At what point does right wing just mean racist/d1ck/heartless baxtard?

KomradeBishop

The problem with the right-wing idea of promoting 'personal responsibility' among the unemployed holding people personally responsible for their unemployment, is that in times of persistent high unemployment, that's just not something that is caused by those individual people.

After centuries of economic crisis, it is pretty much proven through experience, that the private sector can not restore Full Employment quick enough, after a big enough economic crisis - much of the EU will mark a decade away from Full Employment in the coming years.

The primary possible way for restoring Full Employment fast enough, is through government spending - and this is proven through past historical experience (particularly the 1930's).


All of the moral arguments and focus on individual 'responsibility' (i.e. blame shifting) among right-wing views, are just a smokescreen for the true self-interested aims at the heart of it all:
Economic crises and high unemployment, are fantastic conditions, for 'squeezing' the economic pie - and for massively accelerating income/wealth inequality.

We have directly seen this 'squeeze' happening over the last decade - it's pretty much a form of class-warfare (except not delineated across clear class lines as such, it's more the people/industries who stand to gain, vs everyone else) - and it's not going to stop anytime soon.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jayop

Again why does anyone have to be to blame?

Wanderer78

im convinced now after reading this thread that people that have kids but cannot afford to keep them should all just starve to death. thanks boards:rolleyes:

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Wanderer78

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

maybe reducing their national debts would be a better approach!

Jayop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ah will you stahp here.

Giving access to birth control and abortion isn't the same as saying they're not entitled to have a child. That poster literally said that woman wasn't entitled to have one child.

Mao Zedong didn't even go that far.

IvyTheTerrible

PB, seeing as no contraception is 100% effective and abortion isn't available in Ireland (and it costs about 500 euro for an abortion in the Uk), accidental pregnancies are inevitable. So should people be abstinent or what?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Renegade Mechanic

Jayop wrote: »

??

But she is able to feed shelter and raise as far as we know.

Should all those in the third world stop having kids because they live in extreme poverty?

Anyway, who are you or anyone else to say that that someone isn't entitled to have a child? Honestly I'm flabbergasted at the entitlement of some of you to think you can dictate and talk down to those less fortunate than you.

Should she just go through life slogging away with no children and die alone so as not to have to claim a little benefit for 3 or 4 years?

You realise what contraception had done for poverty in 3rd world countries, yes?

Less fortunate? As it stands right now, I know I won't be able to provide for a kid. As a result, I refuse point blank to have one. It's the kid I'm thinking about, not me. I'm not ideally placed on other fronts either. So I get on with it until I am.

People want nice things, they don't always get them. I'm referring to someone who had a child because they want one, without being sure they're in the right position to do so. To many children are being dragged up now, and it's going to be a serious problem.

Mabye, instead of battling over a woman's right to unplanned pregnancy, we should start turning on the reasons for so many people being ill placed to raise a healthy family.
Exorbitant taxes, inflation, cost of living, stagnation of wages. Too few jobs for too many people.

KomradeBishop

K-9 wrote: »

This country spends a huge amount on SW, though I expect it has gone down recently with more employment. But you see people denying there is any recovery when Unemployment is about half of what it was at the height of the crash, go figure that one.

Ya but ask yourself this K-9, why do you never see anybody acknowledging deflation - and the looming problem it represents for this 'recovery'?

I don't think people understand what deflation means for the entire EU - or how it will destroy any 'recovery' once settled-in - nor how the EU is all out of ammo, for fighting it.

captbarnacles

Unpalatable fact: Abortion appears to lower crime rates.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sand

Jayop wrote: »

Should all those in the third world stop having kids because they live in extreme poverty?

Well, I don't believe having kids in the third world is a matter of deliberate choice. Family planning for cultural and economic reasons is not exactly very strong so a woman doesn't really get much choice about getting pregnant in the third world. The extreme poverty incentivises having children, because its a pension scheme.

That said, they are not asking me to pay for them - so...not my concern.

Anyway, who are you or anyone else to say that that someone isn't entitled to have a child? Honestly I'm flabbergasted at the entitlement of some of you to think you can dictate and talk down to those less fortunate than you.

Should she just go through life slogging away with no children and die alone so as not to have to claim a little benefit for 3 or 4 years?

The laughable sense of entitlement is the belief that I or anyone else is *obliged* to pay to fufill her life dream of fielding a 5-aside team at the school sportsday.

I actually dont object to the concept of supporting children and their education. It takes a village, and as in the third world, the welfare state model is a ponzi scheme. New people have to keep paying in or the whole scam will collapse. Falling birth rates and increasing entitlements attack the survival of the scam from both sides. Funding kids, funding their education and so on is an investment in the future when I will be old and decrepit and relying on future generations to keep things running.

However, the idea that getting paid to have children is some sort of sustainable public service is corrosive - it will generate an underclass (if it hasn't already) who will not keep things running. A poor investment.

KomradeBishop

Geuze wrote: »

I agree with much that you say.

I wish to abolish JSA and OPF.

But I want to move the people on JSA and OPF into paid employment.

They would be earning more than when the receive JSA and OPF.

They would be better off, and their children would be better off.

Am I heartless??

See this is pretty much exactly what I advocate - it's the Job Guarantee policy, effectively? (Joan Burton specifically advocates that too) - and your post was thanked by a very right-wing poster (and I take it you view yourself as to the right as well), but when I bring up the exact same thing, it's lambasted as a far-left policy, and it's not long before the "Communist!" label is thrown at me.

Jayop

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

You realise what contraception had done for poverty in 3rd world countries, yes?

Less fortunate? As it stands right now, I know I won't be able to provide for a kid. As a result, I refuse point blank to have one. It's the kid I'm thinking about, not me. I'm not ideally placed on other fronts either. So I get on with it until I am.

People want nice things, they don't always get them. I'm referring to someone who had a child because they want one, without being sure they're in the right position to do so. To many children are being dragged up now, and it's going to be a serious problem.

Mabye, instead of battling over a woman's right to unplanned pregnancy, we should start turning on the reasons for so many people being ill placed to raise a healthy family.
Exorbitant taxes, inflation, cost of living, stagnation of wages. Too few jobs for too many people.

Like I already said but you conveniently ignored, there's a long long gap between giving access to birth control and stripping the right to have a child.

Why are so many people I'll placed to have kids in the West in 2016?

Id start with corporate greed and work from there. When so few have so much and so many have so little it's not all down to laziness.

Two Tone

I would not condemn a woman having one or two children and availing of welfare until she can work (and it may only be part-time because of the cost of childcare) - such a woman is not comparable to those women who have several children with insufficient financial supports. The children do deserve to be supported though (not their fault they were born) and this is taken the piss out of by some. I do not believe for a second that someone has five or six children without sufficient financial support just by accident.
In any type of single mother scenario though, there is usually very little reference to the father(s).
"She should keep her legs closed"... Yeah, or he should put a hat on it.

Jayop

Two Tone wrote: »

I would not condemn a woman having one or two children and availing of welfare until she can work (and it may only be part-time because of the cost of childcare) - such a woman is not comparable to those women who have several children with insufficient financial supports. The children do deserve to be supported though (not their fault they were born) and this is taken the piss out of by some. I do not believe for a second that someone has five or six children without sufficient financial support just by accident.
In any type of single mother scenario though, there is usually very little reference to the father(s).
"She should keep her legs closed"... Yeah, or he should put a hat on it.

This is what sand can't seem to differentiate between this woman worked, had one child and will presumably go back to work when the child starts in their free pre school place aged 3. She's not "looking to start a five a side team" or whatever other derogatory term sand can throw at her.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

K-9

Renegade Mechanic wrote: »

You should not be entitled to have a child you cannot care for. If you can't provide a safe, reasonably sheltered, properly fed upbringing, why should you be "entitled" to bring a child into that?

If something happens to change circumstances after childbirth, then help should be at hand. But not before.

So what? Abortions for all, forced adoptions, care?

See that's kneejerk stupid right wing finger pointing, with zero help or solutions.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Jayop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Who said it is? I I'm looking at the description on walfare.ie and it says nothing about it being a safety net.

Again you mentioned lifestyle choices as if having a child is like choosing a haircut. It's absolutely unreal to see this attitude so brazen about someone who has worked all their life to have to claim benefits for a few years to raise a child through infancy before going back to work for the rest of their life.

Sand

Jayop wrote: »

This is what sand can't seem to differentiate between this woman worked, had one child and will presumably go back to work when the child starts in their free pre school place aged 3. She's not "looking to start a five a side team" or whatever other derogatory term sand can throw at her.

Oh I can differentiate. I differentiate between supporting the education of the next generation, and your own view that everyone is obliged to pay for any woman who wants to have any amount of children so 'she doesn't die alone'.

Billy86

Having people on the right is good. Having people on the left is good. Having (a small number) of people on the far right is good. And having (a small number) of people on the far left is good. It opens a lot of conversation and allows each side to point out the weaknesses of the others' plans that they might have overlooked, and whichever is deemed to be the best (or to look at it another way, least worst) proposal or set of proposals gets put forward.

The problem we are seeing a lot of though, is not really related to someone's viewpoint but how they are arguing it - that's usually where you can tell. Hypocrisies and double think pop up everywhere, contradictions are made no end, anything that doesn't suit what they want it to be is discarded (I literally had a person trying to tell me when Trump said he wanted a "complete and utter shutdown on Muslims entering" that it actually wasn't referring to Muslims), and so on.

That's when you can tell that you're talking with someone who views politics as children view sports, where their 'team' is infallible no matter what, and every other team is wrong about everything no matter what (even if 'their team' and the 'other teams' are in complete agreement). That's usually when you can tell there is an agenda behind what they are posting, and then it becomes a matter of reading in between the lines and getting to the bottom of it.

Just looking at a lot, I would even say the majority, of Trump fans on Boards for example, they will almost never tell you exactly why they support Trump in terms of what policies, proposals, etc of his they support and the details of them. You'll just see vague comments like "border control" and "telling it like it is". Pretty much without fail all you need to do is click on these posters' previous entries, and you're good as guaranteed to just see a boatload of Islamophobic posts, and decent chance of a general fear of foreigners (particularly the non white variety), full stop.

Basically there is a lot to do with what they are not saying (e.g. not knowing any of Trumps platforms beyond hating Muslims and foreigners) as well as of course what they are saying.

Jayop

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm talking specifically about this woman and you know that. It's not the first time you've struggled to grasp the difference between generalisation and specific examples in this thread though.

14 imo is too old if we're talking in general terms. It's a fairly strange arbitrary age anyway. Either have it till they finish secondary education or primary education for the youngest child.

Sand

Jayop wrote: »

Again you mentioned lifestyle choices as if having a child is like choosing a haircut.

You expressed child rearing as a lifestyle choice.

Jayop

Sand wrote: »

Oh I can differentiate. I differentiate between supporting the education of the next generation, and your own view that everyone is obliged to pay for any woman who wants to have any amount of children so 'she doesn't die alone'.

Amazing declaration considering I've said exactly the opposite of that. I don't think people should have a load of children on benefits. I am though able to see the difference between a woman who was work in and had one child and someone who hasn't seen a job in 3 generations and has 6 kids.

Maybe wise up and read up before you presume to know what someone is thinking.

Sand

Jayop wrote: »

Amazing declaration considering I've said exactly the opposite of that. I don't think people should have a load of children on benefits. I am though able to see the difference between a woman who was work in and had one child and someone who hasn't seen a job in 3 generations and has 6 kids.

Maybe wise up and read up before you presume to know what someone is thinking.

But I have read your posts. You've attacked posters for daring to challenge your own view that everyone (even people in the third world) is entitled to have children regardless of their own circumstances, that women cant be expected to slog through life and die childless and if we all have to chip in and pay for it as gentlemen, so be it.

I mean, its charmingly sexist and entitled, but you're claiming you are for responsible family planning in line with financial capability, whilst launching into hysterical attacks on anyone who says people should plan their families in line with their financial capability. You can go with one view or the other, but not both without some cognitive dissonance.