|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:00 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Speaking of political advertisement.
| Quote: |
'Party of Parasites' author took $1M in farm subsidies
The Raytown farmer who posted a sign on a semi-truck trailer accusing Democrats of being the �Party of Parasites� received more than $1 million in federal crop subsidies since 1995.
But David Jungerman says the payouts don�t contradict the sign he put up in a corn field in Bates County along U.S. 71 Highway.
�That�s just my money coming back to me,� Jungerman, 72, said Monday. �I pay a lot in taxes. I�m not a parasite.�
After a story about Jungerman�s trailer ran in Sunday�s Star, however, some readers called him a hypocrite for criticizing others for getting government help while taking government subsidies paid for by taxpayers.
Jungerman said he put up the sign to protest people who pay no taxes, but, �Always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them� in social programs.
Crop subsidies are different, he said. When crop prices dip below a certain point, the federal government makes up the difference with a subsidy payment.
According to a farm subsidy data base, Jungerman received $1,095,101 in the past 15 years, including $224,763 in 2000. Last year, he received $34,303. |
This man is the Tea Party. Governmental assistance to others? Parasites! Governmental assistance to me? Oh, that's just my money coming back to me, totally legitimate. Don't cut that, cut "waste" instead, and keep your government hands off of my Medicare!
I don't blame him for taking advantage of the opportunities availible to him, but I wonder at his inability to see his own hypocrisy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Speaking of political advertisement.
| Quote: |
'Party of Parasites' author took $1M in farm subsidies
The Raytown farmer who posted a sign on a semi-truck trailer accusing Democrats of being the �Party of Parasites� received more than $1 million in federal crop subsidies since 1995.
But David Jungerman says the payouts don�t contradict the sign he put up in a corn field in Bates County along U.S. 71 Highway.
�That�s just my money coming back to me,� Jungerman, 72, said Monday. �I pay a lot in taxes. I�m not a parasite.�
After a story about Jungerman�s trailer ran in Sunday�s Star, however, some readers called him a hypocrite for criticizing others for getting government help while taking government subsidies paid for by taxpayers.
Jungerman said he put up the sign to protest people who pay no taxes, but, �Always have their hand out for whatever the government will give them� in social programs.
Crop subsidies are different, he said. When crop prices dip below a certain point, the federal government makes up the difference with a subsidy payment.
According to a farm subsidy data base, Jungerman received $1,095,101 in the past 15 years, including $224,763 in 2000. Last year, he received $34,303. |
This man is the Tea Party. Governmental assistance to others? Parasites! Governmental assistance to me? Oh, that's just my money coming back to me, totally legitimate. Don't cut that, cut "waste" instead, and keep your government hands off of my Medicare!
I don't blame him for taking advantage of the opportunities availible to him, but I wonder at his inability to see his own hypocrisy. |
I don't see how a farmer with a sign IS the tea party. What does that even mean? (EDIT: Actually, I do get it, and you are right to a point. But there has been the Ron Paul wing and the loony wing co-opted by the repubs for some time now.)
I do agree with you that the tea party are mostly misguided fools. I saw a news story documenting the protests and they had quotes like "We need to cut off these parasites, and increase funding for prescription drugs." The ideas it is founded on are sound though.
This guy is obviously a complete tool. There is no denying that. Farm subsidies are one of the most ridiculous and anachronistic laws on the books. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thomas pars
Joined: 29 Jan 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AD.... MAKE ME FEEL.... ANGRY!!!!! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
recessiontime
Joined: 21 Jun 2010
Location: Got avatar privileges nyahahaha
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox, I`m not convinced that being cut off from government services automatically equates to incarceration or force. Even in the Randian world, I can imagine that not paying for the police would simply mean refusal to come to your house if you called 911 or simply not help you get your criminal record check etc. It`s a withholding of actual services. Even in your apartment example, the owner would change the locks and should the lender initiate the use of force or violate the rights of the owner that is where the government would come in to protect your rights.
Your reasoning of `well we dont know what else to do with you, let`s just put you in jail`is not convincing to me. It would more consistent with Randian objectivism if they just withheld services and started ignoring you when your rights are being violated. Nothing is given to you from birth, so I`m guessing you or your guardians would have to pay for this service to get it and you wouldnt get admission from day 1 just for being born into the state. If you don`t want it you would have the freedom to not pay as well, it`s a simple removal of services (unless you think the air you breath and space you occupy at any given moment is a service given to you by the government). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 24, 2010 11:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox, I`m not convinced that being cut off from government services automatically equates to incarceration or force. Even in the Randian world, I can imagine that not paying for the police would simply mean refusal to come to your house if you called 911 or simply not help you get your criminal record check etc. |
You can't just be cut off from services in that fashion, given the nature of governmental services. Even if the police, the army, and so forth were to entirely ignore your existence on a personal level, their activity still massively benefits you. The army is still there guarding the nation, the police are still there keeping order in the general population (discouraging crime in the process), the legal system is still there enforcing contracts (which discourages contract violation in general), the incarceration of the dangerous and violent still benefits you, and so forth.
We all benefit from these things even if we don't interact with them on a personal level. As such, you can't simply "stop benefitting from them" while still remaining in the nation. So long as you're in the nation, you're benefitting. As such, to deny you those services, you must be either deported or denied freedom.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It`s a withholding of actual services. Even in your apartment example, the owner would change the locks and should the lender initiate the use of force or violate the rights of the owner that is where the government would come in to protect your rights. |
If I and my girlfriend are squatting in the apartment in question, you're not going to get us out just by changing the locks. One of us will remain there at all times while the other goes out. Change the locks all you like, the person remaining will just unlock the door from the inside. No, if you want us out, you're going to have to use force.
Sometimes having to use coercive force to resolve differences is a fact of life. Any argument that relies on coercive force being a priori wrong is ultimately completely unrealistic. Particular instances of coercive force must be wrong, but force itself is a completely ethically neutral concept.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Your reasoning of `well we dont know what else to do with you, let`s just put you in jail`is not convincing to me. It would more consistent with Randian objectivism if they just withheld services and started ignoring you when your rights are being violated. |
I've explained above why, given the nature of governmental services, that they can't simply be with-held. The nation's army can't simply say, "Well, if invaders come, they're welcome to drop troops onto recessiontime's house and form a base there, because he doesn't pay taxes." The police can't incarcerate violent criminals in such a way that doing so doesn't benefit you. The general social order and productivity induced by the government enforcing contract law and property rights can't help but improve your lot as well. These aren't things you can be denied so long as you're free to do as you please in the nation in question. If you're in the country, you're benefitting from the government's services. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Fox, I`m not convinced that being cut off from government services automatically equates to incarceration or force. Even in the Randian world, I can imagine that not paying for the police would simply mean refusal to come to your house if you called 911 or simply not help you get your criminal record check etc. |
You can't just be cut off from services in that fashion, given the nature of governmental services. Even if the police, the army, and so forth were to entirely ignore your existence on a personal level, their activity still massively benefits you. The army is still there guarding the nation, the police are still there keeping order in the general population (discouraging crime in the process), the legal system is still there enforcing contracts (which discourages contract violation in general), the incarceration of the dangerous and violent still benefits you, and so forth.
We all benefit from these things even if we don't interact with them on a personal level. As such, you can't simply "stop benefitting from them" while still remaining in the nation. So long as you're in the nation, you're benefitting. As such, to deny you those services, you must be either deported or denied freedom.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| It`s a withholding of actual services. Even in your apartment example, the owner would change the locks and should the lender initiate the use of force or violate the rights of the owner that is where the government would come in to protect your rights. |
If I and my girlfriend are squatting in the apartment in question, you're not going to get us out just by changing the locks. One of us will remain there at all times while the other goes out. Change the locks all you like, the person remaining will just unlock the door from the inside. No, if you want us out, you're going to have to use force.
Sometimes having to use coercive force to resolve differences is a fact of life. Any argument that relies on coercive force being a priori wrong is ultimately completely unrealistic. Particular instances of coercive force must be wrong, but force itself is a completely ethically neutral concept.
| recessiontime wrote: |
| Your reasoning of `well we dont know what else to do with you, let`s just put you in jail`is not convincing to me. It would more consistent with Randian objectivism if they just withheld services and started ignoring you when your rights are being violated. |
I've explained above why, given the nature of governmental services, that they can't simply be with-held. The nation's army can't simply say, "Well, if invaders come, they're welcome to drop troops onto recessiontime's house and form a base there, because he doesn't pay taxes." The police can't incarcerate violent criminals in such a way that doing so doesn't benefit you. The general social order and productivity induced by the government enforcing contract law and property rights can't help but improve your lot as well. These aren't things you can be denied so long as you're free to do as you please in the nation in question. If you're in the country, you're benefitting from the government's services. |
What Fox is getting at is called externalities, and is the biggest thing that Rand and her followers overlook. Many things have indirect effects. We all benefit from a better educated populace for example. Just because you don't see the benefit, or the negative aspects, of a government action directly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In a Randian world you would quickly notice the absence of the external benefits when they are no longer there. What Objectivism wants is in many ways a return to a state of nature in an economic sense. Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and apply it to economics. Hobbes is a philosophical giant and a serious man, Ayn Rand is a novelist with some good ideas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
What Fox is getting at is called externalities, and is the biggest thing that Rand and her followers overlook. Many things have indirect effects. We all benefit from a better educated populace for example. Just because you don't see the benefit, or the negative aspects, of a government action directly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In a Randian world you would quickly notice the absence of the external benefits when they are no longer there. What Objectivism wants is in many ways a return to a state of nature in an economic sense. Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and apply it to economics. Hobbes is a philosophical giant and a serious man, Ayn Rand is a novelist with some good ideas. |
So, business doesn't produce positive externalities?
Govt intervention has given us a bubble economy in education. We have been given a better educated populace, but probably at a larger cost than benefit. $100K sociology degrees, am I right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
What Fox is getting at is called externalities, and is the biggest thing that Rand and her followers overlook. Many things have indirect effects. We all benefit from a better educated populace for example. Just because you don't see the benefit, or the negative aspects, of a government action directly doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. In a Randian world you would quickly notice the absence of the external benefits when they are no longer there. What Objectivism wants is in many ways a return to a state of nature in an economic sense. Read Thomas Hobbes Leviathan and apply it to economics. Hobbes is a philosophical giant and a serious man, Ayn Rand is a novelist with some good ideas. |
So, business doesn't produce positive externalities?
Govt intervention has given us a bubble economy in education. We have been given a better educated populace, but probably at a larger cost than benefit. $100K sociology degrees, am I right? |
Of course business produces positive, and negative, externalities. Education needs reform, but if it was completely privatized how would that provide universal access? Companies are about the bottom line, and as long as they do it ethically, rightfully so. You don't make money by educating people for free. One aspect of the government is to provide public goods like schools, roads, police, libraries, and others. These are things that we all benefit from. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 7:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| University shouldn't be universal access. If a worthy candidate can't afford tuition, there are always scholarships, or apprenticeship type deals available. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| University shouldn't be universal access. If a worthy candidate can't afford tuition, there are always scholarships, or apprenticeship type deals available. |
I agree, but I was talking about elementary through high school. I fail to see how or why a private company would provide widespread quality education for free for every citizen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 8:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Leon wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| University shouldn't be universal access. If a worthy candidate can't afford tuition, there are always scholarships, or apprenticeship type deals available. |
I agree, but I was talking about elementary through high school. I fail to see how or why a private company would provide widespread quality education for free for every citizen. |
They don't have to provide it for free. Either vouchers or cut taxes and let people use the tax cut to choose a school.
Do you know how much public schools cost? Spend two seconds googling it. You should be shocked. You could hire a private tutor four hours a day for the cost of the average education of a public school student.
Even high school doesn't need to be provided for free. Ninety percent of people, learn ninety percent of what they use in the real world by the end of middle school anyway. ie. reading, writing, math. There are other outlets for people who won't use differential equations (and let's be honest, how many of us ever used a diff equation again?) or all the other arbitrary stuff you learn in high school. And again, if there is a candidate from a less privileged background, there is always a way. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
| Leon wrote: |
| Senior wrote: |
| University shouldn't be universal access. If a worthy candidate can't afford tuition, there are always scholarships, or apprenticeship type deals available. |
I agree, but I was talking about elementary through high school. I fail to see how or why a private company would provide widespread quality education for free for every citizen. |
They don't have to provide it for free. Either vouchers or cut taxes and let people use the tax cut to choose a school.
Do you know how much public schools cost? Spend two seconds googling it. You should be shocked. You could hire a private tutor four hours a day for the cost of the average education of a public school student.
Even high school doesn't need to be provided for free. Ninety percent of people, learn ninety percent of what they use in the real world by the end of middle school anyway. ie. reading, writing, math. There are other outlets for people who won't use differential equations (and let's be honest, how many of us ever used a diff equation again?) or all the other arbitrary stuff you learn in high school. And again, if there is a candidate from a less privileged background, there is always a way. |
Yes it is expensive, could a private school do it for cheaper probably. I'm not shocked, it needs to be reformed. If private schools had to run a nationwide or statewide program their costs would rise as well. Even high school doesn't need to be provided for free? America would fall even further behind in educational standings. If high school wasn't free than how many people from poor families would take advantage of it? Again you would say it is their choice, but we would have a less educated populace, and run into the issue of externalities again. You say that there is always a way for poorer families, but many of the parents won't take advantage of them, the child's best interests won't be met, and the populace would be less educated. Anyways it's not fair to children who just happen to be born into a poor family as opposed to a rich one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Senior
Joined: 31 Jan 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
Put the money into the hands of poorer folks, via vouchers, and they can choose the type of education that suits them best. It's pretty obvious that the fashionable one size fit all style we have now is abjectly failing po' folk. Just go to any inner city school, and you will see what I mean (I'm sure you already do). Those poor kids, especially, are failing anyway. So, really the program that was supposed to help those people is just hurting them.
With this cash (vouchers) floating around, entrepreneurs will find ways to satisfy those people. If they don't, the students will go some where that does satisfy them. Currently, people can't really move to a new school even of they want to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leon
Joined: 31 May 2010
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 10:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Senior wrote: |
Put the money into the hands of poorer folks, via vouchers, and they can choose the type of education that suits them best. It's pretty obvious that the fashionable one size fit all style we have now is abjectly failing po' folk. Just go to any inner city school, and you will see what I mean (I'm sure you already do). Those poor kids, especially, are failing anyway. So, really the program that was supposed to help those people is just hurting them.
With this cash (vouchers) floating around, entrepreneurs will find ways to satisfy those people. If they don't, the students will go some where that does satisfy them. Currently, people can't really move to a new school even of they want to. |
I have no intrinsic problem with vouchers. I'm I to understand that you would support the collection of taxes for these vouchers? Then I suppose it would be alright, but it will never happen so no worries about it anyways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 25, 2010 6:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| This "political ad" blows the original in this thread out of the water. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
