One Third Of Canadians Favor CULLING The Homeless

[tabibito]

Interesting claim. Easy enough to verify. Just went on over to the good Ole advanced search function on the forum, typed in the word in question in keywords and MMs username in the user section and hit search.

And it appears you are fibbing to us: One single hit here in this post where the word appears in a quoted article and not used by MM himself:
https://theologyweb.com/campus/forum...e36#post690052

Ah - so that's what I've been doing wrong. Thankee.

[Sparko]

Yes. A good example of the "no free lunch" idea being wrong.

Natural resources of all kinds can just exist without anyone putting in effort or cost, and thus they are a 'free lunch'. Literally a lunch in the case of edible vegetation like apple trees, mushrooms etc.

sure, but not when it comes to government paying for stuff, their budget for paying for things comes from taxes, which means people are paying for the free stuff. Any government that just starts printing more money to pay for stuff ends up bankrupt. Remember the picture I posted of a guy with a wheelbarrow full of money trying to buy a loaf of bread? Printing too much money just ends up causing hyerinflation. It water downs the value of the currency. If everyone has a million dollars, then a million dollars becomes essentially worthless and they are still poor.

wheelbarrow.jpg

[rogue06]

Ah - so that's what I've been doing wrong. Thankee.

You think THAT'S what you've been doing wrong?

[Sparko]

Maybe liberal cities are more desirable for people to move to, which drives up house prices?

I seem to get told that nearly all US cities are liberal. Are you comparing like with like here when you say they have higher housing costs, or just thinking offhand of a few famous large liberal cities?

It's true that many larger cities are liberal, but that too is relative. A liberal city in California, a liberal state, is a lot more left than say Indianapolis in Indiana, a traditionally conservative state with a conservative government. In California, all of the liberalism form the government on down, tends to work synergistically to create an uber liberal city like LA or San Francisco.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley add to the problem, because it creates an ultra rich class of people in those locations, which causes property values to shoot up. Meaning ordinary people can no longer afford a home. But since Liberals are always going on about the 1 percenters, eat the rich, and income disparity, it is kind of strange that in California, Liberal Land itself, that such income disparity still exists. If liberals really wanted income equity like they pay lip service too, there is nothing stopping them from doing it in California. Why not tax the millionaires and billionaires in silicon valley and hollywood and solve homelessness and poverty? Why not use their money to buy up huge tracts of land or houses and sell them at reasonable prices to poor and middle income people?

I think it is because the liberals in charge WANT to keep income disparity and class division so they have a carrot to dangle to the poor people so they can keep their vote. They promise to fix things, some day, but right now it is somehow the fault of the conservative white supremacists who are holding them back.

[Sparko]

Except it cost the bear that was going into hibernation the last few ounces of fat he needed to get through the winter and he didn't make it. That poor bear was the cost for your "free" lunch. You big meanie.

That's not a cost to the bear since he didn't plant the tree. He just missed out on his own free lunch. I am sure there were picnic baskets nearby and Yogi survived the winter. Or maybe he just ate Boo-Boo.

[Mountain Man]

It's true that many larger cities are liberal, but that too is relative. A liberal city in California, a liberal state, is a lot more left than say Indianapolis in Indiana, a traditionally conservative state with a conservative government. In California, all of the liberalism form the government on down, tends to work synergistically to create an uber liberal city like LA or San Francisco.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley add to the problem, because it creates an ultra rich class of people in those locations, which causes property values to shoot up. Meaning ordinary people can no longer afford a home. But since Liberals are always going on about the 1 percenters, eat the rich, and income disparity, it is kind of strange that in California, Liberal Land itself, that such income disparity still exists. If liberals really wanted income equity like they pay lip service too, there is nothing stopping them from doing it in California. Why not tax the millionaires and billionaires in silicon valley and hollywood and solve homelessness and poverty? Why not use their money to buy up huge tracts of land or houses and sell them at reasonable prices to poor and middle income people?

I think it is because the liberals in charge WANT to keep income disparity and class division so they have a carrot to dangle to the poor people so they can keep their vote. They promise to fix things, some day, but right now it is somehow the fault of the conservative white supremacists who are holding them back.

There's also the problem that taxing the rich never works, because one of the benefits of being rich is mobility, and whenever a government has tried to raise taxes on the wealthy to punitive levels, the wealthy simply figure out ways to put their money out of reach of the government, either by moving to a different location, or moving their money to somewhere the government can't touch it. For instance, when the state of New York tried to fill a hole in its budget by raising taxes on millionaires, the millionaires simply left the state, and the following year, the hole in New York's budget was even bigger. Or there's the infamous example of the luxury yacht industry. When the government tried to raise taxes on luxury yachts built in the US, rich people simply ordered their yachts from other countries, and the US luxury yacht industry collapsed due to a sudden lack of customers.

[Sparko]

There's also the problem that taxing the rich never works, because one of the benefits of being rich is mobility, and whenever a government has tried to raise taxes on the wealthy to punitive levels, the wealthy simply figure out ways to put their money out of reach of the government, either by moving to a different location, or moving their money to somewhere the government can't touch it. For instance, when the state of New York tried to fill a hole in its budget by raising taxes on millionaires, the millionaires simply left the state, and the following year, the hole in New York's budget was even bigger. Or there's the infamous example of the luxury yacht industry. When the government tried to raise taxes on luxury yachts built in the US, rich people simply ordered their yachts from other countries, and the US luxury yacht industry collapsed due to a sudden lack of customers.

And that would expose the rich liberals in Hollywood and Silicon Valley for the hypocrites they are. if they truly believed the dreck that they spew, they would gladly offer up their wealth to help the poor in their state and not run away.

[rogue06]

It's true that many larger cities are liberal, but that too is relative. A liberal city in California, a liberal state, is a lot more left than say Indianapolis in Indiana, a traditionally conservative state with a conservative government. In California, all of the liberalism form the government on down, tends to work synergistically to create an uber liberal city like LA or San Francisco.

Hollywood and Silicon Valley add to the problem, because it creates an ultra rich class of people in those locations, which causes property values to shoot up. Meaning ordinary people can no longer afford a home. But since Liberals are always going on about the 1 percenters, eat the rich, and income disparity, it is kind of strange that in California, Liberal Land itself, that such income disparity still exists. If liberals really wanted income equity like they pay lip service too, there is nothing stopping them from doing it in California. Why not tax the millionaires and billionaires in silicon valley and hollywood and solve homelessness and poverty? Why not use their money to buy up huge tracts of land or houses and sell them at reasonable prices to poor and middle income people?

I think it is because the liberals in charge WANT to keep income disparity and class division so they have a carrot to dangle to the poor people so they can keep their vote. They promise to fix things, some day, but right now it is somehow the fault of the conservative white supremacists who are holding them back.

Of all of the celebutards in Hollyweird claiming to support the "less fortunate" has even one ever offered to share a portion of a multi-million dollar movie deal with unemployed actors?

No. Like typical leftists they prefer to share other people's money while keeping a tight hold of their own.