1. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    16 Jul '11 17:28
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Well wait a minute. What's wrong with being a Marxist, anyway? In fact, what would be wrong with being a redneck Marxist?
    Rednecks can't be Marxists. They're racist teabagger capitalists with top hats.
  2. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    16 Jul '11 17:46
    Originally posted by AThousandYoung
    Rednecks can't be Marxists. They're racist teabagger capitalists with top hats.
    Mmmm. Racist teabagger capitalists with top hats...watching NASCAR in a pile of Cheeto dust and beer cans. Yep, that would be the good life. 😉
  3. Standard memberAThousandYoung
    Shoot the Squatters?
    tinyurl.com/43m7k8bw
    Joined
    23 Aug '04
    Moves
    26660
    16 Jul '11 17:50
    I like Cheetos.
  4. Account suspended
    Joined
    27 May '11
    Moves
    3429
    16 Jul '11 17:55
    I like the list of stuff that qualifies people for a cell phone courtesy of the taxpayers:
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps
    Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) or Section 8
    Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
    Medicaid
    National School Lunch Program's free lunch program
    Supplemental Security Income (SSI)
    Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF

    Now if they'd toss in free cable TV there'd be no need for anyone to ever work for anything.
  5. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    16 Jul '11 18:25
    Originally posted by Zapp Brannigan
    I like the list of stuff that qualifies people for a cell phone courtesy of the taxpayers:
    Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), formerly known as Food Stamps
    Federal Public Housing Assistance (FPHA) or Section 8
    Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)
    Medicaid
    National School Lunch Program's free lunch program
    Suppl ...[text shortened]... Now if they'd toss in free cable TV there'd be no need for anyone to ever work for anything.
    Yeah, people are living high on the hog on those programs.

    The "taxpayers" in this case are the phone companies BTW.
  6. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    16 Jul '11 18:55
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Personally I think it's a good program with possible externalities:
    Tut tut. The one oath every card-carrying conservative must swear to is to never consider externalities or shades of gray. Everything is Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White, and "Is it costing me money today?" -- without thought toward possible savings in the long run. Politics for the teabagger is the rhetorical equivalent of playing chess by thinking only one move ahead. "What will privatizing Medicare save me today?", and "What will cutting education budgets in half save me today?"

    The only exception to the one-move-ahead rule is the Trickle Down Axiom of Voodoo Economics.
  7. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    16 Jul '11 20:23
    Originally posted by dryhump
    For a person who complains about other posters bigotry, you sure like the stereotypes.
    Surely you don't seriously think I was serious. Like, seriously, do you seriously think I seriously think all conservatives are rednecks? Even the likes of William F. Buckley and Thomas Sowell, whose editorials I frequently read in the Orange County Register in my formative years? We all know a lot of conservatives are also white-collar professionals with pasty necks that have nary a tinge of erubescence in the epidermis. So no, I don't cleave to the "All conservatives are rednecks" stereotype.

    Maybe you are accusing me of believing in a "redneck stereotype," in which case I am guilty as charged since it is not a stereotype but a reality. I mean, after all, the term "redneck" is used to describe a class of people who have certain characteristics. It's not the same thing as a racial stereotype in which characteristics having nothing to do with a certain race are ascribed to all members of that race.

    As for "bigotry," that I take to mean prejudice accompanied by some degree of animosity, and I harbor no genuine bigotry toward rednecks as a set of individuals. A rather significant number of my relatives are rooted in the Deep South and most of them have their charms. Some of 'em are hard-core Democrats, and not of the blue-dog variety.

    Right. So let's not take ourselves too seriously here.
  8. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    16 Jul '11 21:43
    You can get a prepaid cellphone for almost nothing, why would the poor need government aid to get one?
  9. Hy-Brasil
    Joined
    24 Feb '09
    Moves
    175970
    16 Jul '11 21:57
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You can get a prepaid cellphone for almost nothing, why would the poor need government aid to get one?
    the "progressive agenda" is about making the populace dependent on the Government for all things.
    I thought you knew that.
  10. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    17 Jul '11 08:56
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    You can get a prepaid cellphone for almost nothing, why would the poor need government aid to get one?
    The max subsidy for a phone is $30. Perhaps in the Dutch Ivory Towers that's "almost nothing" but for people who are reliant on the social programs in the US to survive (as niggardly as they are) it may well be a significant expense.
  11. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    17 Jul '11 12:57
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    The max subsidy for a phone is $30. Perhaps in the Dutch Ivory Towers that's "almost nothing" but for people who are reliant on the social programs in the US to survive (as niggardly as they are) it may well be a significant expense.
    Then make sure everyone can spare $30 (a trivial task) and you don't need inefficient, fraud-prone and bureaucratic cellphone subsidy programs.
  12. Standard memberno1marauder
    Naturally Right
    Somewhere Else
    Joined
    22 Jun '04
    Moves
    42677
    17 Jul '11 13:54
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Then make sure everyone can spare $30 (a trivial task) and you don't need inefficient, fraud-prone and bureaucratic cellphone subsidy programs.
    Yes, all we have to do is click our wooden shoes together three times and repeat "there's no place like home" and magically everyone will have loads of money.

    The program as far as landlines has existed since the Reagan administration. I don't see any evidence that it is "inefficient, fraud prone" and the bureaucracy involved seems to be minimal.
  13. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3118
    17 Jul '11 14:02
    Originally posted by no1marauder
    Yes, all we have to do is click our wooden shoes together three times and repeat "there's no place like home" and magically everyone will have loads of money.

    The program as far as landlines has existed since the Reagan administration. I don't see any evidence that it is "inefficient, fraud prone" and the bureaucracy involved seems to be minimal.
    Just introduce a minimum income. It's not hard, really.
  14. Joined
    14 Dec '07
    Moves
    3763
    17 Jul '11 21:51
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    Tut tut. The one oath every card-carrying conservative must swear to is to never consider externalities or shades of gray. Everything is Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White, and "Is it costing me money today?" -- without thought toward possible savings in the long run. Politics for the teabagger is the rhetorical equivalent of playing chess by thinkin ...[text shortened]... e only exception to the one-move-ahead rule is the Trickle Down Axiom of Voodoo Economics.
    Whereas the liberal mantra is: How can I spend money I don't have today? How can I bankrupt future generations today? Whose vote can I buy with useless social programs today? Both camps are in this only for themselves, if you think one or the other has any interest in anything but staying in office, you're naive. Liberals stay in office by handing out candy to the poor folks and Conservatives stay in office by handing candy to the rich.
  15. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    17 Jul '11 23:051 edit
    Originally posted by dryhump
    Whereas the liberal mantra is: How can I spend money I don't have today? How can I bankrupt future generations today? Whose vote can I buy with useless social programs today? Both camps are in this only for themselves, if you think one or the other has any interest in anything but staying in office, you're naive. Liberals stay in office by handing out candy to the poor folks and Conservatives stay in office by handing candy to the rich.
    You seem to think I was talking about politicians. I'm talking about the citizenry at large. The motives of politicians are usually questionable.

    EDIT: Although, I do think what I said applies to the political class as well. Democrats, I believe, are more often than Republicans trying to implement policies more in line with what professional economists recommend doing. Slashing education, for instance -- a favorite act of Republicans -- is not something economists generally think of as a good idea at any level of government (except the ones working in wingnut think tanks like the CATO institute).
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree