I don’t believe this to be true. The plan accommodated a lust for revenge, involving the death of innocents. Denied their blood, the constituency would otherwise know betrayal.
Please to provide examples?
Because it might win the loyalty of a good chunk of the electorate towards the party responsible for passing it.
Malice has a twin named “Callous Disregard” (aka “Depraved Indifference”). You don’t see that in this case?
What is that quote? For evil to be done all that is essential is for good men to stand and do nothing? Something like that. So, I don’t think evil needs even depraved indifference, just inertia and ennui.
I do find it odd that conservatives complain about social programs, but seem to use them an awful lot. I know a very right wing guy who considers social security to be socialism, but you’ll pry his check from his cold, dead hands. Why do they hate the very things that benefit them? 
(I realize not all conservatives are like this, but I am asking).
His young daughter got pregnant; he wanted her to get an abortion, she didn’t. Instead of coming to terms with the father of the baby and the father’s parents (who refuse to support said baby), he has said to me that he is going to let the state go after said father. I truly don’t get this. And yet he is rabid about his property taxes; livid about his FICA etc. Bitter any limitation put on his gun access etc. Baffling.
This should become known as “The Bricker Fallacy”. Anyway, whatever one calls it, you just made it.
Its a fine point, to be sure, and not one I’d invest a lot into. By my lights, malice is an essential component of evil. That judgement is not result-based, very well-intentioned people can produce hideous results.
But just as you suggest, callous indifference and/or arrogant stupidity are the greatest engines of malign consequence in our world. To me, evil requires specific mallicious intent, but I grant you that this is a pedantic, even trivial, distinction.
ER:
“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.”
- Edmund Burke
Thanks.
As a rule, I try not to waste my time, but I’d like to make an exception here. Dude, you need help. Seriously. And I’m not talking an hour every other week with your local shrink. You need Vienna-level help. You need to pack some steamer trunks and just move yourself over there and into some Institute for Something or Other and make yourself comfortable. Maybe they can help. Maybe you’re just an imbecile too angry for help to penetrate. You might want to give it a shot, though. nothing to lose really. Other than delusions and insane world view.
Might want to consider a “buddy deal”, you know, a “twofer” discount. Just sayin’, is all.
This is most likely because after having been forced to pay into it all his working life, he is determined to get as much of that back as possible.
Many conservatives use social programs they object to because they’ve because they’ve been forced to pay taxes to support them. However, if they had had the opportunity to vote to keep them from being created in the first place they most likely would have.
Well, that’s all right then, so long as their sternly self-sufficient values haven’t been corrupted by the liberal nanny state.
Right after you get that help for has-been comics who never were.
Amazingly enough, this is not true. States that benefit the most from the federal purse are the least likely to vote for such programs.
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html
There are a lot of red states on the top of the list who paid nothing for the benefits they receive. Yet somehow, this does not stop them from helping themselves to the wealth generated by blue states. Imagine that.
I think this is especially true about Social Security, which is a program that’s meant for everyone who pays in, not only for the needy. I remember a local talk radio personality who referred to older people as “selfish seniors” in regards to their attitudes towards their social security checks. She was offended because these folks had other income (from their own investments or pensions), and still want their SS checks. I can see their POV, though. This was positioned to them their whole lives as a program they would pay into, and then it would pay back to them upon retirement. If it was meant to be something else, they should have been told that. And a lot of them resented having to pay into it anyway, because they WERE investing their own money, and would have had more to invest if it weren’t for that system. So, I can’t blame anyone for having that attitude towards SS, especially in that generation.
On the other hand, I’m going on the assumption that I won’t be getting any SS back, and consider it a donation to the older people who need it right now.
A reasonable justification, to be sure.
Wasn’t Reagan a conservative - perhaps the archetypal modern conservative? If so, your characterization doesn’t fit his 1983 increase of payroll taxes for the Social Security program. An increase, by the way, that led to the Social Security surplus that another conservative, George W. Bush, tried to imply was imaginary.
I’ve asked you this before, but I want to take another crack at it:
Most posters here strongly disagree with a libertarian approach, but they all argue that libertarians are simply mistaken, even foolish – except for you, who says that libertarians are sociopaths who just want to get government out of the way so that they can take advantage of other people. Most posters here strongly disagree with the war in Iraq, and many even think there’s an ethical obstacle to joining the U.S. military in the context of that war – but you’re the only one (or nearly the only one) who says that all American servicemen are murderers. Most posters in this forum, probably, are atheists, and many of them like to criticize religion in general, and Christianity in particular – but you’re one of a small, vocal handful which maintains that Christianity (and, in fact, Christians) are just plain evil. That’s all that comes to mind right now, but I don’t doubt that a cursory search would turn up additional topics in which you’re right and the other side is malicious.
And now, in a completely unsurprising development, Republicans are cartoonish, mustache-twirling villains who like to gloat over the suffering of others.
So I’m really curious: why is it that, on so many issues, those who disagree with you are evil, instead of merely mistaken? Why is it that other people’s errors are driven by spite or greed, while yours are in good faith?
If you are truly typing that with a straight face, and this is not hyperbole (and considering your posting history, I would be surprised if it WERE), you need some serious help.
If you ARE, serious, then shut the fuck up. STOP MAKING THE REST OF US LOOK BAD, YOU FUCKING CRETIN!!! You’re basically the Ann Coulter of the left.
I’m really starting to suspect that you’re a right-winger trying to make the left look bad. Because you are truly the exact picture that every asshole on Fox News paints of your typical liberal.
Federal Dollars Received
State Per Dollar of Taxes Paid Rank
**Alaska $1.84 3**
New York $0.79 42
Illinois $0.75 45