Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1487736)	9/19/2024 9:20:10 PM
From: Qone0	Respond to of 1571179

The mentality goes like this, "Well of course I care about the poor! That's why I vote Democrat!" Never heard that one before. Welfare is administrated at the state level, so that would only apply at the state level. Not the federal level. I live in Utah, one of the most red states. The poor are generally taken care of here. People on welfare here live at a subsistence level, but they don't starve.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1487736)	9/19/2024 10:30:01 PM
From: Doren	1 Recommendation Recommended By Eric Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571179

> Wealth distribution The reality is the rich get most of it. For example in CA farmers were getting water at 10% of what ordinary people pay. This led to farmers using more water than they needed, who wouldn't err on the side of too much? This caused the environmental disaster at Kesterson. I believe farmers are now paying more & hence conserving water using tech like drip irrigation in CA. (In Arizona right now Saudi corporations are draining the underground water tables to water vast farms having depleted their own.) I worked once on the nice home of a rancher living quite well collecting taxpayer money to not produce milk. I could find many many distributions to the wealthy... the totals DWARF aid to poor people. When Walmart builds new stores on cheap land the taxpayers pick up costs to build roads to them. Sports stadiums routinely are subsidized. Olympic facilities generally lose money for cities. One such egregious taxpayer funded welfare was NASA's $400,000,000 mission to repair an ITT satellite. Libertarians you might note are against subsidies to corporations preferring the free market. Despite the facts some constantly complain the poor get too much. -------- What I do hate about some Libertarians, Democrats & of course Republicans are extremists who see the world in black & white... the world isn't as simple as their brains.

To: Tenchusatsu who wrote (1487736)	9/20/2024 12:09:57 AM
From: Maple MAGA	3 Recommendations Recommended By FJB longz Mick Mørmøny Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571179

"Whoever thinks that is NOT being charitable. Instead, that person is fulfilling Ayn Rand's definition of an altruist." Did someone mention Ayn Rand? As she wrote, “The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.” Consider the implications of that approach. If a man accepts the ethics of altruism, he suffers the following consequences (in proportion to the degree of his acceptance): Lack of self-esteem—since his first concern in the realm of values is not how to live his life, but how to sacrifice it. Lack of respect for others—since he regards mankind as a herd of doomed beggars crying for someone’s help. A nightmare view of existence—since he believes that men are trapped in a “malevolent universe” where disasters are the constant and primary concern of their lives. And, in fact, a lethargic indifference to ethics, a hopelessly cynical amorality—since his questions involve situations which he is not likely ever to encounter, which bear no relation to the actual problems of his own life and thus leave him to live without any moral principles whatever. Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” AYN RAND