Marjorie Taylor Greene - terrorist cunt!

Bus Driver

Bacon Quality Control Specialist

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,672
3,661
Tasmania, Australia
Actually, I was trying to be funny. So that's a fail on me.

But no. A government benefit whether a program or a payment does not have to be a zero sum game. They can just as easily just "Okay all left-handed bicycle repair men can now get receive free widgets under the FREE WIDGETS FOR LEFT-HANDED BICYCLE REPAIR MEN initiative!" Then next week they also give free widgets to albino unicycle riders, and unless they go around taking away all the LHBRM's widgets, it's not a zero sum game -even- if they then bar any further LHBRMs from getting them. Things like education? The whole society benefits so how is that "zero sum?"

Aside from that, "... (sic) one area to start with would be recognizing that when it comes to addressing racial and economic inequality - it should not be a zero sum game. ...." is not a wording that I took to refer exclusively to gov't benefit programs. But if I 'm wrong then I apologize.

It is still a big problem that a lot of people SEE the world in terms of zero sum gamesmanship and get all pissed off about anything some other group than theirs is getting. Like holidays honoring black people. Is that really taking something away from the peckerwoods that get all mad about it?

- DSK
We're talking about cash disbursements from tax revenue. No matter what you say or what herrings, red, white or black, you want to drag in, it's a zero-sum game. You can raise the cash pool by increasing taxation but it's *still* a zero-sum game.

Unless you believe in the 'magic pudding' theory anyway. I guess printing money is a modern equivalent, in which case, give everyone who asks say $10,000,000 in full restitution of past wrongs of any sort and call it done. It's only paper (electronic magic tokens) after all.

The other stuff, honouring people et al, is in a different category. I'm not arguing that.

FKT

FKT

 

Pertinacious Tom

Importunate Member
63,521
2,138
Punta Gorda FL
Speaking of holding gun owners accountable, are you ever going to explain what point you were trying to make with this false comparison?

It also absolves individuals of the LIABILITY FOR USE by others. So if your roommate steals your keys and bypasses your 'secure gun storage' and uses your gun to holdup a liquor store, you're totally good. But if your roommate steals your keys and runs over a little old lady with your car, well that's what you have liability insurance for.
Seems pretty clear
I thought so too, but apparently it's not as obvious to others. Benwynn couldn't figure it out, so I'm asking on his behalf. Maybe you can help him out by explaining the mystery point that Olsonist was trying to make?

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,868
11,006
Eastern NC
We're talking about cash disbursements from tax revenue. No matter what you say or what herrings, red, white or black, you want to drag in, it's a zero-sum game. You can raise the cash pool by increasing taxation but it's *still* a zero-sum game.

Unless you believe in the 'magic pudding' theory anyway. I guess printing money is a modern equivalent, in which case, give everyone who asks say $10,000,000 in full restitution of past wrongs of any sort and call it done. It's only paper (electronic magic tokens) after all.

The other stuff, honouring people et al, is in a different category. I'm not arguing that.

FKT

FKT
Well I'm glad we agree on something... and frankly that is part of the pattern. I've never met anyone who was angry about renaming streets for Martin Luther King Jr and honoring Black History Week, who wasn't -also- angry about damn lazy niggers taking all their money for welfare. The two go right together.

And it's really not a zero sum game. You're going the wrong way with this... expanding the brackets to include overall gov't revenue gets to be even less of one. Now, if you look at a specific individual and the taxes they pay versus the benefits they get, then the case is pretty strong that it -is- a zero sum game. Individuals cannot print their own money, but they do have a variety of ways to vary their tax and their benefit. Another part of the package is to undervalue, or deny entirely (we see that all the time here from RWNJs) that they receive any gov't benefits at all. And the case that I gave, where the gov't can give a benefit program to one group without taking it away from another group, does not even remotely come close to being a zero sum game.

Probably college admissions and jobs come the closest. And with college admissions, I can assure you for a fact that assistance programs expand the number of college entrance spots, so that's not really a zero sum game although it's still a limited sum game (if that's a term).

No, the whole "I hate goddam welfare/EOS/etc" schtick is a thinly disguised way expressing a preference to NOT share goodies with whatever group you are prejudiced against. And we're all here sharing the planet, which is the ultimate zero-sum game.

- DSK

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,816
2,233
Back to the desert
Jeff sees it as a zero-sum game so anything given to a person with blackor brown skin must have been taken away from a person with white skin. That right there tells all IMHO.
It tells nothing, because you're making that up.  As usual.  But just to be clear - No I do not think that anything given to a POC is taking away from a white person.  But I do believe that the tendency for the "woke" to play identity politics by design means that you must tear down one group in order to build up the other.  I do believe there is a strident camp that says for blacks to advance, whites must be torn down and blamed for all past historical injustices.  That there can be no advancement together.  

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,816
2,233
Back to the desert
Except the people who stormed the Capitol didn't turn out to be the unemployed, opioid-addicted, blue-collar workers.  But rather the small business owners, the lawyers, the government employees, and so on.  
That's true.  But I never claimed that those fucksticks actually represented the people who have legitimate grievances.  THEY thought they did, but they don't.  Besides, the opiod addicted, unemployed BC worker wouldn't have bus fare to get to DC in the first place.  Just saying.....

 

Bristol-Cruiser

Super Anarchist
5,031
1,567
Great Lakes
The Republican party will not disavow Marjorie Taylor Greene – she is the party

I don’t have space to go into all the vile things that Greene has said and done, but they range from blaming California wildfires on “Jewish space lasers” to saying Muslims don’t belong in government. Suffice it to say we’re not talking a few errors of judgment here: Greene has a long, well-documented history of promoting hatred and violence. Still, that hasn’t stopped her from oh-so-predictably claiming she’s the victim of “fake news”. In a statement posted on Tuesday Greene said that a number of people had managed her Facebook page. So, you know, she’s not responsible for anything. Rightwingers never are.

You know what’s deeply disturbing? The fact that Greene isn’t actually the real problem here: she’s a symptom of a much deeper rot in American politics. The Republicans knew exactly who Greene was when she decided to run for election and did nothing to sanction or stop her. Republicans used to at least try to hide their racism and hypocrisy under a facade of respectability but their embrace of Trump has caused the mask to well and truly slip. Greene isn’t an outlier in the GOP: she’s the new face of the post-Trump Republican party.
I am writing this from Canada where the PM or provincial premier  or party leader of a party not in power can kick someone out of their caucus if their views are too extreme. I can think of three examples in the past months or so where this has happened. Can this be done in the US. Does anyone (or group) have the right to say your views are not acceptable to the Republican or Democratic Party.

 

Burning Man

Super Anarchist
10,816
2,233
Back to the desert
I am writing this from Canada where the PM or provincial premier  or party leader of a party not in power can kick someone out of their caucus if their views are too extreme. I can think of three examples in the past months or so where this has happened. Can this be done in the US. Does anyone (or group) have the right to say your views are not acceptable to the Republican or Democratic Party.
Of course they can.  But far from kicking her out, the state parties are punishing the folks who tried to inject some sanity into the process.  As I just said on the BTBD thread, they are doubling down on the stupid.  

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,613
6,140
De Nile
So, are you saying you don't think there are any legit grievances or real pain and hurt that poor white america are experiencing???  Or are you saying it's "bullshit" because I dare point out the zero sum game being played here?  
I'm saying this line of yours is just more of your White Privelege BS

Jeffreax: "The current ethos of racial politics is that in order for the black man to rise, we must tear down the white man and make him less. "

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,613
6,140
De Nile
It tells nothing, because you're making that up.  As usual.  But just to be clear - No I do not think that anything given to a POC is taking away from a white person.  But I do believe that the tendency for the "woke" to play identity politics by design means that you must tear down one group in order to build up the other.  I do believe there is a strident camp that says for blacks to advance, whites must be torn down and blamed for all past historical injustices.  That there can be no advancement together.  
There he goes again....

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,868
11,006
Eastern NC
So, are you saying you don't think there are any legit grievances or real pain and hurt that poor white america are experiencing???  Or are you saying it's "bullshit" because I dare point out the zero sum game being played here?  
So, Jeff wrote ^this^

Jeff sees it as a zero-sum game so anything given to a person with blackor brown skin must have been taken away from a person with white skin. That right there tells all IMHO.
It tells nothing, because you're making that up.  As usual.  But just to be clear - No I do not think that anything given to a POC is taking away from a white person.  But I do believe that the tendency for the "woke" to play identity politics by design means that you must tear down one group in order to build up the other.  I do believe there is a strident camp that says for blacks to advance, whites must be torn down and blamed for all past historical injustices.  That there can be no advancement together. 
Then turns around almost immediately and says I am "making that up" about zero sum games.

Glad to hear you don't think everything given to a POC is taking away from a white person ... BUT

Let me know when you are ready consider the idea that a POC might actually earn something they get. Or deserve something.

Then, maybe there can be advancement together.

A little

- DSK

 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,672
3,661
Tasmania, Australia
Well I'm glad we agree on something... and frankly that is part of the pattern. I've never met anyone who was angry about renaming streets for Martin Luther King Jr and honoring Black History Week, who wasn't -also- angry about damn lazy niggers taking all their money for welfare. The two go right together.

And it's really not a zero sum game. You're going the wrong way with this... expanding the brackets to include overall gov't revenue gets to be even less of one. Now, if you look at a specific individual and the taxes they pay versus the benefits they get, then the case is pretty strong that it -is- a zero sum game. Individuals cannot print their own money, but they do have a variety of ways to vary their tax and their benefit. Another part of the package is to undervalue, or deny entirely (we see that all the time here from RWNJs) that they receive any gov't benefits at all. And the case that I gave, where the gov't can give a benefit program to one group without taking it away from another group, does not even remotely come close to being a zero sum game.

Probably college admissions and jobs come the closest. And with college admissions, I can assure you for a fact that assistance programs expand the number of college entrance spots, so that's not really a zero sum game although it's still a limited sum game (if that's a term).

No, the whole "I hate goddam welfare/EOS/etc" schtick is a thinly disguised way expressing a preference to NOT share goodies with whatever group you are prejudiced against. And we're all here sharing the planet, which is the ultimate zero-sum game.

- DSK
So in summary, you're on board with the 'magic pudding' theory of Govt funding. Well, OK, there is a huge amount of support and prior usage there.

The reason I say this is because you claim

"And the case that I gave, where the gov't can give a benefit program to one group without taking it away from another group, does not even remotely come close to being a zero sum game."

The only way this works in a non zero-sum sense is, if the new program requires no resources that are limited. Starting with money. Because the moment that new benefit program (or expanded program) needs to be funded, those funds come from taxation revenue, and therefore by definition that money cannot now be spent on anything else and all/one/some other programs have to be partially or fully de-funded to make that money available to the new one. That is a zero-sum game.

The only 2 ways around it are to raise taxation and dedicate the raised portion to a new program or inflate the currency.

Note well that I 'm not objecting to either or both, I just strongly object to the idea that you can provide something tangible for no actual resource cost. If you can, why do Governments run a budget at all?

Intangibles, sure, not a problem.

FKT

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,868
11,006
Eastern NC
So in summary, you're on board with the 'magic pudding' theory of Govt funding. Well, OK, there is a huge amount of support and prior usage there.

The reason I say this is because you claim

"And the case that I gave, where the gov't can give a benefit program to one group without taking it away from another group, does not even remotely come close to being a zero sum game."

The only way this works in a non zero-sum sense is, if the new program requires no resources that are limited.   ....
Or if tax revenue increases because of a growing economy

Can I play make-up-an-insulting-name game too? Here: It's obvious that you believe in the "if it exists, it must have been stolen" theory of how stuff comes to be.

....

The only way this works in a non zero-sum sense is, if the new program requires no resources that are limited. Starting with money. Because the moment that new benefit program (or expanded program) needs to be funded, those funds come from taxation revenue, and therefore by definition that money cannot now be spent on anything else and all/one/some other programs have to be partially or fully de-funded to make that money available to the new one. That is a zero-sum game.

The only 2 ways around it are to raise taxation and dedicate the raised portion to a new program or inflate the currency.

Note well that I 'm not objecting to either or both, I just strongly object to the idea that you can provide something tangible for no actual resource cost. If you can, why do Governments run a budget at all?

Intangibles, sure, not a problem.

FKT
Intangibles still require a resource input, just usually not much material input. Sometimes intangibles are very very expensive in money, like education.

Inflation is taking something from all, and it's actually pretty regressive as a form of taxation (bad). A certain amount of inflation is generally accepted as the cost of stability, in pretty much every modern macro-economic theory. So, it's fully possible that if the gov't is going manage the nation's economy in such a way as to have the right amount of inflation, new or expanded programs DO come at no cost... or rather, if we're going to be economically rigo(u)rous, at only the opportunity cost (which you mention above) of something different that could have been done.

Is that "magic pudding"?

- DSK

 

Raz'r

Super Anarchist
63,613
6,140
De Nile
Note well that I 'm not objecting to either or both, I just strongly object to the idea that you can provide something tangible for no actual resource cost. If you can, why do Governments run a budget at all?

FKT
After 250 years of running ever increasing deficits, the US critters would all say "why bother with budgeting" at all?

Having thought about this quite a bit over the years, moving from a "balanced budget amendment" backer, I think it comes down to one simple thing. Tax just enough so that the Critters don't have an incentive to print money at rates that put the debt too high.

In the US we have a problem right now, the folks that matter, the ones who write $500k checks to stage insurrections, pay effectively no taxes, so they don't give a shit about spending. Since they don't give a shit about spending, the gov't, well, spends.

The US needs to raise taxes on those that matter enough so that they start putting a bit of pressure on the spending side of the equation.

 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,868
11,006
Eastern NC
After 250 years of running ever increasing deficits, the US critters would all say "why bother with budgeting" at all?

Having thought about this quite a bit over the years, moving from a "balanced budget amendment" backer, I think it comes down to one simple thing. Tax just enough so that the Critters don't have an incentive to print money at rates that put the debt too high.

In the US we have a problem right now, the folks that matter, the ones who write $500k checks to stage insurrections, pay effectively no taxes, so they don't give a shit about spending. Since they don't give a shit about spending, the gov't, well, spends.

The US needs to raise taxes on those that matter enough so that they start putting a bit of pressure on the spending side of the equation.
ding ding ding

They also are almost all programmed to hate-hate-HATE paying taxes, and so in the avoiding of paying taxes, they fund a lot of worthwhile stuff

- DSK

 


Latest posts





Top