Interesting Article - Norway/Taxes/Hard Work

polaris_x

MotoDC wrote:

Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.

that would be a poor inference from my posts ... let me clarify:

america is a "me" society ... i feel very comfortable in saying that and I think many people would agree to that so long as they don't take unnecessary offense to the term ... as a me-first society - socialism wouldn't work ... for obvious reasons ... people who disagree with socialism are not necessarily "me-first" people ... like i've said ... you could be a "we-first" person and believe that a more conservative or libertarian approach is best to organize society ...

mikepegg44

RW81233 wrote:

MotoDC wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

what assumptions are you referring to? ... i am guessing you are referring to me as i seem to be the primary person responding in this thread ...

Your insistence on saying that folks who don't agree with the socialist approach are "me-first". I suppose you've mostly said that America is me-first, but since that's the only non-socialist (which is debatable, since really we're all on a spectrum here) country I've seen discussed, one is tempted to employ the commutative property.

Isn't the U.S. as a whole qualitatively me-first? Don't we celebrate that via the "American Dream" mythology? Yes we do nice things for one another, but not consistently nor to a point that would be overly detrimental to our individual bottom line because there is no cause to do so. I don't think Polaris is wrong in her assumption since its based in several years of evidence.

I think it is better for EVERYONE for people in the US to be independent of gov't help. That isn't self serving, in fact I probably would have to look for other work if that happened, public health... Just consider me Ron Swanson. That isn't me motivated, and that is putting myself out so that others may have a better chance to succeed.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I think it is better for EVERYONE for people in the US to be independent of gov't help. That isn't self serving, in fact I probably would have to look for other work if that happened, public health... Just consider me Ron Swanson. That isn't me motivated, and that is putting myself out so that others may have a better chance to succeed.

dude ... i really think you've missed the point or perhaps i am simply not communicating it properly ... i just reiterated that just because you don't believe in a socialist system doesn't make you a "me-first" person ... all i said was america in general is a "me-first" populace and therefore a socialist system would never work there ...

RW81233

yeah what polaris said. you, as a person, may be libertarian and care about others/think that type of system will help everyone. however, most americans liberal/conservative/libertarian are me-first and that would undermine the potential free-market utopia you dream of because those in power will always use their power to make the game easier for them. given past evidence as context i think taking their money away via "wealth taxes" helps to undermine the garnering of wealth and power amongst the few. if you are ron swanson then i am probably amy poehler.

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too

I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.

really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...

well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...

I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.

Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.

At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.

RW81233

mikepegg44 wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

contrary to what you may think, I do talk to people in real life too

I have read it in multiple threads over the years...Police aren't a social service by the way...they are a civil service. Protection from someone infringing on my rights is much different than giving someone who is down on their luck help. also, technically paying for police is just as selfish as anything else.

really!? ... i thought you were a BOT paid for by the Ron Paul campaign!? ...

well ... that's really semantics ... civil or social ... they are put in place for the greater good of society ...

I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.

Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.

At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.

democrats and liberals are often me-first because we have only ever understood me-first. if you are under the age of 45 or so, when neoliberalism first started taking hold, and particularly if you are a Reagan baby or younger (which makes up a majority of the liberal/democrat population) then you have not really lived in a society that had a social mission. the very crux of neoliberalism is me-first, so most contemporary american dems/liberals are we-first with a me-first twist (sounds like a food network recipe).

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

I don't think it is semantics though. police are there to protect me from you and you from me. That isn't at all the same as the gov't taking from me and giving to you, which is essentially what they do with a program like EBT in MN. so technically being ok with paying for police is selfish by definition. It is a side effect that others benefit from it. You qualify as much as anyone else does for police protection. I don't qualify for EBT. Some people might have a problem with people who have iphones and dish network getting EBT (electronic benfit transfer)...those aren't the same in anyway.

Those who want large social safety nets are not we first by definition either....Many are me first and support those programs because they themselves benefit from them.

At any given time, dems and liberals make up about 45%-55% of the country give or take...If I am to believe what I am told on here by many of them...they are we first. Taking that into consideration, how could you classify that as me first based on assumption and observation alone.

oh dear god ... this is painful... so, you don't qualify for EBT but didn't you say that the community should look after each other a few pages ago? ... a community looking after each other isn't based on the predication that each individual will equally require the same help ...

democrats and liberals in the US would be conservatives in Canada ... the political centre in the US is on the right of many so called socialist states ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

oh dear god ... this is painful... so, you don't qualify for EBT but didn't you say that the community should look after each other a few pages ago? ... a community looking after each other isn't based on the predication that each individual will equally require the same help ...

democrats and liberals in the US would be conservatives in Canada ... the political centre in the US is on the right of many so called socialist states ...

first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.

Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.

Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.

i highly doubt it ... if that were the case, there would be more programs to reflect that ... and taxation would be much higher ...

it's hard not to feel pain when you re-iterate something over and over again and still get responses that clearly indicate that peeps aren't listening ...

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

first off, no they wouldn't. The democratic party might be right of center, but the people who make it up, progressives and the like would not be and would probably be further to the left here if not for the restrictive two party system.

Don't hurt yourself, what I am telling you is why people get frustrated with being forced pay for social programs...I don't think that frustration is necessarily well placed, nor do I think that way myself, but I was responding to the assumption that being against those programs is strictly because of me first thought. I am against them in their current form for a very different reason.

i highly doubt it ... if that were the case, there would be more programs to reflect that ... and taxation would be much higher ...

it's hard not to feel pain when you re-iterate something over and over again and still get responses that clearly indicate that peeps aren't listening ...

highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there

I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there

I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.

i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...

i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there

I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.

i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...

i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...

Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.

mikepegg44

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there

I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.

i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...

i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...

but that is the thing, you can't know. That is an assumption, whatever you base it on is up to you, but you don't know that because they are in the two party system. Probability and possibility are two different things and we make assumptions but that doesn't mean we are right. That doesn't mean with a certainty that the country wouldn't be different if it weren't bound by the two party system...I don't think that is a reflection of our politics, I think it is a choice that the parties have worked hard and abused election law to keep. But then again, maybe I think that way because I don't understand. Maybe you are right maybe I am, but I am not the one assuming that an entire culture/country/whatever you want to call american society is me first...
Again I understand, I am not stupid, I just don't agree with your assessment that we are dominantly a me first culture when it counts...making assumptions about large groups and applying those assumptions to individuals is a stereotype isn't it? I don't like those any more than you do.

also, if you dare tell me water is wet and the sky is blue I will fight you until the day i die.

mikepegg44

Jason P wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

mikepegg44 wrote:

highly doubt what? I am not sure what you are referring to there

I have read everything you have written carefully and responded in kind. We disagree. Or do you think I would agree with you if I understood your point.

i highly doubt dems/liberals (the majority) in the US would be more progressive if it weren't for the two party system ...

i have given up trying to make my point ... ... at least RW understands! ...

Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.

I had written out

"well....that is like... your... opinion man" and erased it. strange

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.

this was never a revolution ... i empathize with you lot ... you don't even know you are getting screwed ...

polaris_x

mikepegg44 wrote:

but that is the thing, you can't know. That is an assumption, whatever you base it on is up to you, but you don't know that because they are in the two party system. Probability and possibility are two different things and we make assumptions but that doesn't mean we are right. That doesn't mean with a certainty that the country wouldn't be different if it weren't bound by the two party system...I don't think that is a reflection of our politics, I think it is a choice that the parties have worked hard and abused election law to keep. But then again, maybe I think that way because I don't understand. Maybe you are right maybe I am, but I am not the one assuming that an entire culture/country/whatever you want to call american society is me first...
Again I understand, I am not stupid, I just don't agree with your assessment that we are dominantly a me first culture when it counts...making assumptions about large groups and applying those assumptions to individuals is a stereotype isn't it? I don't like those any more than you do.

also, if you dare tell me water is wet and the sky is blue I will fight you until the day i die.

obviously, i am generalizing ... just because americans go to war everywhere doesn't mean all americans love war ... i honestly can't believe you just posted the obvious of obvious ... i was under the assumption that this sort of understanding was a given ... i guess not! ...

now, i hope you understand why this has been most painful ...

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

Your revolution is over, Mr. polaris_x. Condolences. The bums lost.

this was never a revolution ... i empathize with you lot ... you don't even know you are getting screwed ...

You forget, I'm a W.M.A. :twisted:

But really, I know I'm getting screwed. It's itemized by category for me on my weekly pay stub.

polaris_x

Jason P wrote:

You forget, I'm a W.M.A. :twisted:

But really, I know I'm getting screwed. It's itemized by category for me on my weekly pay stub.

yet when push comes to shove ... you'd rather defend the people that are screwing you over because you just don't want to hear it ..

Jason P

polaris_x wrote:

Jason P wrote:

You forget, I'm a W.M.A. :twisted:

But really, I know I'm getting screwed. It's itemized by category for me on my weekly pay stub.

yet when push comes to shove ... you'd rather defend the people that are screwing you over because you just don't want to hear it ..

I don't believe I have ever defended the IRS. :thumbdown:

markin ball

If Norway is happy, I'm happy. How can we say they are doing it wrong? What's the point of all this if we aren't happy?