The left has gone full retard

[JurisDictum]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.

MV5BMTkyMTA1MzMyNF5BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjMwNjAzMQ@@._V1_UY268_CR3,0,182,268_AL_.jpg

[maskedmelon]

Originally Posted by Pokesan [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

no, luckily for me, the social safety net fed those who would have otherwise been forced to consume and digest my nutrient-rich flesh

it doesn't take long. starve someone for seven days, come and see.

Do you live in Florida or something?

[dafier]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you live in Florida or something?

It's a 'swing' state. [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Pokesan]

Originally Posted by maskedmelon [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Do you live in Florida or something?

further north

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001

Your graph has some severe problems... namely that spending raw amounts doesn't have any relation to effective spending.

You simply don't understand your own argument. You made up this term "effective spending" which basically is a black box standing between raw government spending and effectiveness. You claim the relationship between these two is not fixed. Which is true . . . but so what? Empirically, government has never been efficient. Theoretically, there is no reason it should be. It is not impossible that the government will be more effective tomorrow, but then it's not impossible that the sun will come up in the West either.

You are merely a third grader repeating 'why why why', unable to live in a world without absolutes.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But we have plenty of evidence that countries that spend more on welfare experience less poverty. If someone gives you enough money -- you aren't poor anymore are you?

Nice. I was wondering if anyone was going to notice this. The government intentionally doesn't count aid in their poverty figures so they can keep the welfare programs going.

Originally Posted by JurisDictum

confused ramblings

So if you agree that US welfare programs are designed to benefit progressives by generating cush government jobs and maintaining a perpetual underclass so that they can feel good about themselves and their superior empathy . . . . why do you want to expand these programs? Even if increased aid could work, what makes you think that will actually happen?

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years: massive redistribution programs, increased legal protection for women, minorities, and LGBT types, and a huge expansion in the Federal government. Over this same period, real wages have stagnated, racial tensions have not improved, poverty has not declined, happiness has gone down, and we have mortgaged out future with tens of trillions in government debt. How can you read this paragraph and support more government?

[Alarti0001]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years: massive redistribution programs, increased legal protection for women, minorities, and LGBT types, and a huge expansion in the Federal government. Over this same period, real wages have stagnated, racial tensions have not improved, poverty has not declined, happiness has gone down, and we have mortgaged out future with tens of trillions in government debt. How can you read this paragraph and support more government?

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

You're a moron.
How can you read that sentence and think your opinion matters?

[Lune]

Originally Posted by Raev [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Let me repeat this for clarity: the left has gotten everything they have wanted in the past 50 years

This is just complete fantasy.

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

[Nihilist_santa]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

You're a moron.
How can you read that sentence and think your opinion matters?

When have you offered anything other than opinion? Not counting your copy pastas from Wikipedia . Also don't feign ignorant about which system you advocate since you are one of those fascist under the bed types and have stated that world renowned leftist are actually hard right authoritarians.

[Daywolf]

That's why this forum is so interesting. Only here can a topic of BLM hijacking a vigil for the worst mass shooting in 100yrs, blame it on whity, and then here descend into economics as some explanation for a muslim terrorist on a shooting spree killing 49 and wounding some 50 homosexuals or such. So now we argue 50 shades of socialism.

[Raev]

Originally Posted by Alarti0001 [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Very easily, when you realize that the paragraph isn't supported by truth or fact.

Prove it. You've actually made a real statement here, so let's see you back it up.

Originally Posted by Lune

Baby boomers are the most selfish fucks ever to walk the Earth, and they spent the last 50 years dragging the entire country to the right, toward a philosophy of "Fuck you, I got mine". Today, Ike and Nixon would be considered more liberal than Hillary Clinton. LBJ's Great Society was really the last attempt at true liberalism before Reagan sold the country out to the corporate elite, and now we have people like Obama and Clinton who call themselves liberal but are really in the pocket of one moneyed interest or another.

This is complete spin. We spend far more on social programs than we did during the Great Society. How on earth is that moving to the right? I mean, I am with you that those programs have failed utterly, but that doesn't mean we didn't try.