Michael Moore says Money of the Rich isn't theirs

Remove all ads!

LKD,
what Baronius meant was Gypsies. They are only group in Hungary whose stereotype fits his general description. Background: There is a good deal of prejudice in Hungary about Gypsies (more here [PDF]).

Orbán has to compete with the rightists of Jobbik who campaign among other things against gypsies. So he has to bee seen doing something about the issue to dispel the accusation of being soft on Gypsies. So take it with a grain of salt.

PS: I strongly urge the moderators to move the posts regarding Hungary on this and the previous page into a separate thread lest this one be wrecked.

 

I can't agree more.

As far as living from state money is concerned, I've seen it directly, in my hometown (in an area that was Hungarian until 1920, it was Czechoslovakia when I was born, and now it's in Slovakia). In my hometown, everyone knows about several people who are totally healthy & capable of working, but financially, it's better for them if they get the unemployment money from the state.

About what I meant and what I didn't, well, I meant exactly what I wrote, and how I wrote it. Ragusa has a horrible habbit of assuming motives that best fit his theory. The gypsy problem is actually quite the opposite. (Sorry for the plagiarism, NOG!)

PS:

Spoiler

Statistics of the latest thread posts; number of Hungary-specific sentences per user: Ragusa: 6, Baronius: 2. Number of Hungary-related hyperlinks per user: Ragusa: 3, Baronius 0.

 

Baronius, how about you cite some facts and statistics that reveal just how rampant Hungarian welfare abuse is. Instead of accusing fellow posters of unfairly smearing you, try proving them wrong with some facts and statistics of your own. Prove that your views stem from an informed look at the facts rather than a knee jerk reaction directed at a specific racial group.

Spoiler

Complex arguments take more sentences than simple ones -- especially when backed up with facts. Citing facts requires citing sources, and providing hyperlinks is a courtesy. Being thorough is not a flaw to be demeaned. In fact, it enhances credibility, and posting sentence and link counts in response to an argument is a douche-bag "debating" tactic that proves absolutely nothing.

 

No, I won't try to prove them wrong, because the topic is not about Hungary. It's about the United States.

I came to this thread to read what Americans tell about their situation and what their opinion is about welfare/state money; and I share a few thoughts I bring from Europe. Considering the relevant reactions to my posts, I think I've been totally on-topic. I contributed a total of 22 sentences in this topic, and my country occured in 3 (!) of them, to provide the source where I take my statements from. All other were general. I suggest you stop supporting Ragusa in his poor attempt of misrepresenting my posts as topic wrecking or whatever. No, I don't intend to disprove his statements for two reasons: (1) He mentioned exclusively gypsies, I didn't, and he did not prove in any way his speculation that my description applies exclusively to gypsies; (2) it's off-topic. The only people whose posts were talking about Hungary is Ragusa and yourself.

 

Bold added by me. I only object to your use of the word "often". Have any support for that? Change "often" to "rarely" and I'd agree. We're talking about a small percentage of them that are what you describe.

NNNNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Make it stop! It burns! It burns the eyes!

Speak not the name Orban!

 

Uh, Baronius, I have yet to accuse you of anything in this thread -- other than a bit of douche-baggery -- and I've made no statements regarding whether or not I agree with Ragusa's assessment. I do stand by my douche-baggery accusation, since sentence and hyperlink counts have something in the area of, I don't know, no relevance whatsoever regarding the veracity of another poster's statements.

 

Aldeth, I guess we have to agree to disagree. I don't have a whack of links or statistics, but I would hazard that a lot of parents who are having such trouble that they cannot provide for basic necessities are in such dire straits because they are either criminals or have drug problems. I don't think it's as rare as you do.

That's not poor as in "poverty struck" parents -- the ones who can't buy karate lessons for their kids or afford to put them in after school activities -- I'm talking about the ones who can't make the rent or provide sufficient caloric intake / nutrition for their kids.

 

That's just horrid. What a profoundly inaccurate, callus statement that is. Are really LKD? or some imposter? I can't believe what I am reading.

 

No, I think he just believes in it. He uses a relative wording, "I don't think it's as rare as you do.", not saying it's this many or that many ten millions. Just that more than you would believe.

Leaders, CEOs, often need to make decisions without any stable evidence. Based on belief. Based on experience. I think in some AoDa/AoLS topics, there is too much emphasis placed on explicit references. They are very important, but in some topics IMO their absence doesn't decrease the value of the opinion, if the person is experienced or has knowledge in that topic.

I think I would disagree LKD if he wrote that about Hungary. But in the USA, how can anyone be very poor? (Except special extreme cases such as homeless people and other extreme cases) By the way, this is really meant to be a question, not a rhetoric question or ironic question.

 

That shows how little you know about MY country. I guess you have to live here to be really informed, as neither you nor LKD are citizens here. Single parenthood is one of the leading causes of poverty in the US. Don't believe me? Look it up. It's really more to do with the breakdown of marriage as an solid institution in the USA. That LKD would claim that the poor are more than likely to be substance abusers or criminals is a freaking joke. Before you go off, remember that there are far, far more of the poor and working poor in the US than there are rich people. The problem is that the rich can cover it up far more than the poor can. The rich can pay off anyone to keep things "quiet," unlike the poor who are thrown into prison and exploited as "the problem" at the drop of a hat. It's really more of a crime to be poor in the USA, and maybe that's what LKD really means when he says that they are "criminal."

 

Exactly. That is why I ASK, and not state. About what I wrote about LKD, I meant generally, but that changes too now, see below.

Yeah, those who don't live there can't know (this was one of my arguments in my Hungarian Media Law topic too).

On the other hand, I didn't know LKD is not American! I thought he lives in the USA just like you. In this case, my previous statement has a less significance about his experience/belief.

My bad. When I read Winterfell in his userinfo section on the left of the posts, I thought it's surely an existing city. Googled to it, and what I got: a bunch of matches about some fantasy world, where Winterfell is a place in Song Of Ice and Fire. So I thought: like Taluntain, LKD also specifies some fantasy world. Now I checked again with a better search term and I see that there is a Canadian development corporation called Winterfell; but I can't find (among the first matches) any city or town with that name. And yes, in the other topic (about Gypsies) he mentions he is Canadian, just for users who don't have avatars/portraits, my memory is a bit weaker so I somehow didn't connect the two posts via their author. Again, my bad.

As opposed to those who demanded 800 evidences from me in my Hungarian Media Law thread, I believe you, because you're credible in my eyes in this topic.

I understand, thanks for the clarification.

Here in Central Europe, when we hear Canada, everyone associates to a powerful social security system. So, as an amateur in this topic, I guess that -- consequently -- it's "harder" to become really poor in Canada than in the (stricter) USA? I heard, of course, that Obama has been making a stronger social security too (the basic medical treatment is free now, isn't it?), but USA has never been too strong in social security, as far as I know (what we usually say in Central Europe is that "in the USA, for free, they only won't let you die"; correct me if I'm wrongly informed anywhere).

 

Thank you. But you really can look it up; it was one of the results of the 2010 census. One of the major keys to preventing povery here is not the welfare system, but strengthing families. If more convervatives [and others] would promote family values, rather than political ideololgy, we could solve half of our problems overnight. Good luck, though.

 

I'm a big fan of family values -- boy meets girl, boy and girl fall in love, they get married, THEN they start having kids, they love and care for those kids, and work hard to support them, not sucking off the government teat. When trouble comes, they get help from family, friends, charities and if necessary the government. Then, when the trouble is over, they return to self sufficiency, teaching their children by example to be decent, hardworking people who take care of themselves rather than expecting other people to work their tails off and support people who choose to not contribute.

I'm sorry if I come across as callous. I am writing from a Canadian perspective, and here, it's easy and common to take the government for a ride. I just don't think that sort of freeloading is acceptable.

But I'm not really that out to lunch -- it is my understanding that many people in the US and Canada do lose their children if they are deemed "unfit parents". Certainly no one would want a child to have to stay in an unfit home, right? So what is so evil about telling parents (single or together) that if they fail to at least make an effort to work and be decent people, that they will lose their children and those children will be placed in a better environment? Isn't that better for the children?

And isn't it somewhat of a foregone conclusion in all locations of the political spectrum that poverty tends to breed crime? It's not a 1 to 1 correlation, but I believe the stats are there that support a relationship between the two.

EDIT: Baronius, sorry if my location threw you -- I was referring to the fictional location, a very cold, far North location, just as Canada is. I have no idea what real life Winterfell you found online. I'm from Alberta, Canada, the most redneck province in the Confederation, and the one that pays billions to support the other provinces while they denigrate us.

No, I don't have any chips on my shoulders AT ALL!

 

Ragusa's nightmare coming. And Aldeth please put on some foppish sunglasses to protect your eyes. (Does Orbán count as well, or just Orban? I do not know any Orban, he is Orbán, as Orb-aa-n.) But it's really relevant this time.

Viktor Orbán, Hungary's Prime Minister says the same very often, "strengthening families", exactly this. For example, now in Hungary you can get a big tax discount after every child you have. This motivates both working as well as the willingness to have children. Because if you have children, you pay much less tax. But of course, there are several other actions as well to support families.

And now that Hungary is going to have a new constitution (because the old one was a polished and changed version of an 1949 constitution), families and marriage will be mentioned in this new Constitution with a greater significance. For example, marriage will be defined as the "voluntary relationship between a man and a woman", (maybe in English it would sound better if I wrote: "between a male and a female", because this is the meaning; in Hungarian, we don't use the Hungarian version of male and female to name people; we use it only for animals). This implies something, but that should be in a different thread, I just couldn't resist mentioning it It's a controversial matter, by the way.

Note: I can imagine the thoughts of some American readers when they read my occassional posts about Orbán and Hungary. They probably think: "what is this Baronius talking here about a country negligible on the map and a person unimportant in world politics?". Actually, it has a point, but Americans should not forget that together we achieved many things (e.g. scientists born in Hungary, supported by the USA, won some Nobel prices... etc.) So even if Hungary is totally insignificant politically, it has a nice contribution in research and science, so it doesn't hurt if you can at least show it on the map

 

Too bad it's not the world of "Leave It To Beaver," LKD. But since it's not a perfect world, we have to work with what we have. Not everyone can be a Bristol Palin or Portman, so we should strengthen those families that are missing a parent as well. Family values means exaclty that; core values should be family centered. If the government can help, by all means that's great, but that won't fix the problem. But basic things such as food stamps, nutrition, healthcare, job training and education can help strengthen any family, even if we can't think of that as the silver bullet after a parent has skipped out, or passed away.

 

I guess I'm not so much opposed to giving a hand to those who need it as I am to the attitude that some of these people display.

"But I'm a single mother, so you OWE me some help!" is the attitude I have seen in the past. And when then come off like they are on par with a war veteran (to whom I feel I DO owe something, because they actually did something selfless for the good of the country) I want to say to them something like this:

"I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that that baby was conceived consensually, right? You knew the risks of having sex at an early age, but you ****ing well went ahead and did it anyway because you know so much better than everyone else, right? So now that you've had that baby, and you damn well knew when you had it that you wouldn't be able to get a job that would allow you to support it, but you kept it anyway instead of doing right by the child and giving it to a couple who could take care of it, now you come to me and act like it's my fault that you have made idiotic choices your whole life? The child deserves a lot better than you, no question, and yeah, I'll help your uneducated ass out a bit for the sake of that poor kid, but don't you ****ing dare act like it's my fault you are stupid, irresponsible, unemployable, and a deadbeat. That's 100% your fault, and you should be goddamn humble when you ask for the government to step in and clean up your mess."

Oh, and I'd cheerfully pay extra taxes for the purpose of tracking down the absentee father and crucifying his cowardly ass for running out. I'm no woman hater, despite what some say. I'm an irresponsible idiot hater.

It's one thing for a person to make a mistake, face up to it, and try to move on. I've made millions of mistakes in my life, some pretty damn stupid ones. But I've never gone out and acted like other people are the dumb ones and they owe me for my choices. It's that attitude that pisses me off, and don't try to tell me that the attitude I described doesn't exist.

And I'm not talking about Employment Insurance here -- as Drew and others have pointed out, when you are employed, you pay into it, making you a Contributor. Those who legitimately use it are A-OK in my book. It's the out and out welfare fraud that boils my blood, the people who act like they are entitled to sit around at home all day and seduce the canine while I am out here busting hump trying to scratch out enough money to pay for my daughter's school fees (that the Entitled get waived, of course, because . . .not because of something beyond their control, but because of their own crap decisions) and then the government comes and takes that money away so the Entitled can chill out for longer.

 

Like many things and especially on this topic, I knew it would come down to sex, and who was having sex with whom eventually. You guys never disappoint me in that regard. ...And it's always the woman who makes "stupid choices" [Mostly because she failed to take heed from the holy rollers].

Do right? Right? Hey, I got an idea for you. They could have repo men for kids. You know like how they come and take your car when you can no longer afford the payments? Yeah, I could take this sarcasm a bit further, with all this cash for kids bull, but I'll stop now, before I puke.

 

I'm here. I know you're probably half joking here, but... seriously? I don't know if you are aware, but using my keyboard I have no easy way of writing an á or any of these other symbols that do not occur in the English language. In order to write such characters, I either have to first write my post in word, using their Insert Symbol button, or look up the Alt+[number] code for each character as I type. That's a serious amount of effort to go to each time I want to type Orban. Just like I wouldn't expect you to easily be able to type こんにちは, there is no easy way for me to type Orbán.

Anyway, apologies. No more off topic for me.

 

Rotku, you're being obsessed with Orbàn again? Gee, it's an epidemic, I tell you!