Your thoughts on this passage?

[Truthmatters]

Wyatt Emerich is just some douche and not an expert

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.mybudget360.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/average-income-americans.png

Talk about class warfare you idiots are fighting FOR a handfull of Americans at theexpense of millions of Americans

 

[Madeline]

People who make 14,500 a year have more disposable income than people who make $60,000 a year, thanks to government.

Revere, your chart allegedly demonstrating this is crap. Please stop relying on it.

Post your own numbers that refute it or shut the fuck up, hilbilly.

I dealt with it already, Revere. I feel no need to create a new chart just because you "command" it. This is a worthwhile discussion and petty insults are out of place here.

To resume: IMO, the members of a society benefit from that collection of humans. Those who accrue great wealth visibly benefited to a greater degree and therefore, the costs of maintaining that society should be distributed in a manner proportionate to the benefits (in other words, I support progressive taxation).

But more importantly, the "costs of maintaining the society" include the use of some government resources to prevent hunger, homelessness, disease, illiteracy and other evils visited on the poor, especially the poor who are not able-bodied adults.

I think the social welfare programs we currently have are inefficient and in some cases, actually harm those they are meant to help. I think the government is too large and must be reduced in size and expense.....but I also think one essential government function is providing the basics of life to those who cannot provide for themselves, and that if we fail to do so, we will quickly find ourselves living in a Third World country.

 

[Revere]

You can't refute it because you're a brain damaged hayseed.

 

[Madeline]

Is this the sum total of your contribution to this thread? I find it hard to believe you have no POV on whether any social program we currently have or might wish we had is or is not an essential government function.

 

[Revere]

Why don't you post some source that says that single parents of three aren't entitled to those things?

 

[Flopper]

But what about the man that profits not by his own labor, but by the labor of those who came before him? Should his obligations to society be the same as the man that labors to build his fortune?

 

[Cecilie1200]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

I do so love listening to hateful, pessimistic leftists telling us how convinced they are that the American people are selfish, self-absorbed pigs who would all gladly allow children to starve in the streets while stepping over them on their way to their limos if they were not forced by the all-wise, all-caring government to reluctantly let fall a few dollars from their greedy, grasping fingers.

Personally, I think this view of humanity - and Americans in particular - says a lot more about the sorts of people leftists are than it does about the sorts of people the rest of us are.

 

[Truthmatters]

You can't refute it because you're a brain damaged hayseed.

Yank your head out of your ass (its that lump three feet above your ass) and face the cold hard facts for once in your life.

You have been getting your ass handed to you all day here, your lies and made up bullshit are just making you lamer by the second.

 

[Revere]

You can't refute it because you're a brain damaged hayseed.

Yank your head out of your ass (its that lump three feet above your ass) and face the cold hard facts for once in your life.

You have been getting your ass handed to you all day here, your lies and made up bullshit are just making you lamer by the second.

You got a source that has different numbers than my source?

 

[Madeline]

I think you misunderstand the convo here, Revere. We can debate the validity of your chart on the thread where it appears. What is under discussion here is, whether a society like ours should provide anything for the poor and if so, what?

My own POV is yes, we should, because when we allievate their suffering we provide OURSELVES with greater peace, security and prosperity. I dun think you need resort to any moral code to get this -- none of us would be happier living among starving, frantic, hopeless people.

Ergo, allievating the suffering of the poor is not "charity"; it is "enlightened self-interest".

 

[Revere]

Why should a single parent of three making $14,500 be given government stipends until they have as much as a family making $60,000?

 

[JBeukema]

Why should a single parent of three making $14,500 be given government stipends until they have as much as a family making $60,000?

When someone comes around who says they should, you can ask them.

 

[JBeukema]

The OP promotes a destructive form of altruism in which one is allowed to keep the dregs of one's productivity only after all those in NEED first feed off of him.

No thank you.

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

I do so love listening to hateful, pessimistic leftists telling us how convinced they are that the American people are selfish, self-absorbed pigs who would all gladly allow children to starve in the streets while stepping over them on their way to their limos if they were not forced by the all-wise, all-caring government to reluctantly let fall a few dollars from their greedy, grasping fingers.

Personally, I think this view of humanity - and Americans in particular - says a lot more about the sorts of people leftists are than it does about the sorts of people the rest of us are.

History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.

Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.

 

[Madeline]

Why should a single parent of three making $14,500 be given government stipends until they have as much as a family making $60,000?

This is an excellent question, Revere. My answer is "no". The sustenance we offer the poor in a better world would certainly not remove any incentive to work and achieve. I'm not even sure what I would be willing to offer the able-bodied; my first concern is with those who cannot provide for themselves.

But I assume, by asking, you concede that relief to the poor has value to the wealthy and middle class?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Not for nothing, Revere, but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?

" but what exactly is it you think a Rockefeller or Dupont heir has "produced"?"


or tiger woods?
or phil mickelson?
or randy moss?
or tom brady?
or derek jeter?
or peyton manning?

some kid is good at putting a ball through a hoop and next thing you know he's a multimillionaire...

meanwhile, people who do REAL WORK (secretaries, janitors, mechanics etc)
make barely enough to put food on the table for their kids....


our priorities are all twisted

then I suggest you work on your putting, or jump shot ability etc.

If you are an ace mechanic, are honest and market yourself properly, you'll never lack for work.

"Real work". Let's examine this concept for a moment, shall we?

Where, exactly, has our society come by the insanely Puritanical notion that arts and entertainment - which would include professional sports - are somehow not "real work"? Is it because people actually enjoy doing them, as opposed to ditch digging, which is probably not much of anyone's idea of a fun job? Is it because the tiny handful of people in those fields who are truly successful make enormous amounts of money, or because the vast majority of people in those areas can barely scrape a living, and often have other jobs to make ends meet? Or is it, perhaps, because we've somehow retained enough of the spirit of those buckle-shoed killjoy ancestors of ours that we believe that anything that makes life joyful and fun must be frivolous and even shameful?

I know some people will say that arts and entertainment, unlike teachers and doctors and policemen, aren't necessary to living. I would counter by saying that teachers and doctors and policemen are necessary to SURVIVING, while art and entertainment are necessary to making surviving into living.

Nevertheless, actors, singers, and athletes aren't paid based on the importance and necessity of their work to society. Most people aren't, actually. They, like most people, are paid based on 1) the percentage of the population possessing the talent and skill set to do what they do, and 2) the amount of income they generate for the people who pay them. Let's face it, the number of people in the United States - or the world - with the ability to play golf like Tiger Woods or basketball like Michael Jordan or whatever is vanishingly small, relatively speaking. By contrast, the qualifications to become a policeman are not an especially high bar to clear, nor are those to be a teacher, which would explain why there are so many of them. Hell, my city alone employs thousands of each. And neither profession generates much income for anyone, since they're both government employees. Doctors, of course, have a much higher standard to meet to enter that profession, but it's still a talent and skill set more widely available than that of professional-level athletes. And while they generate a lot of money for whoever writes their paycheck (and commensurately make a lot more money themselves), doctors come nowhere near to generating the kind of money actors, athletes, etc. do.

While people always seem to love to spout off about the frivolity of entertainment personalities and the "obscene" amounts of money they make, do we really think the world would be better without them?

 

[Madeline]

Interesting that you would interpret the Op this way. By contrast, I saw the message as "wealth is derived from society, and as part of the social contract, we provide sustenance for the members unable to care for themselves, such as children and the elderly".

Whichever, way you view it, do you truely desire to live somewhere that the poor are allowed to starve, even the children? If so, it can be arranged boedicca....such places exist.

I do so love listening to hateful, pessimistic leftists telling us how convinced they are that the American people are selfish, self-absorbed pigs who would all gladly allow children to starve in the streets while stepping over them on their way to their limos if they were not forced by the all-wise, all-caring government to reluctantly let fall a few dollars from their greedy, grasping fingers.

Personally, I think this view of humanity - and Americans in particular - says a lot more about the sorts of people leftists are than it does about the sorts of people the rest of us are.

History already addressed this. Prior to reforms, the establishment of social programs, and worker-protection laws, that's exactly what happened, with very few exceptions.

Furthermore, that's exactly what the bourgeoisie- including those who happen to be American citizens- do around the world to this day. They call it 'outsourcing' now.

I would hardly call the average American "selfish" and "willing to step over starving children". IMO, the average American is horrified by images of hunger in America and wants it eradicated -- but most of us realize this is an essential government function.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The underlying message in the OP is collectivist.
.

The underlying message is that we as individuals and as a society can all be judged by what we do for the least among us.

Would you say Jesus of Nazareth was a good man for feeding the poor and healing the sick?

You are NOT arguing for charity you are arguing that the Government should seize private citizens property and wealth.

That's the only kind of "charity" the left knows. They think too badly of human beings - especially Americans - to believe that they would consider helping and providing for their fellow man on their own without government coercion.

 

[Truthmatters]

You can't refute it because you're a brain damaged hayseed.

Yank your head out of your ass (its that lump three feet above your ass) and face the cold hard facts for once in your life.

You have been getting your ass handed to you all day here, your lies and made up bullshit are just making you lamer by the second.

You got a source that has different numbers than my source?

Your source is a fucking hack second hand lame set of bullshit.

 

[Revere]

Then cite your source.