3 ms·

They are contributing nothing to the federal income tax, which is the major contributor to the benefits and entitlements that are handed out. I don't know why y

• potatolicious 14y ago
  > "I'm very well read on the subject" It certainly doesn't seem this way. You started this whole argument by stating a ridiculous falsehood: that the majority of America "sits on their asses" while the few "do all the work". Furthermore, you state that every resource has been granted to them "yet they do nothing". Jtsummers then explained quite clearly that characterizing the middle class "doing nothing" and "sitting on their asses" is grossly false. You started this thing with an incredibly disingenuous framing and appeal to emotion, going so far as to state an obvious falsehood. Then you, incredulously, claim that you weren't trying to argue things from an emotional perspective. Right, because the claim that most people "sit on their asses" while the few, the honorable (like yourself, presumably) "do all the work" and that these people "do nothing"... that's not an attempt at emotional argument at all! After Jtsummer continues on his journey of reasoning, you now make one more concession and try to gloss it over by insisting that you never meant to claim these people were "worthless". Your emotional framing failed, so now you're ducking behind the excuse that you never meant any value judgment with your claims - because "sitting on their ass" is totally not a value judgment at all! If there's one thing I cannot abide in arguments/debates its disingenuousness. If you try to frame an argument purely emotionally and get caught in it, own it.
  • 13rules 14y ago
    I didn't say "most" people sit on their asses ... I said that millions are. Where did I ever say anything about the "middle class" doing nothing or sitting on their asses? The middle class is not the problem -- they are not the takers of America. "Sitting on their ass" is a value judgement. Sure. And there are millons of Americans who are doing nothing but taking. Period. They aren't trying. They aren't taking the opportunity that sits before them. They are existing because government pays for everything for them. How is that even deniable? Instead of saying "the few of us" it would have been better if I had said "the rest of us". If you want to get hung up on that, go for it. I think that the Elizabeth Warren / Obama speeches about "giving your fair share" are getting a little old. The point is that all Americans have fairly equal access to the same roads, bridges, and other things the government provides -- yet there are millions that are squandering their own opportunities. That's not my fault and I don't feel like I owe them something for it.
    • potatolicious 14y ago
      If you truly think that most people have "fairly equal" access to opportunities, you understand extremely little of the world. It's easy to vilify a straw man you've never met. > "They aren't trying. They aren't taking the opportunity that sits before them. They are existing because government pays for everything for them. How is that even deniable?" This is an extraordinary claim that requires substantial evidence. You are making a very serious accusation against a very large group of people, the least you can do is back it up. A family of 4 on food stamps gets $688 a month to feed themselves. Do you serious think government "pays for everything" for them? Do you think anyone of sound mind would voluntary put themselves in that situation permanently? How many people do you think receive food stamps and think to themselves "score! This paltry sum that probably won't cover my barest expenses is a strong incentive not to seek work!". Have you met someone on welfare or food stamps? I have. A whole lot of them actually. It's an extremely rough life - rest assured no one in their right mind is enjoying it. Those who stay in it long-term are unable to get away from it, not unwilling. This is a critical difference. Your argument makes about as much sense as claiming the homeless are homeless voluntarily (sadly, a common argument amongst conservatives) - it comes from a complete ignorance of just how tough life is when you've stripped away the basics. Your mythical American, who is lazy, good-for-nothing, and sits around doing nothing because the government is magically covering all of his expenses, I'm sorry to say, doesn't really exist. To be fair, it is possible for this person to exist in extremely small numbers as edge cases of the system. But, just to humor you, let's assume this mythical creature does exist. How many of them are there? Welp, there are 6.16 million Americans on long-term unemployment as of last month (there are actually more people unemployed than that, but they're not eligible to receive benefits, so for the purposes of identifying "leeches", they're not relevant). This is 2.5% of the total work force. Only a portion of these people are actually lazy and idle though - naturally part of this 6.16 million are actually looking for work, but are unable to find anything. They are, by any reasonable measure, not leeches. There is also another portion which is simply no longer eligible for benefits (despite what you seem to think, they do expire, making the long-term plan of "sitting on my ass while the gov't bankrolls my life" a really poor one). Let's be incredibly cynical, pessimistic, and presumptuous about our fellow man (that is your theme, it seems), and assume that a whopping half of all long-term unemployed folks are there voluntarily. Disregard the fact that a large portion of them would have lapsed benefits by this point. So, maximally, assuming the absolute worst about everything, about 1.25% of the total work force is a lazy-ass sonofabitch that's getting benefits from the government (shitty benefits that in no way funds a comfortable lifestyle, but whatever, assume these people have third-world expectations for themselves). You're getting your panties in a bunch, balking at taxation in general, and yammering on about the government stealing your treasures to fuel undeserving people... because 1.25% of the work force (0.96% of the overall population) fits that description? "Unsustainable" indeed! You decry taxation in general as "redistributionist" because, maximally, 0.96% of the population is a lazy bastard? You balk at the public funding of roads, bridges, and public utilities because, heaven forbid, 0.96% of the population (maximally!) doesn't deserve access to it? Oh my. Allow me to dig a little deeper. You dislike taxation, you dislike the government forcing you to pay for things. So you take a tired, old stereotype to justify not paying into the public good, out of some notion that there are hordes of malicious people at the gates just waiting to take advantage of you. You play up and exaggerate this stereotype to make it seems like a bigger deal than it actually is - even though in reality this stereotype hardly exists at all, and certainly not in great enough numbers to justify the moral panic you're suggesting. You started this argument by moralizing against these supposed malicious freeloaders, but when your emotional appeals are deconstructed, you try to twist your argument in the "public good" direction - by insisting (without basis) that the funding of said ill-defined freeloaders is unsustainable and will break us all, even though it doesn't stand a chance in hell of doing that.