K Hates The Daily Campus, part 6
OH BOY OH BOY
I was having such a rotten day, but it was starting to look much better after blasting Nightwish music for several hours. Eventually I had to go back out into the rain to get dinner, but I also picked up a newspaper and was pleasantly surprised to see that our good friend Nicolas Tomboulides is still writing incredibly stupid and offensive articles which I can gleefully tear to shreds.
The article in question can be found here: http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/government-dependency-does-not-work-1.2575196
He starts off with a few truisms to get people situated into agreeing with him, which strikes me as dishonest. But then he quickly shifts gears to label people who rely on others as "takers". It's nothing more than a velvet-gloved version of Rapture's "parasite" label. He further simplifies and demonizes dependents by stating that once they begin to rely on others, they immediately take it for granted. Remember that last bit, I'll be returning to it later.
He then shares with us an anecdote:
"I'll never forget my late grandfather, an animal lover who once believed he was showing compassion for raccoons by feeding them whenever they appeared on his doorstep. The opposite wound up being true. His charity only turned what were perfectly normal animals into fat, lazy slobs who could no longer hunt for themselves."
The anecdote makes for a pretty good metaphor for the whole article. Nic just doesn't understand reality. Raccoons aren't predators, they're scavengers. Living off of what others leave behind is what they always do. And you can bet that the raccoons didn't allow themselves to become fat and/or lazy either: While they are not predators themselves, they are prey, and have to watch out for their predators.
"Dependency is a natural sanctuary for human self-interest; it begets not self-reliance but only more of itself."
Spoken like a true rich boy. Everything Nic has ever gotten without effort, he has taken for granted. And I'm sure he's trying to depend on not being taxed in the future, otherwise he wouldn't try to write such trash as this.
But for some people, handouts aren't something one can just take for granted. There are those who live with a guillotine over their heads, knowing that their one lifeline can cut off support at any time for any reason. I've had friends in that situation. To a certain extent, I myself am in that situation right now, and I can't take what I get for granted, unlike Nic.
"They have fashioned a state in which takers can harness the power of coercion to force the makers to keep providing them with sustenance. Takers, emboldened by majority opinion, can threaten to send makers to prison for making choices of austerity.
Excuse me? Just what the hell is this guy going on about? When has someone on welfare ever sent a billionaire to prison for not donating money to their food bill?
"45.8 million Americans are now using federal food stamps-an all-time record.
That's an interesting statistic. You know what would make it even more interesting? CONTEXT.
45.8 million people is about 15% of the total US population. Now, the bottom 50% of Americans in terms of net worth--that is, the bottom 15% and another 35% on top of that--control 2.5% of the nation's wealth. With all that in mind, it should be no surprise that 15% of the nation relies on food stamps.
"Even those of us who would choose not to receive free stuff from the government are prohibited by law from choosing lives free of dependency. Per the Social Security Act and its subsequent amendments, we cannot opt out of the provisions for either transfer payments or health insurance in old age."
I have several problems with this excerpt.
First, it seems like Nic wants to give up his SS benefits, just so that he can say he's lived a life without depending on anyone else. I'm guessing he's saying that because he's still a college student, and like most rich white young people, he believes himself immortal. For Nic, neither death nor injury nor financial ruin will ever come. He's taken his well-being entirely for granted. Since he can't ever see himself becoming old or otherwise unable to work, he doesn't see SS as a necessity.
Of course, even without SS, he's lived a life of reliance up to now. His rich boy mentality isn't from the riches he's made by the sweat of his own brow, no: It is a mentality funded entirely by his rich parents. Can he really say being a dependent is so bad when that's exactly what he is himself?
"Social Security remains popular. Candidates who threaten cuts to the program, like Gov. Rick Perry, are immediately forced to walk back their comments for fear of political self-destruction."
BAD EXAMPLE, BUD. Rick Perry isn't scorned just for his plans to cut SS. He's a complete monster through and through. I could write a whole article just about that--and I think I just might. Man, I'm getting two whole articles out of this! Thanks, Nic!
"No problem, assuming that the makers in our society remain as industrious as they are today. But what if, as Arthur Laffer has theorized, excessive taking in the form of confiscatory taxes nixes the incentive for makers to work hard?"
Not a problem: The top earners don't work hard anyways. They just sit around on their asses and watch the money roll in. Apart from a few entrepreneurs, their fortunes were assured before they were even born, and even those entrepreneurs have already done all the work they needed to in order to ensure lasting success.
"When makers earn power and attempt to kill the disease of dependency..."
Holy BALLS this guy has gone off the deep end with demonizing the lower class.
"Dependency creates not merely a war between makers and takers..."
Well he's right, but not for the reasons he thinks. Like I said before, when people depend on the independent, the dependent live with an axe over their heads, and the independent (having not known the strife of poor finances) just love to brandish that axe while cackling maniacally. There's class warfare alright, but don't try to pretend that the lower class is winning--if they were, they wouldn't be lower class.
I was having such a rotten day, but it was starting to look much better after blasting Nightwish music for several hours. Eventually I had to go back out into the rain to get dinner, but I also picked up a newspaper and was pleasantly surprised to see that our good friend Nicolas Tomboulides is still writing incredibly stupid and offensive articles which I can gleefully tear to shreds.
The article in question can be found here: http://www.dailycampus.com/commentary/government-dependency-does-not-work-1.2575196
He starts off with a few truisms to get people situated into agreeing with him, which strikes me as dishonest. But then he quickly shifts gears to label people who rely on others as "takers". It's nothing more than a velvet-gloved version of Rapture's "parasite" label. He further simplifies and demonizes dependents by stating that once they begin to rely on others, they immediately take it for granted. Remember that last bit, I'll be returning to it later.
He then shares with us an anecdote:
"I'll never forget my late grandfather, an animal lover who once believed he was showing compassion for raccoons by feeding them whenever they appeared on his doorstep. The opposite wound up being true. His charity only turned what were perfectly normal animals into fat, lazy slobs who could no longer hunt for themselves."
The anecdote makes for a pretty good metaphor for the whole article. Nic just doesn't understand reality. Raccoons aren't predators, they're scavengers. Living off of what others leave behind is what they always do. And you can bet that the raccoons didn't allow themselves to become fat and/or lazy either: While they are not predators themselves, they are prey, and have to watch out for their predators.
"Dependency is a natural sanctuary for human self-interest; it begets not self-reliance but only more of itself."
Spoken like a true rich boy. Everything Nic has ever gotten without effort, he has taken for granted. And I'm sure he's trying to depend on not being taxed in the future, otherwise he wouldn't try to write such trash as this.
But for some people, handouts aren't something one can just take for granted. There are those who live with a guillotine over their heads, knowing that their one lifeline can cut off support at any time for any reason. I've had friends in that situation. To a certain extent, I myself am in that situation right now, and I can't take what I get for granted, unlike Nic.
"They have fashioned a state in which takers can harness the power of coercion to force the makers to keep providing them with sustenance. Takers, emboldened by majority opinion, can threaten to send makers to prison for making choices of austerity.
Excuse me? Just what the hell is this guy going on about? When has someone on welfare ever sent a billionaire to prison for not donating money to their food bill?
"45.8 million Americans are now using federal food stamps-an all-time record.
That's an interesting statistic. You know what would make it even more interesting? CONTEXT.
45.8 million people is about 15% of the total US population. Now, the bottom 50% of Americans in terms of net worth--that is, the bottom 15% and another 35% on top of that--control 2.5% of the nation's wealth. With all that in mind, it should be no surprise that 15% of the nation relies on food stamps.
"Even those of us who would choose not to receive free stuff from the government are prohibited by law from choosing lives free of dependency. Per the Social Security Act and its subsequent amendments, we cannot opt out of the provisions for either transfer payments or health insurance in old age."
I have several problems with this excerpt.
First, it seems like Nic wants to give up his SS benefits, just so that he can say he's lived a life without depending on anyone else. I'm guessing he's saying that because he's still a college student, and like most rich white young people, he believes himself immortal. For Nic, neither death nor injury nor financial ruin will ever come. He's taken his well-being entirely for granted. Since he can't ever see himself becoming old or otherwise unable to work, he doesn't see SS as a necessity.
Of course, even without SS, he's lived a life of reliance up to now. His rich boy mentality isn't from the riches he's made by the sweat of his own brow, no: It is a mentality funded entirely by his rich parents. Can he really say being a dependent is so bad when that's exactly what he is himself?
"Social Security remains popular. Candidates who threaten cuts to the program, like Gov. Rick Perry, are immediately forced to walk back their comments for fear of political self-destruction."
BAD EXAMPLE, BUD. Rick Perry isn't scorned just for his plans to cut SS. He's a complete monster through and through. I could write a whole article just about that--and I think I just might. Man, I'm getting two whole articles out of this! Thanks, Nic!
"No problem, assuming that the makers in our society remain as industrious as they are today. But what if, as Arthur Laffer has theorized, excessive taking in the form of confiscatory taxes nixes the incentive for makers to work hard?"
Not a problem: The top earners don't work hard anyways. They just sit around on their asses and watch the money roll in. Apart from a few entrepreneurs, their fortunes were assured before they were even born, and even those entrepreneurs have already done all the work they needed to in order to ensure lasting success.
"When makers earn power and attempt to kill the disease of dependency..."
Holy BALLS this guy has gone off the deep end with demonizing the lower class.
"Dependency creates not merely a war between makers and takers..."
Well he's right, but not for the reasons he thinks. Like I said before, when people depend on the independent, the dependent live with an axe over their heads, and the independent (having not known the strife of poor finances) just love to brandish that axe while cackling maniacally. There's class warfare alright, but don't try to pretend that the lower class is winning--if they were, they wouldn't be lower class.