Law Dems blocking Senate relief bill bc it doesn't cancel $10k of student debt

[Deleted member 159002]

Yes "a lot" of people hold ideals similar to your. As do many people hold ideals similar to mine. Your final paragraph is just a silly strawman. If the government used eminent domain and took my house of course I'd be pissed. Policymaking from a prescriptive standpoint varies based on a zillion things, and always has. The fact that you've latched onto it is sad. The civics lesson seems necessary because you still don't understand it apparently. Of course you think your notion of fair is the most...fair. As do I. As does everyone.

You think the goal of government is to promote "fairness". When pressed "fairness according to who", your reply was "Well, to me of course!"

That's why when we vote for representatives, as a populace we tend to NOT vote for people that we think may "turn our house into a homeless shelter". So if your question is specifically "Do you think the government should make a habit of of taking people's homes from them and turning them into homeless shelters", my answer would be "no". And most Americans agree, and it's why if someone ran on the platform of doing that, they'd lose. In this specific instance most people would in fact deem that this is "unfair" and would be imo justified as that is directly and catastrophically affecting their lives. Financially foremost, but in other ways too. "Fairness" would be a main component of (though not the only) why people wouldn't get elected on this platform.

Forgiving student loans may seem unfair to you (and may well be), but even if it is, "unfairness" is of a lesser concern here as the effect on your life is FAR less significant than of someone having their home stolen. IF there are other benefits to society from doing it (again, IF, which I'll continue to stress just as you continue to ignore it), then some people may believe it's "fair enough" to warrant consideration. And then everyone votes for people they think most closely resemble their views on this and all other issues.

You've dodged another question. You said, "[you] ascribe to me opinions that I've never stated". I replied, "What beliefs have I ascribed to you that you do not hold?" You wrote four paragraphs but nowhere in them does it say what opinions I've falsely ascribed to you.

You hold ideals? What are they? So far all I've inferred from your posting is that you think fairness is a petty concern and that maximizing growth is what 'grownups' care about. But then when I brought up the implications you changed your argument; when you held court talking abour how "all" options should be on the table for the sake of GDP, you didn't actually mean what you said.

Until I brought up the prospect of the government killing old folks to increase growth your posting had a clear utilitarian tenor. Then when I brought up the hypothetical of the government killing old folks to increase growth, suddenly fairness mattered. So you went from utilitarianism to seeming non-utilitarian, but then you go on to say you don't deny being a utilitarian!

To try to limit the guessing I have to do to find out what exactly your beliefs are, why don't you lay your cards on the table (as I've already asked you to) and say what you think the purpose of government is. Is it maximizing economic growth? Is it enforcing the conditions necessary for human flourishing? Are the two synonymous? Or is the purpose of government as far as you're concerned something else?

Anyone who claims to want policy made according to someone else's notions of fairness (which are different from his own) is either a liar or woefully ignorant.

 

[Cid]

That’s it? lol

“Thanks Dems” for not doing jackshit. Again.

They’re more interested in sticking to the POTUS than actually helping the public, but do go on how this is actually noticeably different than the original bill.

You say this as though the Republicans did anything different while Obama was in office.

 

[Headkicktoleg]

The Dems made the stimulus EXPONENTIALLY better.

...but this is the WAR ROOM and people LUV them some Donald Dump around here.

ReTrumpAgains are cry cry cry cry cry babies.

Ohhhh nooo's! People are going to get money!

Ohh nooo! Poor people are getting help!

Noooooo to "socialism"!

please explain how they made it better

 

[mkess101]

You've dodged another question. You said, "[you] ascribe to me opinions that I've never stated". I replied, "What beliefs have I ascribed to you that you do not hold?" You wrote four paragraphs but nowhere in them does it say what opinions I've falsely ascribed to you.

You hold ideals? What are they? So far all I've inferred from your posting is that you think fairness is a petty concern and that maximizing growth is what 'grownups' care about. But then when I brought up the implications you changed your argument; when you held court talking abour how "all" options should be on the table for the sake of GDP, you didn't actually mean what you said.

Until I brought up the prospect of the government killing old folks to increase growth your posting had a clear utilitarian tenor. Then when I brought up the hypothetical of the government killing old folks to increase growth, suddenly fairness mattered. So you went from utilitarianism to seeming non-utilitarian, but then you go on to say you don't deny being a utilitarian!

To try to limit the guessing I have to do to find out what exactly your beliefs are, why don't you lay your cards on the table (as I've already asked you to) and say what you think the purpose of government is. Is it maximizing economic growth? Is it enforcing the conditions necessary for human flourishing? Are the two synonymous? Or is the purpose of government as far as you're concerned something else?

Anyone who claims to want policy made according to someone else's notions of fairness (which are different from his own) is either a liar or woefully ignorant.

5 paragraphs and you still can't define this "human flourishing" that you trumpet. Go ahead and define it...and I'll tell you why it's wrong and not human flourishing. Which will expose that you just want government that benefits you. Which is fine, just stop trying to dress it up with "But but but I take cues from Plato..."

Edit: You've repeatedly made the assertion that I hold no ideals and the reason you've stated is because I won't answer your hilariously silly question "what's the purpose (singular) of government". I even explained why that's a silly question and you ignored it.

 

[shockaholic12]

That’s it? lol

“Thanks Dems” for not doing jackshit. Again.

They’re more interested in sticking to the POTUS than actually helping the public, but do go on how this is actually noticeably different than the original bill.

After the 2008 bailout if you are a big enough sucker to just hand these corporations another round of billions of tax payer dollars without strict oversight you might be the most gullible son of a bitch to walk the earth. You probably bought fyre fest tickets.

You think the numerous families relying on unemployment benefits to feed and shelter them and keep them financially stable for the foreseeable future look at an extra $600 a week and say "whoever did that for me really didn't do jackshit!"? That's not a very smart argument either.

that's not even close to all the things they got covered the prior bill left out. But clearly you didn't know what was in either.

 

[KOFalconPunch]

After the 2008 bailout if you are a big enough sucker to just hand these corporations another round of billions of tax payer dollars without strict oversight you might be the most gullible son of a bitch to walk the earth. You probably bought fyre fest tickets.

You think the numerous families relying on unemployment benefits to feed and shelter them and keep them financially stable for the foreseeable future look at an extra $600 a week and say "whoever did that for me really didn't do jackshit!"? That's not a very smart argument either.

that's not even close to all the things they got covered the prior bill left out. But clearly you didn't know what was in either.

so only now the families are getting handouts according to you. Good lord what you democrat bootlickers will tell yourself. Smh

 

[shockaholic12]

so only now the families are getting handouts according to you. Good lord what you democrat bootlickers will tell yourself. Smh

Try reading my post slowly. Maybe follow along with your finger? You'll see the word "extra" in front of $600. That implies in addition to the original amount set aside in the prior bill I literally recognized in the sentence. Didn't realize I'd be home schooling conservatives during the sequester, but here we are in english 101 lol.

 

[KOFalconPunch]

Try reading my post slowly. Maybe follow along with your finger? You'll see the word "extra" in front of $600. That implies in addition to the original amount set aside in the prior bill I literally recognized in the sentence. Didn't realize I'd be home schooling conservatives during the sequester, but here we are in english 101 lol.

My entire gist was you really splitting hairs when you’re arguing about such a small amount that is not even promised, unless you make an equally small salary in big cities as you do in smaller cities.

To give credit for the extra 600 upgrade, what concession was actually made to get them both to a bilateral (perhaps even unilateral?) agreement which only the democrats deserve the credit for? I’m sure it is there.

Just stop it dude because if these politicians don’t read these bills themselves and they vote on it; what good is you reading them; especially if you can’t even recite the specific language but speak in generalities. Take off the blinders and call
It for what it is. A piece of garbage involving congress bonuses and raises.

 

[shockaholic12]

My entire gist was you really splitting hairs when you’re arguing about such a small amount that is not even promised, unless you make an equally small salary in big cities as you do in smaller cities.

To give credit for the extra 600 upgrade, what concession was actually made to get them both to a bilateral (perhaps even unilateral?) agreement which only the democrats deserve the credit for? I’m sure it is there.

Just stop it dude because if these politicians don’t read these bills themselves and they vote on it; what good is you reading them; especially if you can’t even recite the specific language but speak in generalities. Take off the blinders and call
It for what it is. A piece of garbage involving congress bonuses and raises.

$600 a week is not a small amount to many american’s dummy. 78% of workers were living paycheck to paycheck in January and now many are out of work. So answer this question, when you are just making it week to week and then you aren’t even getting paychecks anymore, you scoff at getting $600 a week? That’s the dumbest statement I’ve heard all week, and it’s been a week!

Also, this increase in unemployment is not tied to salaries. You’re confused with the $1,200.00 relief check and are just raging about nonsense. A little in over your head on this topic and basically double legging the ref that this point.

Maybe learn a little about it and you won’t be so triggered?

 

[Headkicktoleg]

The Dems made the stimulus EXPONENTIALLY better.

...but this is the WAR ROOM and people LUV them some Donald Dump around here.

ReTrumpAgains are cry cry cry cry cry babies.

Ohhhh nooo's! People are going to get money!

Ohh nooo! Poor people are getting help!

Noooooo to "socialism"!

still waiting for you to tell us how they made it better

 

[The Big Bang]

still waiting for you to tell us how they made it better

Like this for example:

One point of contention in negotiations centered around a fund for distressed industries, with Democrats worrying that there would not be adequate oversight. In a compromise move, the final deal provides for accountability through an independent Inspector General and congressional oversight panel.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

5 paragraphs and you still can't define this "human flourishing" that you trumpet. Go ahead and define it...and I'll tell you why it's wrong and not human flourishing. Which will expose that you just want government that benefits you. Which is fine, just stop trying to dress it up with "But but but I take cues from Plato..."

Edit: You've repeatedly made the assertion that I hold no ideals and the reason you've stated is because I won't answer your hilariously silly question "what's the purpose (singular) of government". I even explained why that's a silly question and you ignored it.

Human flourishing = the life that goes well. The government enforcing the conditions necessary for this entails its citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. So regarding 2, for example, the government can't allow its citizens to spy on other citizens to satisfy sexual interests, even though it would inherently have no effect on how experientially satisfying the spied on person's life would be were the government not to prohibit people from spying on him, and may make the spy's life less experientally satisfying. Or as another example, if the government taught some 'truth' that was nonsense, which increased its citizens' happiness (i.e. how experientally satisfying its citizens' lives were). This would be wrong because teaching nonsense is unvirtuous and being taught nonsense hinders the citizen 'student' from being able to be virtuous.

Privileging people who made investments in themselves that they didn't pay for hinders other people from living experientially satisfying lives and entails treating people inequitably (equity being a virtue).

 

[mkess101]

Human flourishing = the life that goes well. The government enforcing the conditions necessary for this entails its citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. So regarding 2, for example, the government can't allow its citizens to spy on other citizens to satisfy sexual interests, even though it would inherently have no effect on how experientially satisfying the spied on person's life would be were the government not to prohibit people from spying on him, and may make the spy's life less experientally satisfying. Or as another example, if the government taught some 'truth' that was nonsense, which increased its citizens' happiness (i.e. how experientally satisfying its citizens' lives were). This would be wrong because teaching nonsense is unvirtuous and being taught nonsense hinders the citizen 'student' from being able to be virtuous.

Privileging people who made investments in themselves that they didn't pay for hinders other people from living experientially satisfying lives and entails treating people inequitably (equity being a virtue).

You keep typing walls of text that assume all people view "experientially satisfying" the same way. They don't, and that alone shreds your view. You can't hide from this no matter how much you type.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You keep typing walls of text that assume all people view "experientially satisfying" the same way. They don't, and that alone shreds your view. You can't hide from this no matter how much you type.

Experientally satisfying = bringing happiness (obviously this is different from Aristotle's notion of eudaimonia, which is commonly translated into English as "happiness" thereby betraying what Aristotle meant). You accuse me of assuming that all people view experientally satisfaction the same way. That is false.

 

[mkess101]

Experientally satisfying = bringing happiness (obviously this is different from Aristotle's notion of eudaimonia, which is commonly translated into English as "happiness" thereby betraying what Aristotle meant). You accuse me of assuming that all people view experientally satisfaction the same way. That is false.

Oh good, glad that you realize that people have vastly different views of what it means.

So what you're saying is that it's then actually completely impossible for government to then perform the sole purpose that you think it has. If everyone has a different view of what it is (and in many cases people will have views that directly contradict each other on what it is) then by definition the government is unable to do what you say that it exists to do. In the end, again, government can only bring a certain amount of it's populace this "happiness". Which again leads us back to the fact that you simply want government to bring you happiness and don't actually care about your fictional view of "fairness" at all.

I'm glad we could finally clear that up.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Oh good, glad that you realize that people have vastly different views of what it means.

So what you're saying is that it's then actually completely impossible for government to then perform the sole purpose that you think it has. If everyone has a different view of what it is (and in many cases people will have views that directly contradict each other on what it is) then by definition the government is unable to do what you say that it exists to do. In the end, again, government can only bring a certain amount of it's populace this "happiness". Which again leads us back to the fact that you simply want government to bring you happiness and don't actually care about your fictional view of "fairness" at all.

I'm glad we could finally clear that up.

This is nonsense. You're failing to grasp what I'm saying. For some people playing golf is experientally satisfying. For me, it's not. There are other things I'd rather do, which I find experientially satisfying. Then there are things that are universal for experiental satisfaction: adequate food, water, medicine etc.

That different people find different things experientally satisfying does not mean it's impossible for governments to work towards enforcing the conditions necessary for its citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. Keep in mind I said the ideal is a target. It might never be realized, but that doesn't mean certain policies do not bring the country closer to it and that other policies do not take the country farther away from it.

 

[KOFalconPunch]

$600 a week is not a small amount to many american’s dummy. 78% of workers were living paycheck to paycheck in January and now many are out of work. So answer this question, when you are just making it week to week and then you aren’t even getting paychecks anymore, you scoff at getting $600 a week? That’s the dumbest statement I’ve heard all week, and it’s been a week!

Also, this increase in unemployment is not tied to salaries. You’re confused with the $1,200.00 relief check and are just raging about nonsense. A little in over your head on this topic and basically double legging the ref that this point.

Maybe learn a little about it and you won’t be so triggered?

I just read about the $600 unemployment bonus, that’s not bad honestly. I am sure the families could use it. Not sure if this was included or not in the previous bill though.

The oversight might also be challenged by Trump so there’s that.

 

[mkess101]

This is nonsense. You're failing to grasp what I'm saying. For some people playing golf is experientally satisfying. For me, it's not. There are other things I'd rather do, which I find experientially satisfying. Then there are things that are universal for experiental satisfaction: adequate food, water, medicine etc.

That different people find different things experientally satisfying does not mean it's impossible for governments to work towards enforcing the conditions necessary for its citizens being able to (1) live experientially satisfying lives (2) in which they are treated virtuously and act virtuously. Keep in mind I said the ideal is a target. It might never be realized, but that doesn't mean certain policies do not bring the country closer to it and that other policies do not take the country farther away from it.

Some people think building golf courses is awful for the environment and a waste of land use. Public golf courses provide experiential satisfaction for golfers that enjoy using them, while they push those opposed to them farther away from that experiential satisfaction. Some people like auto racing or Monster truck rallies, others find them offensive due to the fossil fuels being used for recreation. Again, at odds on your little "eperiential satisfaction" scale. How about hunting? Doubt I even need to explain that one. I can continue to list examples where they are at direct odds. I enjoy gambling (mostly poker and sports betting). For others, the fact that the government even allows casinos or lotteries to exist takes away from their "experiential satisfaction". I could go on and on and on.

If your actual belief is that government's sole purpose is to provide (or make it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities (food, water, medicine) that are required for survival, just say that. That's different than the "experiential satisfaction" garbage you're trying to push.

Also, I thought the country was just "an abstract"? That's what you said. How does the government push this "abstract" toward "experiential satisfaction" when that can only be realized by its individual citizens? These are your words, not mine. Since I've provided multiple examples of how individual citizens ideas of "experiential satisfaction" are directly at odds with each other, how do you reconcile that?

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Some people think building golf courses is awful for the environment and a waste of land use. Public golf courses provide experiential satisfaction for golfers that enjoy using them, while they push those opposed to them farther away from that experiential satisfaction. Some people like auto racing or Monster truck rallies, others find them offensive due to the fossil fuels being used for recreation. Again, at odds on your little "eperiential satisfaction" scale. How about hunting? Doubt I even need to explain that one. I can continue to list examples where they are at direct odds. I enjoy gambling (mostly poker and sports betting). For others, the fact that the government even allows casinos or lotteries to exist takes away from their "experiential satisfaction". I could go on and on and on.

If your actual belief is that government's sole purpose is to provide (or make it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities (food, water, medicine) that are required for survival, just say that. That's different than the "experiential satisfaction" garbage you're trying to push.

Also, I thought the country was just "an abstract"? That's what you said. How does the government push this "abstract" toward "experiential satisfaction" when that can only be realized by its individual citizens? These are your words, not mine. Since I've provided multiple examples of how individual citizens ideas of "experiential satisfaction" are directly at odds with each other, how do you reconcile that?

Regarding building golf courses, monster truck rallies, and auto racing, if it can be demonstrated that these activities create serious hindrances to human flourishing, then sure they should be banned. It's not apparent to me that any of the things you mentioned compare in that regard to the government giving a windfall to people for investing in themselves and not paying for their investments, but if you think you can make that case, I'll listen.

I'm not going to say government's sole purpose is to provide (or make it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities (food, water, medicine) that are required for survival because that's not my belief. A communist government based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" could in theory ensure everyone has food, water, and medicine while controlling people's lives to a degree that most people do not have a reasonable chance to live experientally satisfying lives. (And by virtue of that control the government would be way off target with one of the other parts I mentioned as necessary for the enforcement of the conditions necessary for human flourishing -- being treated virtuously). The government providing (or making it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities is a necessary condition for its citizens flourish, but not a sufficient condition.

Regarding your last question, stop trolling. I never said the government pushes the country towards experiental satisfaction.

 

[mkess101]

Regarding building golf courses, monster truck rallies, and auto racing, if it can be demonstrated that these activities create serious hindrances to human flourishing, then sure they should be banned. It's not apparent to me that any of the things you mentioned compare in that regard to the government giving a windfall to people for investing in themselves and not paying for their investments, but if you think you can make that case, I'll listen.

I'm not going to say government's sole purpose is to provide (or make it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities (food, water, medicine) that are required for survival because that's not my belief. A communist government based on the principle "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs" could in theory ensure everyone has food, water, and medicine while controlling people's lives to a degree that most people do not have a reasonable chance to live experientally satisfying lives. (And by virtue of that control the government would be way off target with one of the other parts I mentioned as necessary for the enforcement of the conditions necessary for human flourishing -- being treated virtuously). The government providing (or making it as easy as possible for its citizens to provide for themselves) basic human necessities is a necessary condition for its citizens flourish, but not a sufficient condition.

Regarding your last question, stop trolling. I never said the government pushes the country towards experiental satisfaction.

Again, a wall of text but can't overcome the simple facts I've laid forth. You wriggle and squirm but they're still right there.

You said "certain policies bring it closer..."

Policies enacted by the government. So yes, you did in fact say the government pushes the country toward "experiential satisfaction". In fact, policy is exactly how the government affects its citizens. Are you forgetting what you've typed now?