Is the Republican party done?

[kentonio]

Oh spare us the Ayn Rand bull****. If your story is as you say then I actually have a huge amount of respect for your dedication but when trust fund kids start telling us how the system only rewards hard work then we're going to call bull**** on that.

[notyoueither]

There are many things wrong with what Drinksnacks says, but this isn't really one of them. The Founders would be beyond conservative by today's standards (except in religious beliefs, where they'd fit right in with today's college students), and actually formed their political beliefs before Burke came out against the Terror with his proto-conservatism.

Interesting concept, what would you have been in 1750? 1850? 1950?

I am conservativeish in 2010. I have gained some strong streaks of liberalism since 1980 or so.

In 1950 I would probably have been more of a liberal. In 1850 or 1750 I would have been quite radical, I think.

[DriXnaK]

Oh spare us the Ayn Rand bull****. If your story is as you say then I actually have a huge amount of respect for your dedication but when trust fund kids start telling us how the system only rewards hard work then we're going to call bull**** on that.

First, just because you're rich does not mean you will be successful. Only when connections are at play will there be some truth to that, and that depends on your industry. In HC's case, he's going into computer programming, which means that his connections might help him find a job, but after that you either know what you're doing or you don't. This isn't sales or something, you can't bull**** your way through app dev. Not only that, but college is woefully inadequate to prepare you for what you do in the private sector. So he will either sink or swim when he gets his first job. I'm not denying that connections help, and that being rich can help you hit the ground running, but hard work and talent goes much further.

We had a guy come in for an interview who went to a private college and his parents actually bought him a house. Guess what? He didn't get a job. He didn't come off as someone who could learn quickly and who was going to work hard, nor did he come off as someone with goals. There are people I work with who have far more education credentials than I do, and on paper you would think they'd be hands down favorites, but guess what? I'm the most highly regarded. I'm regarded as the one who learns the fastest and works the hardest, and that means a lot when a senior architect who spent 20 years at a fortune 5 company tells you that.

Does being rich give you an edge? Yes. Does it determine your future? No. Hard work and talent are still the main determinant of your future. Otherwise a poor tennis instructor would never have been able to suddenly become a software developer.

[Kidlicious]

.



Profit, Kidicious.

So you don't believe in loving your enemies?

[Kidlicious]

The problem with discussing this stuff with HC is that he truly believes he is self-made. That he would be where he is regardless of his father. A lot of people born into wealth believe this.

<-------- His boss.

[Felch]

So you don't believe in loving your enemies?

I don't think that it means what you think it means. It's not like a business even really has enemies.

[Kidlicious]

I've sacrificed a tremendous amount to get where I'm at. Even now I have very few possessions and I spend every minute I have improving myself. While people are going out to lunch, I'm saving my money and using that time to learn something new. When people are going out and having fun and drinking, I'm at home trying to pick up new techniques and better myself so I can further increase my income. I don't even have cable TV, and my cell phone has the features of a phone from the 90s. I eat the same thing over and over again and I buy everything from Sams Club to save money. I've given up a lot of the simple joys of life, and I grew up without them too. Are you going to tell me that I'm where I'm at because I was born into it Dashi? Tell me why the rewards for all my hard work and sacrifice should be redistributed to someone inferior and less qualified like Gribbler, and tell me why I should continue to over achieve when I know I will be no better than the worst around me.

The fact is that you shouldn't work so hard. How many jobs do you have? Don't you think you should let someone else have those jobs? Like some poor guy with down syndrom?

[kentonio]

First, just because you're rich does not mean you will be successful. Only when connections are at play will there be some truth to that, and that depends on your industry. In HC's case, he's going into computer programming, which means that his connections might help him find a job, but after that you either know what you're doing or you don't. This isn't sales or something, you can't bull**** your way through app dev. Not only that, but college is woefully inadequate to prepare you for what you do in the private sector. So he will either sink or swim when he gets his first job. I'm not denying that connections help, and that being rich can help you hit the ground running, but hard work and talent goes much further.

Consider two people, both with the same IQ and work ethic. One grows up in a wealthy family, they have a comfortable life, computers bought for them by their folks, they don't need to work, they can devote their considerable leisure time to developing their skills. The second grows up in a ghetto, they grow up not knowing if there will be a meal on the table every day, they have no access to a computer beyond those at school or public library, and they have to work from the time they are in school just to help keep a roof over their families head. Which of those is likely to end up with a college degree and an entry level programming job?

Yes there are people who manage to break through those barriers, and they deserve all the praise we can heap on them, but the fact those considerable boundaries exist in the first place is simply horribly unfair and prevents entire generations from reaching their potential. It's how we end up with classes in society and it needs to be levelled out in any way possible.

[Kidlicious]

I don't think that it means what you think it means. It's not like a business even really has enemies.

Of course a business has enemies. You don't have much to do with business, do you? How do you make your money? On the stock market or something?

[DriXnaK]

Your policies don't level it out. All you do is bring everyone down to the same level and remove opportunity. Just as there were people far better off than me growing up, so too were there people worse off than me. Do you bring me down because I was better off than they were?

[kentonio]

Your policies don't level it out. All you do is bring everyone down to the same level and remove opportunity. Just as there were people far better off than me growing up, so too were there people worse off than me. Do you bring me down because I was better off than they were?

How would helping poor people to have decent opportunities in life bring anyone else down? Because the wealthy would pay a little more in tax? You that is in any way comparable to the crushing weight of poverty on poor kids chances in life?

[DriXnaK]

Define wealthy.

[kentonio]

Why get into the minutiae? I'm still waiting to hear how exactly anyone is 'brought down' by increased taxation on the better off?

[DriXnaK]

Because you aren't defining who exactly is the better off. I grew up in a family of 5 that made 50-70K total annually. I didn't consider us poor, but we definitely were tight on money and always watching what we spent. We pretty much lived off casseroles. lol But would we be considered wealthy since we weren't poverty stricken? Where do you draw the line between who is rich and poor?

Furthermore, you are making the assumption that the government is somehow going to equally and fairly redistribute that money, not to mention efficiently. You need only look at the rampant fraud to see that is not the case. I have never once met a government worker whom I deemed to be intelligent enough to make decisions for me.

I don't believe anyone should ever starve to death or die from exposure, but I also don't believe people should have TVs and cellphones. You will actually win some points with me when it comes to children, because I come from a family where money was tight, I can only imagine what it would be like in a family where money wasn't existent. The problem is that government money tends to go to those who don't need it most, and it doesn't encourage people to improve themselves. Politicians don't dole out money because they want to help people, they do it because they want to get elected. Last I checked, children don't vote.

Finally, you will never convince me on this argument as long as you support teachers unions. These people are absolutely criminal and are a main factor in holding the children of this nation back. Think about all the money that pours into unions when the private sector does it better and cheaper. Unions are the poster child for why freemarkets should be allowed to reign.

[kentonio]

But would we be considered wealthy since we weren't poverty stricken? Where do you draw the line between who is rich and poor?

Good question, and one that requires a national conversation. Personally I'd consider 'wealthy' to be way above that point, but thats why we scale taxes of course.

Furthermore, you are making the assumption that the government is somehow going to equally and fairly redistribute that money, not to mention efficiently. You need only look at the rampant fraud to see that is not the case. I have never once met a government worker whom I deemed to be intelligent enough to make decisions for me.

This is where I get frustrated however, the answer to inefficient government is to make government more efficient, not to trash it. It shouldn't be coming down to the decisions of individual government workers, there should be a well crafted system with decent safeguards to prevent abuse.

I don't believe anyone should ever starve to death or die from exposure, but I also don't believe people should have TVs and cellphones. You will actually win some points with me when it comes to children, because I come from a family where money was tight, I can only imagine what it would be like in a family where money wasn't existent. The problem is that government money tends to go to those who don't need it most, and it doesn't encourage people to improve themselves. Politicians don't dole out money because they want to help people, they do it because they want to get elected. Last I checked, children don't vote.

Politicians are usually crooked ambitious bastards, but that doesn't mean no-one in politics cares about improving the lives of those worse off.

Finally, you will never convince me on this argument as long as you support teachers unions. These people are absolutely criminal and are a main factor in holding the children of this nation back. Think about all the money that pours into unions when the private sector does it better and cheaper. Unions are the poster child for why freemarkets should be allowed to reign.

I'm actually a long time opponent of most unions, but at the same time I understand why they need to exist. If we can take their destruction off the table, then I have no issues with controlling their worst excesses.