Example of What's Wrong with America

[Outcast]

Megan, Most analogies I have ever seen do fail to take in a lot of things. I do not think they are meant to be scientifically perfect, but to get someones point of view across in such a way that more people may understand it than throwing out every big word in the book.

 

[Shiari]

I don't require every big word, though the person who wrote the atheist one certainly had their thesaurus beside them as they joyfully painted the atheist as an arrogant *censored*.

I do, however, require that people think. I dislike greatly stories that contain absolutes, especially those that are negative in nature. Absolutes are, in my opinion, a great way to ruin something be it a relationship between individuals... or a government.

"If you feed them corn, they won't know how to survive!"
"If you do it slowly enough, they'll never notice!"

We're noticing. There are people who *can't* survive without help. It's a good cautionary tale in reminding people who have become complacent, yes. But it goes a step farther than that, in ways already pointed out.

 

[dave partington]

Just as rules should not be based upon exceptions, we must absolutely never have absolutes, and never have never's.

 

[Shiari]

Let's look at an absolute:

Do not murder.

Okay, that seems perfectly good and reasonable on the surface, right?

But what about self defense? This guy is coming at you to seriously hurt, or murder *you*. If you follow that rule, well... you're dead. And he might go on to make other people dead too. If you break that absolute, you've saved your life and potentially that of other people. But if it's still treated as an absolute, now you get to be on trial for murder.

I admit that I fall prey to absolutes. And there's shades even in the range of absolutes such as the absolute "Do NOT set your corn snake egg incubator to 100 degrees".

But when people talk politics, they tend to think simply. They rarely sit down and truly *think* about what they are saying/claiming and how it will affect people.

Have you seen the various states that claim that they will test people on welfare for drugs, and so much money will be saved because those people on drugs won't receive welfare anymore, even if the state itself pays for the drug testing? It's a classic "Poor people are poor because they're druggies!"

Well... test results come in, less than 10% are on drugs, but the cost to test *everyone* on welfare has far outstripped the amount that would have been paid to the druggies. So the state gov't spends our tax money on something that is useless and loses money.

And yet more and more states are considering doing this as well! Nice "small" gov't there.

 

[Outcast]

I agree, the absolutes should not be used. But the message is clear, and That is what I think is most important about the analogy. I agree that many of us are fighting the "get everything you need from the gov." And I understand that without getting things from the gov. many would not be able to survive. But, there is a trade, from what I can remember, back before the overuse/abuse of the system, there were more people giving to charities, and those charities were helping people. But, as taxes rise, people seem to give less and less. Maybe people would be more willing to give out of their own pockets, if the gov. would keep its grubby fingers out of them.

 

[Shiari]

Maybe more people would have more to give... if proportionally taxes were equivalent across the board. 5% for someone making $40,000 a year is quite different from 5% for someone making $1,000,000 a year.

It might also help if we didn't have the change in social expectations of charities. I used to donate to the Salvation Army. Then I learned that they adamantly oppose homosexuality and would destroy donations of any items that might have an "anti-christian" message.... like Harry Potter. Not even give to another charity. They destroy the stuff.

 

[Outcast]

Megan, there is a difference between Murder and Killing.

mur·der   [mur-der] Show IPA
noun
1.
Law . the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder).
2.
Slang . something extremely difficult or perilous: That final exam was murder!
3.
a group or flock of crows.
verb (used with object)
4.
Law . to kill by an act constituting murder.
5.
to kill or slaughter inhumanly or barbarously.
6.
to spoil or mar by bad performance, representation, pronunciation, etc.: The tenor murdered the aria.


kill1    [kil] Show IPA
verb (used with object)
1.
to deprive of life in any manner; cause the death of; slay.
2.
to destroy; do away with; extinguish: His response killed our hopes.
3.
to destroy or neutralize the active qualities of: to kill an odor.
4.
to spoil the effect of: His extra brushwork killed the painting.
5.
to cause (time) to be consumed with seeming rapidity or with a minimum of boredom, especially by engaging in some easy activity or amusement of passing interest: I had to kill three hours before plane time.


While the end result is the same, loss of life. Murder is with malice or forethought.

I have killed, I scared myself because of it, but it was them or me. I did not murder those men, If I had, then I would be a murderer. As it sits, I am a killer at worst, a protector of my friends at best. There is a lot of grey area.

Also, If my tax money, which I had to get a drug test in order to earn/pay into these programs is being used by druggies (not saying it is), then it is going towards exactly what the government was trying to avoid in the first place... If they drug test me, they should drug test the people that are in the welfare system as well. Sorry if I sound horrible about it. Like I stated earlier, I would expect to be drug tested no matter where I go to work because that is how things are done in most places now. Why should it be any different for those who are using government money (my tax dollars) in order to survive?

 

[Ricky87]

Welllllllllll, if the analogy is false, it kinda doesn't work anymore. Either that, or it makes analogies meaningless. "Bears will shave their fur every spring, but if someone does it for them, then they will forget how just like people on welfare." I mean, that doesn't mean anything. It doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

If you have to make up facts in order to support a point of view, it's not the person disagreeing with it that doesn't understand what's being said.

*Exactly*!!...And again, the inference was that the analogy was beyond "some people's" (my) level of understanding instead of realizing that, ironically, the understanding part is lacking with people who don't fit in the analogy. I know the pig thing wasn't intentional on Kathy's part, because I know she's a good person who things deeply about things...Still, we all know who the pigs were in that analogy just as we all know who the bears are in other analogies. It's not meant to be some general "We're all bears and pigs thing". Clearly the bears and pigs are people who get government aid while the observers, or formers, of the analogy are the people who don't. Granted, it is subtle...That's how prejudice exists these days is in subtlety. The thing is though, is when you're used to prejudice you become keyed in on the subtlety to the point where it's blatant. That just comes with understanding the root of where those analogies come from.

"If you feed them corn, they won't know how to survive!"
"If you do it slowly enough, they'll never notice!"

We're noticing. There are people who *can't* survive without help. It's a good cautionary tale in reminding people who have become complacent, yes. But it goes a step farther than that, in ways already pointed out.

Agreed!...The step further is the problem. People want to use generalities for personal gain, because otherwise they actually have to give thought to the individuals who their logic affects.

 

[beautifullywild77]

As someone who has been on welfare (both cash and food stamps), as someone who has a disabled son who receives SSI and as someone who is married to a disabled veteran, I don't see a problem submitting a drug test to receive food stamps or cash assistance. Most places these days make you submit a drug test to work, especially government jobs. I have seen the misuse of welfare first hand while standing in line to apply.

 

[Nova_C]

But, as taxes rise, people seem to give less and less. Maybe people would be more willing to give out of their own pockets, if the gov. would keep its grubby fingers out of them.

All the research I've done with the historical tax rates shows that taxes are lower now in the US than they've been in years. If ever. It is definitely among the lowest in the US's history.

 

[tsst]

All the research I've done with the historical tax rates shows that taxes are lower now in the US than they've been in years. If ever. It is definitely among the lowest in the US's history.

That's simply smoke and mirrors. Taxes are not down the fedgov is simply not collecting at this time. They borrow 40 cents out of every dollar they spend. That money is tax just not yet collected.

 

[Nova_C]

I'm not sure I undertand, tsst. The assertion was that by raising taxes, the US government is discouraging charitable donations. According to all the data I can find, tax rates have been getting lower, not higher. If the government is deficit spending to make up the shortfall, okay, but that's not really relevant to whether or not collecting more taxes from an individual will decrease the amount of money they donate to charity.

 

[tsst]

I'm not sure I undertand, tsst. The assertion was that by raising taxes, the US government is discouraging charitable donations. According to all the data I can find, tax rates have been getting lower, not higher. If the government is deficit spending to make up the shortfall, okay, but that's not really relevant to whether or not collecting more taxes from an individual will decrease the amount of money they donate to charity.

My previous comment was simply about the present perceived level of taxes.

As far as the direct correlation of higher taxes to lower charitable contributions I can only speak for myself without doing due research. I live within my budget. Unlike the fedgov I do not have the luxury of frivolous deficit spending of other peoples money. If my taxes are raised it is very likely that my donations will decrease.

 

[tsst]

When an individual fosters societal begrudging and actively seeks prejudice in others they will find it regardless of existence.

10 chars...

 

[Nova_C]

Yes, it makes sense that there is a correlation between higher taxes and less charitable giving, although in some cases the reverse is true (In many cases, people will use charitable donations as a way of reducing taxes and there is a trend that higher taxes result in higher overall donations, but that is certainly not ironclad, only a trend).

However, I'm not sure what exactly is happening here because I keep getting the feeling you think I'm wrong. But what you're saying has nothing to do with what I'm saying. Like, at all. All I'm saying is that the government is taxing the people less now than they have in decades. It's at or near the lowest point in US history. However, Outcast suggested (Though didn't explicitly say, so I am inferring here) that taxes have been going up. Which they haven't.

That's all I'm saying.

And this quote:
When an individual fosters societal begrudging and actively seeks prejudice in others they will find it regardless of existence.

I can't parse it fully. I think I get what it's saying, but I may need some context or I am totally missing the relevance.

 

[Outcast]

Ah, I see your point Nova. The official tax rate may be lower now than it ever has been, but. The value of the American dollar is falling, if wages do not go up to match the cost of inflation, it feels as though tax is rising. Plus, the addition of VAT taxes on top of everything, just so we can feel as though it is just prices rising and that we are not getting taxed more... Personally I would like to see a set income tax... or better yet, do away with income tax all together. In America it started as a volunteer thing, until the gov. figured out how great it was to live on the hard working American's wages.

Just because one can print money, does not mean that one is rich. The more money our governments pump out, without anything tangible to back up the "value" of it, the worse off the world will get, until everyone goes bankrupt. It is better to have 5 dollars, in a world where that money is worth something, than to have 5 million in a world where it is worth less.

 

[Nova_C]

Yeah, the average wage, adjusted for inflation, hasn't changed since the 70s. However, the average income of the top earners (Such as CEOs) has increased significantly.

In fact, it's pretty ridiculous how much the top earners have increased while everyone else has been stagnant.

 

[kathylove]

"...I do, however, require that people think. I dislike greatly stories that contain absolutes, especially those that are negative in nature. Absolutes are, in my opinion, a great way to ruin something be it a relationship between individuals... or a government..."

I absolutely agree!! When I write something myself to post, I am usually (but maybe not absolutely always, lol!) careful to say what I mean, and to not use absolutes. When I post something I like from others, I often post the whole thing even if it is not EXACTLY what I would have written, or how I would have written it, myself.

The reason the whole comment about the pigs did not sound that bad to me when I first read it, is that I took it to mean that virtually ALL of us will be the pigs in the near future, if we let the gov't have unlimited power to buy our votes with their favors, big or small. We may not all be dependent on Uncle Sam right now, but the more dependent we are, the more politicians can buy our votes - a natural plus for them.

But I can see how many took it to mean just "poor people getting gov't money right now". And maybe that was actually the writer's intent. I don't really know. It just didn't hit me that way when I read it, maybe because I was more focused on the freedom part. (And I bet that somebody, somewhere, actually has penned in pigs that way, even if they didn't need to be that slow and careful, haha!)

Just a stupid analogy that happened to hit me right because I am so centered on losing freedoms, just a little at a time.

 

[kathylove]

It's not just the tax rate, especially just the federal tax rate, that matters...

If you take into account ALL of the taxes, fees, licenses, etc, that must be paid by most citizens to every city, county, state, and federal agency, I think you would find it a huge burden compared to a few decades ago. Everything from sales taxes, property taxes, state income tax, and don't forget increasing costs of car and driver licenses - the list goes on and on and on. Lots of these fees and licenses were unheard of by our parents as we grew up. Others were in place, but much smaller amounts or percentages.

 

[Nova_C]

You're gonna make me look all that stuff up?