Fordsflylow
Active Member
- Jul 3, 2012
- 625
- 55
- 28
Retired? Wow, must be nice. Neither of my in-law's can afford to retire. Must have been lucrative. I work.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Retired? Wow, must be nice. Neither of my in-law's can afford to retire. Must have been lucrative. I work.
Which is exactly why I no longer work for pos like you and never will again. I have my own biz now and don't subscribe to any of the nonsense spewed here by you and your ilk bamy boy.
How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?
Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?
Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!
How about those koch punks. Did they work harder and smarter OR did they have everything handed to them on a silver platter?
Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?
Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!
It's a non issue. Totally. Completely. The gov't might as well try to make everyone equally good at playing the piano. Inequality comes about because some people are smarter and work harder than other people. Period.
This is unlike some countries where inequality stems from crony capitalism and family ties.
North Korea probably has the most income equality out there--everyone is miserable and dirt poor.
Someone had to buy the silver platter. Are you one of those who think when you die, the government should get all of your assets?
Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!
I supported a guy and his family for 6 months. This guy is 31 and has 4 kids by 4 different women and thinks he knows more about everything than anyone. I felt sorry for his wife and her 2 kids and their new baby. Even lent him a couple grand to hire a lawyer to represent him in yet another paternity suit. The deal was he would pay me $50/week as soon as he got a job. I got exactly 1 payment before he quit his job and he's sat on his ass and let his wife support him in the 9 months since.
He also thinks obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SOB has cost me 25 grand in the last year but is pissed that I ask for a payment from time to time. He will never see another dime from me, but I'm not quite done helping people.
Not all but much of. They didn't scam...er...earn it! Name me all those rich kids who grew to be adults and did well for others with the money they've been handed? You know, to use as a healthy example of how it is good they get to keep the riches dada or mama made. Please do!
I supported a guy and his family for 6 months. This guy is 31 and has 4 kids by 4 different women and thinks he knows more about everything than anyone. I felt sorry for his wife and her 2 kids and their new baby. Even lent him a couple grand to hire a lawyer to represent him in yet another paternity suit. The deal was he would pay me $50/week as soon as he got a job. I got exactly 1 payment before he quit his job and he's sat on his ass and let his wife support him in the 9 months since.
He also thinks obama is the greatest thing since sliced bread. The SOB has cost me 25 grand in the last year but is pissed that I ask for a payment from time to time. He will never see another dime from me, but I'm not quite done helping people.
I think i am missing something here. how is it obama's fault that you don't have a backbone and continue to support a person who isn't going to do anything? Obama did not make a 31 year old lazy. He did not force him to impregnate a number of women, or restrict him from putting on a condom and be responsible. Obama was not an influence in this guy being raised as he wasn't even a senator when this guy was learning how to mooch off of people like you. Obama did not force you to give this guy 25 grand. he did not force you to take him in. So really what does obama have to do with any of this?
Oh, and you do have a solution which has absolutely nothing to do with any elected official. STOP! It is your money, your house, and your life. Don't blame others because you are just as out of control as this guy. Take some responsibility for your own piss poor decisions. I am not saying it is a piss poor decision to try and help a person who needs it, but to continue to help a person who takes advantage of your is your own stupidity, and if you did not learn after 1 grand you were pretty fucked up yourself. Don't worry about it, there are plenty of other suckers out there, and when you boot this guy out he will find another victim. Remember you did this to yourself, and it is your choice to stop being one of the suckers. if you want to blame Obama for something he has done that is fine, but don't blame him for something only you had control over, and he doesn't even now happens.
"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.
In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.
The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.
Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.
I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.
If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.
It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.
To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)
"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.
In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and (B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.
The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one. Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why? It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government? If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way. But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.
Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less." New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat, so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.
I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government. Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.
If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.
It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.
To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem? Second, What would you suggest as a solution? Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)
"Income Inequality" has been the most often-heard catchphrase for today's Progressives, who constantly seek new reasons to badmouth the United States. We are told that (1) "income inequality" is a symptom of a fundamentally flawed and "unfair" society, and (2) Government must DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! And of course, (3) the only way anything will be done about it is if we re-elect Barry.
In its simplest terms, the difference between those who have the greatest incomes and those who have the least tends to increase when (A) Masses of people make disastrous life choices like having illegitimate children, dropping out of school, and adopting generally unproductive life, and
(B) new technology and other developments make it possible for individuals to achieve greater and greater financial success over time. Hence, the difference between the people at the bottom, who have nothing, and the people at the top, who have more and more over time, tends to increase.
The question of whether this is actually a "problem," or merely a fact of life is a valid one.
Would it be a problem if the difference between the smartest and the dumbest kids in the class kept increasing? Why? The difference between the fastest and the slowest runners in the race? Why?
It may be a problem for the poorest, the dumbest, and the slowest, but as long as they have the means to improve themselves, then what does that have to do with Government?
If Government were standing in the way of people who were making all the right choices but could not succeed, then by all means Government should get out of the way.
But this is manifestly not the case in the U.S. We have hundreds of give-aways and programs to help people achieve whatever their talents and perseverence allow.
Surely, we are not so stupid as to believe that the Economy is a "zero-sum proposition," in which if one person gets "more" that necessarily requires that someone else get "less."
New wealth is being created constantly, both in fact and by fiat,
so we NEVER have the situation where one person's success (other than a thief) prevents others from pursuing their own success. The "pie" is infinitely flexible.
I submit that "income inequality" is not a problem, and that even if it were, it is not a problem created or exacerbated by Government.
Furthermore, it is not a problem for which the Constitution gives Government (Congress) the mandate or even the power to resolve, particularly when the resolution would involve taking money from innocent citizens and distributing it to the unworthy.
If an American citizen is outraged about the phenomenon of "income inequality," then that citizen should do everything in her power to communicate to those at the bottom to (1) stop the self-destructive life choices (having illegitimate children, alcohol and drug abuse, welfare dependency, dropping out of school), (2) take advantage of free public education and other means of improving oneself, and (3) follow the example of many generations of immigrants who started with nothing and achieved success by hard work.
It won't improve the statistics on "income inequality." As long as the economy is growing that will increase, but it might address an acute problem for some individuals.
To the Libs reading this I ask: First, why is "income inequality" a problem?
Second, What would you suggest as a solution?
Third, What gives Government the power or the right to effect this solution? (Please refer to the United States Constitution)
So, are you of the breed who thinks we should have no govt? How does the Constitution read to you?
I'm not aware of anyone who thinks we should have no government. Perhaps you could provide a link. I realize hyperbole is a standard element of partisan rhetoric, but I prefer intellectual honesty, myself.
I'm of the breed who thinks that government plays - or that should be, CAN play - a critical role of foundational support for our country. From military to health care, from education to infrastructure, from financial regulation to consumer protection. The questions, however, are the scope and cost of government, and the efficiency of government. The Left knee-jerks towards the notion that government should be the first answer to any question. The Right knee-jerks in the opposite direction.
So the question is finding balance, equilibrium. And in today's narcissistic, absolutist political environment, I ain't seeing much of that. But one thing that concerns me greatly is watching so many people (not just politicians) becoming more and more dependent on "someone else". I think that destroys people, families. And it doesn't take a great deal of effort to identify evidence of this, but it does require open eyes.
But to answer your question in context, I strongly believe that a life spent waiting for someone else, especially a bunch of professional politicians, to "make" your life "better" is a sad and wasted life, indeed. It's already destroyed millions of lives, generations of lives, and that trend does not appear to be reversing itself.
.
]
That's a nice theory.
When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
]
That's a nice theory.
When the free market fails to provide a solution to income equality, the government solution, other than protecting the rights of employees, is pretty damn simple. Tax the filthy rich more and the middle class less. The power to tax income is found in the 16th amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
There is no "solution" to income equality required. Certainly not by gov't action. That is like providing a solution to inequality in piano performance by cutting off fingers from more talented practitioners.
There is no problem here that anyone can identify.