want them, but don't know what they look like. Never seen 'em. Show them the way, and they're off. That's why I suggested that a decent long term program would begin by looking at the reasons why there is dispair.

I'm thinking I should take over this country for a bit, at least until it gets back on its feet. I'll be naming a chairman for my fundraising campaign and when I do, I'll post a link here so you guys will know where to send your donations. The Lincoln Bedroom will need a new mattress. The current one has Cooties on it.

[legion]

Supe, you would drive the country into the ground in short order. Everyone would have everything they want or needed provided by the government, and no on would feel the need to work. And then, who would be left to tax to provide these handouts?

Newly emboldened unions would extort outrageous concessions from companies driving them out of business (killing the golden goose, if you will).

[JCF]

Originally posted by red-beard


Your "voting" analogy is flawed. We are speaking of taking hard earned money from one person and giving it to another, and not very efficiently. This is against my will. We are not speaking of a road, or a bridge, or an Army to defend us, or some other common good. We are discussing redistribution of wealth.

Some people are smarter, or better looking, or have more ambition, etc. And some are not. We are not discussing the physically or mentally ill. We are discussing otherwise healthy individuals without the motivation, or ability to achieve greatness, or wealth. Unfortunately, these people need to be happy with their lot.

Inefficient - Too true.

We ARE speaking of roads and bridges and defense and the physically and mentally ill and the aged and teachers who can't afford to live within 100 miles of the schools where they teach your children , and EMT's and firefighters and police as well.
And the soldiers who defend us.

A lot is asked of everyone in a democracy.
If it is to work then each must contribute what they can.
The civil servants sacrificing a Porsche for a honda .
The wealthy a share of their wealth to those who maintain the nuts and bolts and lawns and MacDo's of the society in which they reap the rewards ( fairly)
Most of "those people" seem to me content with their lot.

No one here is saying we should waste our hard earned dollars.
I would like to see the #'s that show the largest waste goes to moochers.

Did anyone else see the Sunday Times business section in which the millions of $ in severance packages for a bunch of corporate losers was listed along with the damage they caused those same companies ?

Something stinks and it isn't just the unwashed.

[Tim Hancock]

Originally posted by JCF

Did anyone else see the Sunday Times business section in which the millions of $ in severance packages for a bunch of corporate losers was listed along with the damage they caused those same companies ?

Something stinks and it isn't just the unwashed.

Looks like we have come full circle.... D@mn filthy rich b@stard losers

On that note.... time to log off for the evening, will be back to bang my head on the wall tomorrow night.

[red-beard]

In my State, the teachers can afford to live and work in the same district. In my state, a teacher can afford to own a good house.

Why are you bringing up corporate executive pay when the discussion is excessive taxation and redistribution of wealth. Corpoations are a self correcting system. The stockholders, the ones that own the corporation, decide who runs what. If you do not like what is going on, you have the option of selling your stock and moving on. This is not the case with a country and taxes.