Pick One - A or B

[Disillusioned]

I believe in cooperation and find competition breeds aggressive, selfish people with a cutthroat attitude who put too much value on money and popularity which devalues and dehumanizes everyone outside their small circle of care so I would at first choose A but having seen so many lazy welfare junkies ruining it for those who actually need and deserve the help, I'm inclined to go with B (also because I'm a pessimist, life's not easy, boo-hoo...fire under your ass is motivating etc.)

I believe we're beyond post scarcity and the lack of global cooperation in favor of competition is used as an excuse to make another excuse people call "human nature"...
One-upmanship (competition) isn't human nature and neither is cooperation. Choosing convenience over prudence isn't human nature either, it just shows people haven't been bit in the ass for not planning ahead yet. Competition is vehemently encouraged and that's why its so pervasive. People are so sucked up into popular culture that they choose not to look outside what they believe because its uncomfortable, therefore dismissed. We rely on the few innovators to have a trickle-down effect to improve our lives and if those innovations risk making some beaurocracy redundant or cost big businesses money those beauraus and companies will fight to have it snuffed. The definition of a scoundrel is someone who puts themselves ahead of humanity and not enough people see it as holding back their part of the potential for humanity by propogating what works instead of chasing their potential for impovement. It comes down to our experiences, how they color our attitudes and opinions and whether we're motivated enough. Needless to say too few are motivated enough to make significant, positive change at a rate that's encouraging and this is understandable considering they get labeled as eccentric, fanatics, dangerous to the economy and are fought tooth and nail in an uphill battle by well armed companies. That's okay, mother nature has her remedies and they are seldom gentle.

[Sanctuary]

The house passed the healthcare bill and the democrats outnumber the republicans in the senate 57-41. DON'T DO THIS!

The president is democrat and congress is mostly democratic. WHERE'S MY CHECKS AND BALANCES? WTF DEMOCRACY?? JOHN LOCKE SAY SOMETHING! THE SYSTEM IS FLAWED!

I think my brain just exploded. LOL

[LatinoItaliano]

Wow MVplaya, you REALLY trashed my post there. Countered EVERY point, piece by piece...

Pssshh... then you woke up.

Truth hurts, huh? You hate how I just said something so correct, you couldn't come back with anything to counter it with but some dumb idiotic garbage.

So, again: If all these socialist Democrats are so compassionate, WHY aren't they forking over at least half of their yearly earnings to the poor? WHY!?

WHY!?

WHY!?

Yeah, thought so! Actions speak LOUDER than words, buddy!

They want government to force it out of everyone else's pockets. They love growing government like no tomorrow.

The Cold War did not end, my friends. It changed, but did not end. The commies that were here during the 'official' Cold War are still here, especially in our colleges. Even Obama admits to seeking these Marxist professors out and becoming friends with them when he was in college.

So keep living in further denial, mr. "Playa" but you know I am correct, no matter how much you'll try twisting and spinning out of it.

I wish Ron Paul won the election. He was the only good presidential candidate.

[Lipp]

Score one for the slanted media.

[Sanctuary]

I wish Ron Paul won the election.

You just became my archenemy.

[MVPlaya]

The reason I responded the way I did is because you're loud and your arguments are stupid. But it seems you really need to have it explained just how dumb your argument is.

Imagine if I wrote like you:

"If all Republicans are so patriotic, why don't they all join the military?

WHY?

WHY?"

You see how easy it is to make an argument like that? It proves nothing, only pisses people off, and earns them the response you got on this thread.

But not only is your style of arguing stupid, you are completely wrong. Your entire argument is that Democrats are hypocrites and ergo they really just want government to grow because they love government growing. (Firstly, this argument is retarded, some of the biggest increases in government bureaucracy came under G.W. Bush and Ronald Reagan, but hey, your political leanings don't come with a fact-checker.)

But more importantly: Democrats receive less money in federal spending than they give out in federal taxes.

In simpler words for you, Democrats are paying the majority of taxes and Republicans are spending the majority of it.

Sources:

1. Here's a state by state breakdown of the amount of taxes paid by every state and received in federal spending:
   
   [url=http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/22685.html]Federal Taxes Paid vs. Federal Spending Received by State, 1981-2005[/url]
   by the Tax Foundation, Oct. 19., 2007
   
   Notice how liberal powerhouse California receives only 78 cents for every $1 it gives in taxes, while conservative states get much more money from the government than they pay in taxes, like Alabama ($1.66 for every one dollar given in taxes) and Alaska ($1.84 for every one dollar given in taxes). In fact, Republican states make a profit from the federal government while Democratic states make a loss.
   
   
2. You can also check out:
   [url]http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2004/09/red_states_feed.html[/url]
   
   Out of the 10 states receiving the most in federal aid, 8 of them are Republican states (only two 'liberal' states: District of Columbia and New Mexico). Out of the 10 states receiving the least in federal aid, compared to what they pay in taxes, 7 of them are Democratic states.
   
   

   The report shows that of the 32 states (and the District of Columbia) that are "winners" -- receiving more in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 76% are Red States that voted for George Bush in 2000. Indeed, 17 of the 20 (85%) states receiving the most federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Red States.
   
   In contrast, of the 16 states that are "losers" -- receiving less in federal spending than they pay in federal taxes -- 69% are Blue States that voted for Al Gore in 2000. Indeed, 11 of the 14 (79%) of the states receiving the least federal spending per dollar of federal taxes paid are Blue States.

   
   
3. Studies have been done on why red states get so much more money from the federal government than blue states. The theory? Because red states are poorer, and more likely to qualify for social welfare.
   
   From:
   [url=http://convention3.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/0/6/7/4/5/p67453_index.html?phpsessid=210b3ee5ddbd248c647b20 7f84e851d0]Francia, Peter. and Levine, Renan. "Feast or famine at the federal luau" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, Inter-Continental Hotel, New Orleans, LA, Jan 06, 2005. 2009-11-10[/url]
   
   

   Has President Bush and the Republican Congress redirected the federal budget to reward the 30 “red” states who voted for him in 2000? We analyze state-level data from the Tax Foundation that considers taxation and federal spending to determine the extent to which each state is a net recipient or net contributor to the federal budget. According to these data, red states receive, on average, $0.29 more net federal benefits than blue states. Under Bush, the gap between “red” and “blue” states increased. We find that the gap between blue and red states did not originate with the present administration, nor is Republican representation in Congress a major factor in predicting whether a state is a net recipient of federal grants. Instead, we find that the current divide between red and blue in patterns of federal taxation and funding is primarily the product of a socio-economic chasm between affluent states that vote Democrat and poor states that vote Republican. However, we also find that the “reddest” states, where Bush faired best in the 2000 election, were the largest net recipients of federal benefits even after controlling for demographic factors. The “reddest” states also benefit when we analyzed net increases in federal grants from 2000 (Clinton’s last year in office) to 2003 (the most recent year with data available for the Bush administration). Consequently, entitlement and large discretionary programs that came to define the Democrats’ “New Deal Coalition” now disproportionately benefit Republican states, which in turn, may serve to fortify Republican support in presidential elections."

   
   
4. Or other papers showing the same thing:
   
   "Since 1984, states that receive the most federal spending per tax dollar that their citizens pay have voted increasingly for Republican presidential candidates."
   
   From:
   [url=http://www.allacademic.com/one/www/research/index.php?cmd=www_search&offset=0&limit=5&multi_se arch_search_mode=publication&multi_search_publicat ion_fulltext_mod=fulltext&textfield_submit=true&se arch_module=multi_search&search=Search&search_fiel d=title_idx&fulltext_search=%3Cb%3ETaxing,+Spendin g,+Red+States,+and+Blue+States:+The+Political+Econ omy+of+Redistribution+in+the+US+Federal+System%3C/b%3E&PHPSESSID=836b8dd2fb44bc0c9bef7435ee92927b]Lacy, Dean. "Taxing, Spending, Red States, and Blue States: The Political Economy of Redistribution in the US Federal System" Paper presented at the annual meeting of the The Midwest Political Science Association, Palmer House Hilton, Chicago, Illinois, Apr 20, 2006. 2009-11-10[/url]

Your argument is not only dumb, it is completely factually incorrect. Sorry to burst your bubble.

[Only-virgins]

A
_____________________

[LatinoItaliano]

Who said becoming a soldier to work for the government is being a patriot? One can be a patriot without being a government-paid soldier. Patriots fight for the people and our liberties. Government-paid soldiers can be ordered to fight against the people. You do know that's exactly why the founders wanted We The People to be armed, correct? Read and think on the 2nd Amendment... that which many so-called "liberals" despise and want to go against or twist to make it seem like it means something else.

The founders were skeptical of big government (well, the good/smart ones were), so being a patriot is doing the same! Not working *for* that government!

And I do not like quite a few "conservative" viewpoints, as well. Thus why I was hoping Ron Paul had won the election - he's a true libertarian conservative, unlike many of the fake idiots in there today.

P.S. did you know there was a study which showed more conservatives give to the poor out of their own pockets than liberals?

Interesting, since these "compassionate liberals" are always calling conservatives "greedy". LOL! Priceless! And conservatives making less per year than liberals, on top of these conservatives giving more to the poor is just the cherry on top to prove how bunk the "liberal" accusations are.

I am for freedom and liberty. All this socialist garbage is what grows government (the bigger the government, the more likely there is to be tyranny and dictatorship in our present and future) and I cannot stand it.

There were quite a few things Bush did which I did not like. Just for the record, before you assume other things...

[LatinoItaliano]

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

-Adolf Hitler - Speech of May 1, 1927



Frightening, don't you think?

[Sanctuary]

And I do not like quite a few "conservative" viewpoints, as well. Thus why I was hoping Ron Paul had won the election - he's a true libertarian conservative, unlike many of the fake idiots in there today.

Ron Paul wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, get rid of fiat currency, and re-establish the gold standard.

That dude is bonkers.

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic
system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair
salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to
wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we
are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions."

-Adolf Hitler - Speech of May 1, 1927

Frightening, don't you think?

Dude, you are insane. lol