|
 luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
 The American poor. 
#2226652 - 01/07/04 05:24 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
First some tidbits....
Forty-six percent of all poor households actually own their own homes. The average home owned by persons classified as poor by the Census Bureau is a three-bedroom house with one-and-a-half baths, a garage, and a porch or patio.
Seventy-six percent of poor households have air conditioning. By contrast, 30 years ago, only 36 percent of the entire U.S. population enjoyed air conditioning.
Only 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. More than two-thirds have more than two rooms per person.
The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, and other cities throughout Europe. (These comparisons are to the average citizens in foreign countries, not to those classified as poor.)
Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars.
Ninety-seven percent of poor households have a color television; over half own two or more color televisions.
Seventy-eight percent have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception.
Seventy-three percent own microwave ovens, more than half have a stereo, and a third have an automatic dishwasher.
Say it isn't so! Why they'd be better off dead!
In good economic times or bad, the typical poor family with children is supported by only 800 hours of work during a year: That amounts to 16 hours of work per week. If work in each family were raised to 2,000 hours per year--the equivalent of one adult working 40 hours per week throughout the year--nearly 75 percent of poor children would be lifted out of official poverty.
Work harder. What a horrible concept actually expecting people to work.!!
But if poverty means lacking nutritious food, adequate warm housing, and clothing for a family, relatively few of the 35 million people identified as being "in poverty" by the Census Bureau could be characterized as poor.3 While material hardship does exist in the United States, it is quite restricted in scope and severity. The average "poor" person, as defined by the government, has a living standard far higher than the public imagines.
Sounds terrible!
It's an informative read which shows pretty much what the "righties" here have been saying. The myth of rampant poverty is just that, a myth.
I hope many of you "lefties" read it.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
 Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Sounds like an overbroad definition of "poor".
What about the 27% who have less than one vehicle, less than one place to live, less than one meal a day, less than one times the amount of money needed to go to the doctor to treat their "walking pneumonia".
--------------------
Edited by Baby_Hitler (01/07/04 05:37 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sucks to be them. It's still not the Feds place to be stealing from me to give to them.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Are you sure you're rich enough to really say that you are being stolen from?
Maybe you're getting more than your fare share too.
--------------------
|
Rono
DSYSB since '01
Registered: 01/25/01
Posts: 16,081
Loc: Calgary, Alberta
Last seen: 6 days, 16 hours
|
|
Hence the division..since many of us DO think that it's the feds job to provide basic living conditions for the poor.
It's when I'm paying taxes for an unjust war that is only serving the purpose to get some rich assholes richer is where I get pissed off.
--------------------
"Life has never been weird enough for my liking"
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226675 - 01/07/04 05:40 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
We'll be sending you a bill.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Yes. I'm sure.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226680 - 01/07/04 05:42 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Hence the division..since many of us DO think that it's the feds job to provide basic living conditions for the poor.
amend the constitution then. you can think whatever you want, but right now, the letter of the law says that it is not.
also... "the fed" doesn't provide anything for anyone. they take from some and give to others in a wonderful vote-buying scam called "the democratic party". it is not the federal government, but those who actually work, and who are robbed of their property by the government, who "provide"...
Edited by Anonymous (01/07/04 05:47 PM)
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Rono]
#2226686 - 01/07/04 05:44 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
While it may be the Canoodian governments job, it is not the US governments jobs.
We have that pesky 10th amendment. Now, if only our shitty politicians would follow the constitution.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
luvdem: "Sucks to be them. It's still not the Feds place to be stealing from me to give to them."
take away the little that they get and soon enough im sure you'll find someone on your doorstep with a machete'.
Your thinking is so simplistic, that you fail to recognize all the other variables related to social security. A rise in crime is the most basic of these, a violent revolution would occur with time. Maybe you should start thinking about social programs in terms of pacification rather than theft.
whats your source by the by?
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
whats your source by the by?
Thanks.
This was forgotten. My apologies to all.
Hard to read what wasn't linked to. I'm surprised no-one mentioned it earlier.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
Edited by luvdemshrooms (01/07/04 06:51 PM)
|
Anonymous
|
|
Your thinking is so simplistic, that you fail to recognize all the other variables related to social security. A rise in crime is the most basic of these, a violent revolution would occur with time. Maybe you should start thinking about social programs in terms of pacification rather than theft.
you can think that way if you like, but it doesn't make it right. it's still theft whether its "pacification" or not. i'd prefer the term "extortion" myself, but oh well...
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
from the website:
Our Mission
Founded in 1973, The Heritage Foundation is a research and educational institute - a think tank - whose mission is to formulate and promote conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.
--wow, so...what they are basically saying is : we spew propaganda.
heres some more:
-In 2002, a family of four was deemed poor if its annual income fell below $18,556; a family of three was deemed poor if annual income was below $14,702
-the family's actual living conditions are likely to be far higher than the image most Americans have in mind when they hear the word "poverty."
um....what a pile of bullshit. First off, living off 18.5 grand and having 4 kids would be FUCKING rough. Secondly, how pathetically unproffesional of them to assume they understand how most Americans view poverty.
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
1. What an unsurprising response.
2. Perhaps the family of four should have had the brains to remain a family of 2.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Positronius
playboy
Registered: 11/27/03
Posts: 947
Loc: montreal-vancouver-tokyo
Last seen: 5 years, 2 months
|
|
"2. Perhaps the family of four should have had the brains to remain a family of 2."
perhaps perhaps perhaps. But if you dont help those kids, one day they are gonna be adults and probably end up costing you alot more money in the long run.
1. What an unsurprising response
-ugh...all you have to offer is quippy comebacks, no real debate. Okay, I've learned my lesson, you have nothing to offer in the way of intellectual sparring.
--------------------
and you know it like a poet, like....babydoll
|
Anonymous
|
|
i'm a student. when i do work, i make a little more than minimum wage busting my ass working for a guy who's richer than i will ever be. paying for my education has so far put me thousands of dollars in debt. i don't even make enough money right now to pay federal income tax.
would it benefit me if the government forced other people to fund my education? of course it would. would i benefit from a boost in the minimum wage? provided i could still find work after such an increase, i'd certainly benefit. does taxing other people to pay for federal welfare programs directly take any money out of my pocket? not a penny.
i suppose you can chalk my beliefs up to typical self-interested capitalist greed. 
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Haven't you herd of trickle up theory?
Didn't you tell me poor people were bringing you their checks?
Oh, em... 
--------------------
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
Would you give up the second ammendment so that rich people can finally be allowed to take over the world?
--------------------
|
RandalFlagg
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,594
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
|
The actual condition of the poor does not bother Lefties as much
as the disparity between the classes.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
You're very close. I think what actually bothers them is that as much as they'd like to, there's nothing they can do to change it without force.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
|
Quote:
Say it isn't so! Why they'd be better off dead!
So they have all these lovely things. I wonder if they might just be up to their eyeballs in debt as well?
Quote:
Work harder. What a horrible concept actually expecting people to work.!!
So there is definitely enough work out there for everyone then? Dont just say "Yeah of course there is" prove it.
Yeah its an interesting read but thats about it. Whats the source? wheres the proof of the claims? Its obviously got a right wing bias Yawnn. Poverty doesnt exist? Its just the lazy who are poor? Grow a brain Luv.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2227595 - 01/08/04 06:11 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Oh I see you have provided a source and what a surprise its a right wing think tank that agrees with your views! Woahh! Thats amazing!! I can feel my whole belief system changing from the force of your arguement! Thats weak you donut! 
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2227601 - 01/08/04 06:14 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
you can think that way if you like, but it doesn't make it right. it's still theft whether its "pacification" or not. i'd prefer the term "extortion" myself, but oh well...
Oh for fucks sake grow up! You are talking absolute bollocks. People shouldnt have to pay taxes? How can you keep repeating this shit when you have already admitted you dont know who should pay for roads etc etc. As if roads are the only thing provided by a central government and enjoyed by all.
OOOHH BUT THINK OF THE INDIVIDUALSSSS
ZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2227701 - 01/08/04 08:07 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
right wing think tank that agrees with your views!
Yup another peice of shit "thinktank":
A think tank is an organization that claims to serve as a center for research and analysis of important public issues. In reality, many think tanks are little more than public relations fronts, usually headquartered in state or national seats of government and generating self-serving scholarship that serves the advocacy goals of their industry sponsors; in the words of Yellow Times.org columnist John Chuckman, "phony institutes where ideologue-propagandists pose as academics ... [into which] money gushes like blood from opened arteries to support meaningless advertising's suffocation of genuine debate". [1] Of course, some think tanks are more legitimate than that. Private funding does not necessarily make a researcher a shill, and some think-tanks produce worthwhile public policy research. In general, however, research from think tanks is ideologically driven in accordance with the interests of its funders.
Think tanks have a decided political leaning. There are twice as many conservative think tanks as leftist ones, and the conservative ones generally have more money. This is no accident, as one of the important functions of think tanks is to provide a backdoor way for wealthy business interests to promote their ideas or to support economic and sociological research not taking place elsewhere that they feel may turn out in their favor. "Modern think tanks are nonprofit, tax-exempt, political idea factories where donations can be as big as the donor's checkbook and are seldom publicized," notes Tom Brazaitis, writing for the Cleveland Plain Dealer. "Technology companies give to think tanks that promote open access to the internet. Wall Street firms donate to think tanks that espouse private investment of retirement funds." So much money now flows in, that the top 20 conservative think tanks now spend more money than all of the "soft money" contributions to the Republican party.
As economist Jonathan Rowe has observed, the term "think" tanks is a misnomer. His comment was directed at the conservative Heritage Foundation, but it applies equally well to many other think tanks, regardless of ideology: "They don't think; they justify."
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Think_tanks
|
JameZTheNewbie
The Mahatma OfZalu
Registered: 05/23/02
Posts: 734
Loc: pass the gates of hell 2 ...
Last seen: 3 months, 2 days
|
|
fuck statistics
--------------------
Mice have feelings
|
DeepDish
journeyman
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 55
Last seen: 7 months, 15 days
|
|
Once again this study fails to account for the massive amount of debt that poor people in America possess. A morgage, car loan, plus an average of 10,000 dollars on credit card would easily provide for the luxuries mentioned in the study. First subtract the assets from the debt, and then you will get a more accurate picture of exactly what these people really possess. While it would be easy to simply dissmiss this argument saying that the people shouldn't have overextended themselves in the first place, and the fault is wholely their own, you must realize that his is what makes money lenders rich. By shackling huge amounts of people with massive amounts of debt that they will never be able to pay off, the lenders bottom line is increased and their stock goes up. Each transaction is voluntary, however, the nature of the relationship is inherently exploitative, with the poor people grasping for something they can never have, yet are being subtly promised by the marketing executives.
The second point I would like to address is your firm belief that that the 10th ammendment prohibts any sort of welfare, or federal government taxation. This is simply not true; the constitution like any peice of writing, no matter how concise, can be interpreted in a variety of ways. Much as I could interpret a novel one way, a proffessor of literature at Oxford could interpret it another way with each being equally valid interpretations. His interpretation, however, will hold much more weight then mine, and while you may believe that the 10th ammendment nullifies income tax, the supreme court has ruled directly the opposite on a number of occasions, the most famous being the desicion to allow social security. I'm not saying that your point is totally invalid, it is just that everyone believes their interpretation to be correct, yet the only interpretation which truly matters is that of the supreme court, and in this case they are not on your side.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228178 - 01/08/04 12:09 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Oh for fucks sake grow up! You are talking absolute bollocks. People shouldnt have to pay taxes? How can you keep repeating this shit when you have already admitted you dont know who should pay for roads etc etc. As if roads are the only thing provided by a central government and enjoyed by all.
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228224 - 01/08/04 12:23 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Neither should "big business" but they don't let that stop them.
--------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
yeah at least government steals from the rich and gives to the poor.
big business is the opposite.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228452 - 01/08/04 01:25 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
But you still want to live in what, for all our bitching, are great societies? Do you think we shouldnt have to contribute to that? That sounds more like theft to me.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2228453 - 01/08/04 01:25 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
i don't think the government should be taking from some and giving to others.
But you still want to live in what, for all our bitching, are great societies? Do you think we shouldnt have to contribute to that? That sounds more like theft to me.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228798 - 01/08/04 03:40 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
huh?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: DeepDish]
#2228874 - 01/08/04 04:13 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The tenth is about as clear as it gets. There is no wiggle room. Or are you suggesting that because the courts OK'd SS that they are infallible?
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Phred
Fred's son
Registered: 10/18/00
Posts: 11,456
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 10 hours, 44 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2228999 - 01/08/04 05:00 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
GazzBut writes:
Oh I see you have provided a source and what a surprise its a right wing think tank that agrees with your views!
The Heritage Foundation didn't invent those numbers. They are from the US Census Bureau. All those numbers and more are available to all who ask.
pinky
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Phred]
#2229013 - 01/08/04 05:05 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Funny how that works. Can't fault the message so mock the messenger.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
|
That should be a bannable offense. 
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Sounds a bit extreme.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
|
To Pinky and Luvvy: I wasnt faulting the numbers I was questioning the interpretation.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
DeepDish
journeyman
Registered: 01/14/02
Posts: 55
Last seen: 7 months, 15 days
|
|
Perhaps you missed my point, I clearly stated that infallibility is not the issue, rather it is a matter of interpretive power. In fact if you go back and read your post on the issue you will find that you assume an air of infallibilty that is much stronger that that demonstrated by the supreme court. During the presidency of FDR the courts ruled that the "General Welfare Clause" would be interpreted under Madison's vision, rather than Jefferson's. Madison had a much broader view of what he defined as general welfare. While you may prefer Jefferson's view, in order for your arguement against the court ruling and welfare in general to hold ground, you need to develop something better than the line, "The tenth is pefectly clear."
|
ToiletDuk
Inventor of Buck-Naked Bingo
Registered: 05/16/03
Posts: 47,504
Loc: EarthFarm 1
|
|
What about the truly disabled? Would you have them begging on street corners? Would this be considered "employment" by this "Think-Tank"?
Hey, I've got an idea! Since poorer families have more kids, let's repeal all the child labour laws and put kids 7 years and up to work in dangerous factory jobs for 12-14 hours a day, and pay them $5 a day. That'll teach the l'il bastards the value of a dollar! 
--------------------
Praise Bob or KILL HIM!
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ToiletDuk]
#2230797 - 01/09/04 10:41 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think mushmaster explained this in some thread or other. By starving and working the poor and disabled to death then they will die out and the earth will belong to the master race.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2230825 - 01/09/04 10:59 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
who is starving and working them to death?
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2230984 - 01/09/04 11:59 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I thought we went through this in the thread about you being happy to pay the starving with a bowl of soup a day. You suggested that if they all died there'd be less welfare.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2231308 - 01/09/04 02:07 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I thought we went through this in the thread about you being happy to pay the starving with a bowl of soup a day.
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount? why should someone be prohibited, by force, from paying them that much? why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup? you cannot make someone's labor worth a certain amount simply by making it illegal to hire them for less than that amount.
You suggested that if they all died there'd be less welfare.
which is true, is it not? what i was was saying was that if people weren't given welfare handouts (more for each kid they have no less) perhaps those who couldn't afford to raise children wouldn't birth them. all we are doing now is paying people who cannot afford to raise children money to have them. we are subsidizing poverty and population growth where there shouldn't be any. what it comes down to is... why should anyone be forced to support anyone else but their own children?
you said:
"By starving and working the poor and disabled to death then they will die out and the earth will belong to the master race."
i am still wondering... who is starving people to death? who is working them to death?
and what's this about a master race? where do you get off implying that i said something like that? for all you know, i'm jewish and i have family who died in the holocaust. think before you make such asinine statements.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2231628 - 01/09/04 04:12 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount?
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
I can GUARANTEE that if you were ever being paid 1 bowl of soup a day knowing full well that your employer could afford to pay you ten you would be mightily pissed off. You might still work for one bowl a day just so you could exist but you would surely be fucking annoyed.
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2231701 - 01/09/04 04:35 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
that's a pretty serious assumption to be making, but for the sake of argument, let's say that a business really could pay all of its workers alot more than it did... why is it immoral? what it comes down to at that point is charity. any extra pay above and beyond what needs to be paid is a charitable donation. the work is worth a bowl of soup per day. if the employer pays 10, then they are not only running a business but also a free soup kitchen. those extra 9 bowls are handouts. there is nothing unethical about keeping what is yours. is it unethical to buy a car at the lowest negotiable price, or should you always offer the salesman twice what he's willing to settle for? is it unethical to hire a plumber at his normal hourly rate, or should you offer much extra? scratch that... those are bad questions... should people be forced to pay extra?
I can GUARANTEE that if you were ever being paid 1 bowl of soup a day knowing full well that your employer could afford to pay you ten you would be mightily pissed off. You might still work for one bowl a day just so you could exist but you would surely be fucking annoyed.
in the summers i work at a swim club doing gruntwork for less than $7 an hour. the guy who owns the place lives in a house worth more than a million dollars and sits on the board of directors at a local bank. he shouldn't be forced to pay me a penny more than he does. it doesn't annoy me a bit.
|
GazzBut
Refraction
Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,090
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 3 days, 20 hours
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2231714 - 01/09/04 04:42 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
in the summers i work at a swim club doing gruntwork for less than $7 an hour. the guy who owns the place lives in a house worth more than a million dollars and sits on the board of directors at a local bank. he shouldn't be forced to pay me a penny more than he does. it doesn't annoy me a bit.
You probabaly still live with your parents and dont have any children to support. Of course it doesnt annoy you. duh!
--------------------
Always Smi2le
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,190
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2232042 - 01/09/04 07:14 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Theres a simple solution for how to not become financially challenged because of having numerous children.
Its called DONT FUCK
--------------------
I'm a utilitarian libertarian. Hate me.
bang bang
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232064 - 01/09/04 07:23 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Theres a simple solution for how to not become financially challenged because of having numerous children.
Its called DONT FUCK
I'd like to see how long that relationship lasts.
--------------------
 
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,190
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
|
Sterilization is k3y
--------------------
I'm a utilitarian libertarian. Hate me.
bang bang
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232330 - 01/09/04 09:44 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount? why should someone be prohibited, by force, from paying them that much? why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup? you cannot make someone's labor worth a certain amount simply by making it illegal to hire them for less than that amount.
I used to think this way as well, so I won't say that it isn't without it's merits. However, for a more in-depth examination of the lives of the people that would be working for soup, I'd recommend reading "The Grapes of Wrath" by John Steinbeck. It deals with the migration of families from Oklahoma and other areas affected by the "Dust bowl" and their reception in California. The rich land owners in California decided to set the minimum wage at 15 cents per hour and told anyone that dared pay more than that that sanctions and other forms of retribution would be enacted upon them. Thus, they managed to make it so that the people who were starving had to work for money that barely allowed them to eat, let alone settle their families in. Some protection needs to be enacted so that this does not happen. I don't personally believe that the Constitution, nor the founding fathers ideas, would support people on welfare just getting a check in the mail every week, but I do think that the "poor" or lower class does deserve protection by the US government, in ways such as setting a federal miniumum wage, just as much as the middle class or rich deserve protection from crooked investors and other white collar criminals.
Quote:
which is true, is it not? what i was was saying was that if people weren't given welfare handouts (more for each kid they have no less) perhaps those who couldn't afford to raise children wouldn't birth them. all we are doing now is paying people who cannot afford to raise children money to have them. we are subsidizing poverty and population growth where there shouldn't be any. what it comes down to is... why should anyone be forced to support anyone else but their own children?
I agree with alot of these points. It does seem that the people that are on welfare (who are also in the groups of lower literacy and education levels) are also the ones that breed more. I'm not sure what the solution is for it. I realize that alot of people do seem to be bilking the system by equating more kids with more money, and breeding with that goal in mind. However, you have to ask the question, if a social program such as welfare is in action, wouldn't it be necessary to increase the benefits for people that do have children? It is a logical progression, it's just that the main program is, in and of itself, is flawed. The "rich" should have a responsibility to ensure that the lower class isn't being trampled on and kept down by the actions of certain groups, but I don't believe that they should be required (or forced, if you like that word) to pay the lower class if they are not working.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 4,159
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232379 - 01/09/04 10:15 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
But if it is clear that the person doing the hiring could in fact afford to pay these people 10 bowls of soup a day and still make a handsome profit is it really moral for them to only offer one bowl of soup a day?
that's a pretty serious assumption to be making, but for the sake of argument, let's say that a business really could pay all of its workers alot more than it did... why is it immoral? what it comes down to at that point is charity. any extra pay above and beyond what needs to be paid is a charitable donation. the work is worth a bowl of soup per day. if the employer pays 10, then they are not only running a business but also a free soup kitchen. those extra 9 bowls are handouts. there is nothing unethical about keeping what is yours. is it unethical to buy a car at the lowest negotiable price, or should you always offer the salesman twice what he's willing to settle for? is it unethical to hire a plumber at his normal hourly rate, or should you offer much extra? scratch that... those are bad questions... should people be forced to pay extra?
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,190
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2232392 - 01/09/04 10:22 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Its not the gov'ts job to help these people. The poor will obviously be the majority. If they really wanted to change it they could. People need to get off their asses form organizations not related to the gov't and try to change it for the better.
--------------------
I'm a utilitarian libertarian. Hate me.
bang bang
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 4,159
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232416 - 01/09/04 10:44 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
yes and no...in a democracy..the govt's job is to implement a system of checks and balances..so as to avoid a situation in which either party is unfairly exploited...if what you are suggesting is revolution (ie. we dont live in a democracy)..then it means that the govt is not doing its job..which in this case is to help these ppl...
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2232563 - 01/10/04 12:00 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Its not the gov'ts job to help these people. The poor will obviously be the majority. If they really wanted to change it they could. People need to get off their asses form organizations not related to the gov't and try to change it for the better.
It is the governments job to protect the best interest of all the citizens that make up the government (in theory, everyone). Each group of people (poor, middle class, rich, etc) need to have specific laws designed to protect them. The laws regarding the SEC don't usually apply to the poor people, they are mainly established to protect the rich people. The same should be made for poor people. They deserve to be protected for the simple reason that htey are a part of the country, and "we" protect our own.
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2232697 - 01/10/04 02:24 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
if someone is willing to work for a bowl of soup a day, why should someone refuse to hire them for that amount?
So if someone can find children willing to work as child prostitutes why should they refuse to hire them?
why should someone be forced to accept unemployment over employment for a bowl of soup?
Because when employers realise they can exploit the starving, wages for everyone else drop through the floor and we are effectively back in the days of slavery.
which is true, is it not?
Yep, if you've starved to death you can't claim welfare.
i am still wondering... who is starving people to death? who is working them to death?
I think you'll have to read this in relation to toiletduks post to understand.
and what's this about a master race?
Your concept of the poor and disabled working for a bowl of soup a day is awfully similar to the Nazi concept of treatment for the "sub-humans". Can you tell me how it differs?
Himmler said whether 10,000 russian women drop dead digging a trench for us interests me only in so far as the trench is dug. Would you agree with this? If 10,000 people dropped dead because they only had a bowl of soup a day to eat would you think they should be "paid" more? You appear to be saying if you can find starving people desperate enough to work for a bowl of soup a day to keep them alive a few days longer then it is perfectly acceptable to work them to death.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2233072 - 01/10/04 11:07 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
What you're saying is that it would be better for them to just go ahead and drop dead without the soup.
--------------------
|
infidelGOD
illusion
Registered: 04/18/02
Posts: 3,040
Loc: there
|
|
It is the governments job to protect the best interest of all the citizens that make up the government (in theory, everyone). Each group of people (poor, middle class, rich, etc) need to have specific laws designed to protect them. The laws regarding the SEC don't usually apply to the poor people, they are mainly established to protect the rich people. The same should be made for poor people. They deserve to be protected for the simple reason that htey are a part of the country, and "we" protect our own.
that is an excellent point. many regulatory agencies like the FTC and the SEC protect the rich, but they are paid for by everyone, including the poor.
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,190
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2233105 - 01/10/04 11:28 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Regulated taxes and federal social programs are not my idea of protecting the rich. It may have been good in a fairly tale but in the real world taking from the rich and giving to the poor is not protecting everyone's best intrests.
--------------------
I'm a utilitarian libertarian. Hate me.
bang bang
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: infidelGOD]
#2233314 - 01/10/04 01:46 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Lets say that I own a warehouse. The majority of my labor is unskilled and highschool or GED education level. If the other warehouses were paying 15$/hour and offering full medical, dental and vision benefits, I'd have to do the same (or better) or I wouldn't be able to attract workers. Now, lets say that I went to the owners of the other warehouses in town. I proposed a plan that would save us a great deal of money. We would all agree to pay our workers no more than 7$/hour and offer no benefits. Since every warehouse would do this, the people would either work for the much lower wage with no benefits, or not have a job any longer. Lets take this a little bit farther and say that the association that I made with other warehouse workers went a bit farther. I'd talk with the farmers who would pay their cheap, uneducated labor much less than they were now. Now, if their wasn't a federally established minimum wage, we could keep on doing this until the only opportunities that unskilled workers had were all paying the same meager salary (or, perhaps, a bowl of soup per day?). This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal. The lower class needs to have governmental protection to ensure that they aren't being oppressed as much as the wealthy do to ensure that their isn't insider trading taking place, casuing their entire portfolio's to shrink exponentially overnight (read: Enron).
--------------------
Opinions are like assholes; everyone needs one or else they'd explode
|
d33p
Welcome to Violence
Registered: 07/12/03
Posts: 5,190
Loc: the shores of Tripoli
Last seen: 3 hours, 35 minutes
|
|
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
--------------------
I'm a utilitarian libertarian. Hate me.
bang bang
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
|
What you're saying is that it would be better for them to just go ahead and drop dead without the soup.
Exqueeze me? 
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: GazzBut]
#2234894 - 01/11/04 02:39 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
You probabaly still live with your parents
nope.
and dont have any children to support.
correct. why don't i have any children? because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father. rather simple.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2234922 - 01/11/04 02:49 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234943 - 01/11/04 03:00 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
So if someone can find children willing to work as child prostitutes why should they refuse to hire them?
because they are children, and children are an exception. children cannot do a lot of things that adults can. entering into employment contracts is one of them.
Because when employers realise they can exploit the starving, wages for everyone else drop through the floor and we are effectively back in the days of slavery.
i fail to follow... how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
I think you'll have to read this in relation to toiletduks post to understand.
i'll have to do that. doesn't surprise me you haven't any answer to that question.
Your concept of the poor and disabled working for a bowl of soup a day is awfully similar to the Nazi concept of treatment for the "sub-humans". Can you tell me how it differs?
because alex... the nazis did "starve and work people to death". the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
Himmler said whether 10,000 russian women drop dead digging a trench for us interests me only in so far as the trench is dug. Would you agree with this?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2234979 - 01/11/04 03:23 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
as i've said before, i am not opposed to welfare programs and minimum wages out of self-interest. i personally might benefit from an increased minimum wage, and welfare programs take little, if any, money from my pocket. i do not have any special hatred of the poor, nor appreciation for the rich.
i oppose these programs not just because they depend on coercion to support and enforce, but because i have come to believe that these programs are in fact detrimental to those they intend to help.
people argue for a minimum wage. they want to guarantee "the lowest reasonable standard of living" to the unskilled worker... as if by making it illegal to hire a man for less than a certain amount, his labor magically becomes worth at least that amount. therein lies the problem. when a minimum wage is enacted, those workers not worth that wage will not be employed. the minimum wage will create unemployment. people will be put out of work. what's more, producing goods and services becomes more expensive, so the cost to consumers increases. there is more unemployment, less production, and few people actually better off. those put out of work are to be placed on welfare.
welfare ain't so hot either. it seems people forget that for every dollar given to welfare recipients (people who are presumably unemployed and unable to find work), a dollar must be taken from working people. a dollar is taken away from them that they would have otherwise spent. they purchase less than they would have, and so less people are put to work producing goods and services than would otherwise be. thanks to welfare, someone is put out of work... and onto the welfare rolls. welfare creates the very disease which symptoms' it attempts to alleviate. the community as a whole loses employment and production, the unemployed lose the dignity of a paying job, and the employed lose their hard-earned currency. you are taking what would have been someone's paycheck, putting them out of work, and giving it to them as a relief check.
it is my belief that if the government would stop adopting these well-intentioned but shortsighted sorts of policies, everyone, including the wage-earners, would be much better off for it.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235005 - 01/11/04 03:34 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
because i realize i cannot support children right now so i take the proper precautions against becoming a father
*GASP* You don't mean to see you practice personal responsibility?
Outrageous.
OUTRAGEOUS!
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: d33p]
#2235054 - 01/11/04 04:14 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
d33p said:
Since when are the poor so helpless? It is not the gov't job to help these people by giving them what they did not earn. If they wanted the wages changed they could do that. As they have in the past.
The last thing we need is more laws and more regulation. Very bad example.
If the majority of the people are "poor", which isn't really true in America, they would be the majority in a democracy and thus, the main group that politicans were pandering to. I don't think that the government should give money out to people that aren't working, but I do think that the government has the responsibility to protect the people of the nation. This goes for groups that serve interests that are usually geared more for the higher class wage earners, such as those from economic groups that are more inclined to invest money, trade stocks, etc. as well as it does the lowest paid worker in the country. We don't want to construct a system where only the rich are thriving by oppressing the uneducated working class, and we don't want a society where the investors (mainly middle/upper class) are being lied to and cheated. Thus, we create laws to protect them.
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on other groups and oppresses them. I don't feel that this means that their shouldn't be, say, millionaire CEO's or that Joe Sixpack would be making 50$/hour working in a warehouse either.
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2235949 - 01/12/04 12:16 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
because they are children, and children are an exception
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
how is voluntary employment tantamount to slavery?
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
i'll have to do that
You do that. You might grasp it then.
the owner of a company, who employs people at jobs they are willing to do at wages they are willing to accept does not.
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236451 - 01/12/04 03:36 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
no, because himmler had a gun to their heads.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
Really weak Alpo.
In one case you're shot. In the other if you don't like the terms you can look elsewhere, grow your own food, or start your own business.
It's like night and day oh disingenuous one.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
GuidoBastard
newbie
Registered: 12/24/03
Posts: 33
Last seen: 5 years, 8 months
|
|
My summer job is at a deli in the dregs of town in a city in upstate NY's idustrially ravaged Adirondack foothills. The, um, clientel of this deli and market are more than bummy.
Nobody works. They jam up the place when the people who DO work wanna run in and get a sandwich real quick for their like, 8 minute lunch break. They have declining benefit cards that they can use to buy food and deduct it as fast as they want. This means LARGE orders by the scumbags. They can't budget, so the ass-end of the month is always less busy. I hate welfare scum.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236689 - 01/12/04 09:07 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Only because "leftists" fought and died for their right to an education. If they hadn't you would have been working in a factory since you were 7 instead of getting an education. The corporations don't give a shit - look how they treat children in south east asia.
listen, i'm glad that "leftists" helped end child labor practices. so they did something good. does that make them right always? no, it doesn't. the percieved political affiliation of the people who ended child labor has got nothing to do with this discussion.
Since when is it voluntary when you are starving to death? Is the choice between work for a bowl of soup a day and die in 3 days or die today really "voluntary"?
absolutely. if i didn't work, i'd be starving too. virtually everyone would starve if they did not choose to work, but the decision of whether or not to work, how much to work for, and where to work, is still a voluntary decision. no one is forcing anyone.
let's say you're on a desert island, and by mustering up all of your productive potential, you can only manage to feed yourself one bowl of soup per day. who is exploiting you? who is starving you? who is forcing you to work? if you choose not to work, but to starve instead, who has forced that fate upon you?
You do that. You might grasp it then.
ok, i've read it, and nowhere does toiletduk made an argument in support of the assertion that keeping what is yours rather than giving it to someone else is tantamount to taking that same thing from the person you could have given it to.
alex, i have never offered you a meal. does this mean that i am starving you? unfortunately, my neighbor is without an MP3 player. i just so happen to have two of them. by not giving one away to my neighbor, am i depriving him of an MP3 player? if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
depriving someone of something, be it their liberty, property, or life, cannot be done by keeping what is rightfully yours, but only by taking what is theirs. voluntary employment is not the same as slavery, no matter what the wage. i volunteer a great deal of my time to charitable organizations who pay me nothing. am i their slave? are they exploiting me?
BUT THEY ARE STARVING. If they don't work for the bastard paying a bowl of soup a day they die. What kind of choice is that?
it's a great choice. if it was not available to them, they would be dead.
And if you don't work for the bowl of soup a day in your world you die a slow death from starvation. What difference is there?
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 4,159
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236787 - 01/12/04 10:04 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
in this example..if that scumbag really could afford to pay everyone 10 bowls of soup..it means that each employee is in fact producing at least that much value...but since their only getting one bowl each..it means that the other 9 bowls are still handouts...in return for their survival..the workers are in effect paying the boss 9 bowls of soup a day so that they can work for him/her...and thats what makes it immoral...
oh brother. marxist bullshit. the worker may be producing that much value, but not without using the tools paid for and provided by his or her employer.
let's say i want to deliver goods for people. i could be self-employed, and walk from place to place, carrying goods and making deliveries. doing this, i can deliver no more than 4 or 5 packages a day, provided that they are very light and the distances are not far. doing this, lets say i make $10 a day making deliveries.... not very much. or i could go to work for a man who has a delivery business and a few trucks. with a truck, the deliveries i make bring in $200 a day. should that $200 be mine to keep at the end of the day? of course not. there would be nothing immoral at all for my employer to pay me whatever i was willing to accept and keep the rest. without his truck, i can make only $10 a day.
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
Quote:
TheOneYouKnow said:
Lets say that I own a warehouse. The majority of my labor is unskilled and highschool or GED education level. If the other warehouses were paying 15$/hour and offering full medical, dental and vision benefits, I'd have to do the same (or better) or I wouldn't be able to attract workers. Now, lets say that I went to the owners of the other warehouses in town. I proposed a plan that would save us a great deal of money. We would all agree to pay our workers no more than 7$/hour and offer no benefits. Since every warehouse would do this, the people would either work for the much lower wage with no benefits, or not have a job any longer. Lets take this a little bit farther and say that the association that I made with other warehouse workers went a bit farther. I'd talk with the farmers who would pay their cheap, uneducated labor much less than they were now. Now, if their wasn't a federally established minimum wage, we could keep on doing this until the only opportunities that unskilled workers had were all paying the same meager salary (or, perhaps, a bowl of soup per day?). This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal. The lower class needs to have governmental protection to ensure that they aren't being oppressed as much as the wealthy do to ensure that their isn't insider trading taking place, casuing their entire portfolio's to shrink exponentially overnight (read: Enron).
under these conditions..could you really choose not to "accept" that rate-of-pay??...and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
Edited by Annapurna1 (01/12/04 11:47 AM)
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2236805 - 01/12/04 10:15 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
no, its an example of you being ignorant of game theory.
and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
no. usury refers to lending money at interest. more specifically, it was the term used by the catholic church when it condemned the practice (thereby prohibiting investment and holding back european commerce for hundreds of years). in modern times, usury is defined as lending money at an interest rate higher than a legally defined maximum.
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236812 - 01/12/04 10:20 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
read my comments about what it means to deprive someone of something. himmler deprived people of their life and liberty by forcefully taking it from them. an employer who offers to exchange wages for labor, and accepts advances on that offer by consenting individuals, does not.
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work. They consented to work or they died. Exactly the same choice you are giving to the starving.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236820 - 01/12/04 10:24 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
No, the russian women always had a choice not to work.
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head, and refusing to buy them lunch, are two entirely different things.
i am not going to keep repeating myself in different words. if you have an argument against the fundamental principles for which i have been arguing, please present it.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236821 - 01/12/04 10:25 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
if i see an ice skater slip through the ice, and i do not immediately react by running over to her rescue, am i guilty of drowning her? of course not.
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
I would put a knife to their throat and slit it and let them bleed to death like an animal.
...and I would be right to do so.
--------------------
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
...and I would be right to do so.
Not so. However, your example would work if someone else did the slashing and then you watched them bleed.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Xlea321
Registered: 02/25/01
Posts: 9,134
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2236836 - 01/12/04 10:30 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
and if they didn't, someone would kill them. putting a bullet in someone's head
Well, you can't live on a bowl of soup a day so you would die of a horrible disease very rapidly anyway. Could you explain what choice the starving person has? He either dies today or dies tomorrow. What "choice" is that?
if you have an argument against the fundamental principles
I really don't how to present an argument to make you understand why starving people to death is wrong. You either understand it or you don't.
|
Anonymous
|
|
I wouldn't have a problem with making it illegal not to help someone who was dying. If I had a relative die while someone just watched indifferently and did nothing. I would kill them.
it would have to depend on how they died, wouldn't it?
what if they were killed in a bank robbery?
should all witnesses of bank robberies jump into the fray and try to disarm and subdue the robber?
what if they were dying of a terrible disease, which could be cured, but not without substantial amounts of expensive therapy?
should a person who saw this and didn't open up their checkbook and sign a fat check have their neck cut by you?
what if they were trapped in a burning building... should the nearest passerby be required to go in and rescue them?
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't? people make choices. if they want to help another person, that's their decision. if they don't, that's their decision too, and they shouldn't be punished for it.
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Xlea321]
#2236862 - 01/12/04 10:37 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Well, you can't live on a bowl of soup a day so you would die of a horrible disease very rapidly anyway. Could you explain what choice the starving person has? He either dies today or dies tomorrow. What "choice" is that?
if you still do not see the difference between a case of holding a man underwater until he drowns, and that of simply refraining from jumping in the water to rescue a drowning man who has fallen in, i don't think i can make it any more clear than i already have.
I really don't how to present an argument to make you understand why starving people to death is wrong. You either understand it or you don't.
and starving people to death is wrong. what you do not understand is that to starve someone, you must take their food from them. not giving someone food isn't the same as taking it from them. prove that it is, and you'll have something to stand on.
|
RandalFlagg
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,594
Last seen: 2 months, 22 days
|
|
America should be against anything where one powerful group turns on
other groups and oppresses them
Exactly. If democracy has proved one thing, it has shown how groups
of people do whatever political thing they can in order to get
whatever they can. This statement goes for massive corporations all
the way to unions who represent poor people.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy
Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 4,159
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237025 - 01/12/04 12:26 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
fortunately..you have already been rebuked...
when and where?
>> see edit to post...
This is an example of why the Federal Government does need to be involved in regulating business and protecting the interests of the poor.
no, its an example of you being ignorant of game theory.
>> game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following:
If it was done with prices of merchandise, it would be price-fixing and would be illegal. If it were done with stocks and bonds, it would be illegal.
and btw..charging 9 bowls of soup for the use of the souping equipment would be called usury...
no. usury refers to lending money at interest. more specifically, it was the term used by the catholic church when it condemned the practice (thereby prohibiting investment and holding back european commerce for hundreds of years). in modern times, usury is defined as lending money at an interest rate higher than a legally defined maximum.
>> interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
Anonymous
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Annapurna1]
#2237099 - 01/12/04 01:07 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
see edit to post...
i've read the whole post. nowhere do you make an adequate case in support of the marxist fantasy that something can be worth more than that with which it can be voluntarily exchanged.
game theory is irrelevant...at the very least you have not explained how it justifies industrial exploitation..but none of the following
price fixing is illegal. the government enforces against it. you've merely given an example of a way in which the government interferes in the market. what you have not done is supported the notion that this, or any other interference, is a proper use of government power. the fact is that it is usually not in the self-interest of any given business to cooperate with other businesses in collusive strategies, and so such instances are rare, even in the absence of government enforcement.
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
interest is the price charged on the use of capital (in economist-speak..which in this case means the souping equipment)...as such..the usage is correct..pushing aside the legal technicality...
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
|
TheOneYouKnow
addict
Registered: 01/04/04
Posts: 470
Last seen: 5 years, 7 months
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237276 - 01/12/04 02:20 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
mushmaster said:
let's say i have a chicken farm. all of the chicken farmers in the state have gotten together and decided to all cut the wages of our laborers from $15 an hour to $6 an hour. i quickly realize that by throwing that agreement out the window, and paying my laborers more than the set $6, i can attract the best workers, i can attract as many workers as i want (from my competitors no less), i can have happier and thus more productive workers than my competitors, and have an extremely low turnover rate. the other chicken farmers would also realize this, and the $6 pact would quickly fall apart.
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead. So the REAL deicison would be made in the grocery store when people were given the choice between your chicken and another companies chicken, both being the same quality of chicken, and yours being twice as expensive.
Quote:
do you feel that it is wrong to lend things at interest? if so, why?
This wasn't really addressed to me, but I do have a few thoughts on it. The people that are against lending that involves interest say that they do so insupport of the poor people. How would a poor person afford a vehicle (about 9,000$ US minimum for a new car), a house (60,000$US+) or other expensive but necessary things? Would would be the causal factor that would lead "the rich" to put up money to be loaned?
|
Anonymous
|
|
You would be foolish to do so. If you were paying almost three times the value that other employees assigned to their workers, but you were still producing the same goods that they were, and the same amount of goods that you were when you entered the bargain, you'd be forced to sell your goods (the chicken) for a higher price to cover your overhead.
who's saying i'd have to pay 3 times what everyone else was paying to reap those benefits? all i'd have to do was pay more than the rival chicken farms. i could pay $7 an hour. other firms would of course follow suit, perhaps paying $8 an hour. eventually, we'd all be paying the market wage rate, just like we had been before.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237599 - 01/12/04 06:15 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
who are you to decide when someone is required to come to another person's aid and when they aren't?
The guy with the knife.
Who are you to say who "owns" something? A person is ony wealthy if there is a broad consensus that they own the things they claim to own.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Who are you to say who "owns" something?
i own myself. if i don't own myself, that is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my own life than i do.
because i am alive, i exist in time and have the ability to act. i own my time and i own my capacity to act. to say that someone else owns these things means that someone else has a higher claim on my time and capacity to act than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my liberty than i do. it is to say that someone has a higher claim on my life than i do.
if i own my time and ability to act, it follows logically that i own those things for which i exchange my time and effort. to say that i do not own the things for which i have exchanged my time and effort for implies that someone else has a higher claim on these things than i do. it is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my property than i do. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my liberty. this is to say that someone else has a higher claim on my life than i do.
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 06:53 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237649 - 01/12/04 06:44 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
How do you know that the stuff you got isn't stolen? If you accept stolen goods as payment for your time, who is then the real owner, the person who had it stolen from them, or you.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
that would be a good topic for another thread. i think that the person who had their property stolen should have it returned to them, and that the person who did the stealing should have to reimburse the person they exchanged it with. that's not really related to this thread though. private property does exist, and individuals have the same right to their property as they have to their life and liberty.
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237732 - 01/12/04 07:24 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point. Just because you think it's yours doesn't make it so.
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do. If that means they get to live, and you don't get to take a cruise, then too bad. There is no immoral way for that exchange to take place, not by theft, and not by taxes.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
Everything was stolen from someone at some point.
i don't think so. the computer i'm using wasn't stolen from anyone, nor were the clothes i'm wearing, the food i ate today, etc.
what has been stolen and from whom?
If someone else needs it more than you do then they deserve it more than you do.
why should someone deserve that which i have created any more than i do? why should someone deserve a portion of my life any more than i do? why should any person by forced to support any other person?
here's a question:
you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need?
Edited by Anonymous (01/12/04 07:41 PM)
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237760 - 01/12/04 07:31 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
>>>you say it is ok to take people's property in order to support those in need. is it also ok to enslave people and force them to labor in support of those in need? <<<
example?
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
hmm... it's sortof a hypothetical. like for instance, there is habitat for humanity and many other volunteer groups like it that help poor folks. would it be ok to force people to do this kind of work?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237806 - 01/12/04 07:52 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
I think it's a matter of scale and proportion.
It would not be fair to force someone into real, literal slavery for a year, in order to keep another person alive for a year, but bedridden and in pain.
On the other hand, I don't have a problem in denying someone a summer cruise so that a seven year old boy can be completely cured of his terminal illness and live a full healthy life.
There is a matter of diminishing returns on this issue.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
so... it is ok to take that for which someone has labored, but not their labor itself?
if i am a builder and i charge $500 to install new rooves on houses, why is it not ok to force me to install a new roof on someone's home today, but it is ok to take from me the $500 that i earned installing a roof yesterday?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2237872 - 01/12/04 08:23 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
I would be okay with giving them the option of cash or labor as long as the outcome was the same.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
That's not slavery. Slavery is owning someone, and controlling all parts of their lives.
it's forced labor, and there's not much difference. forced labor is ok?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239000 - 01/13/04 11:17 AM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Forced labor is okay to a point, but what we're talking about is not forced labor. what we're talking about is taxes (I think). Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
I've never once gotten a letter from the government demanding that I make more money.
--------------------
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
If you have just cashed your check and pocketed all the money and I come up and rob you, isn't the amount of money robbed from you based upon the amount of money you choose to make?
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
Anonymous
|
|
Forced labor is okay to a point, but what we're talking about is not forced labor. what we're talking about is taxes (I think). Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
what we were talking about was taking the product of someone's labor. your property represents a part of your life. it is your past. in the past, you expended productive effort to create the property you now own. you have as much of a right to your past (your property) as you do to your present (your liberty) and to your future (your life). but hey, you support involuntary servitude, so at least you're being consistant.
why should anyone have a higher claim on your own life than you do?
|
Baby_Hitler
Anarcho-Technologist
Registered: 03/06/02
Posts: 19,192
Loc: To the limit!
Last seen: 4 hours, 28 minutes
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239187 - 01/13/04 12:37 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Sorry, the analogy just doesn't fit.
--------------------
|
Anonymous
|
|
it does.
your time and capacity to act are conditions of your life, and as such, you have the highest claim on them. you can do what you want. you can spend your time how you want. to deny this is to say that someone has a higher claim on your life than you do. if you choose to use your time and capacity to act in such a way that you produce something, the thing that you have produced is as much yours as that which you expended to produce it. your property represents a portion of your life. you have given some of your life to produce that property; it is as much your own as your own life.
when you take the roofer's $500, you are taking yesterday. when you force him to build a roof, you are taking today.
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: ]
#2239269 - 01/13/04 01:09 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
 Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239334 - 01/13/04 01:29 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Taxes are based on the amount of money you choose to make.
If you have just cashed your check and pocketed all the money and I come up and rob you, isn't the amount of money robbed from you based upon the amount of money you choose to make?
No, it's based on you having a gun and me not wanting to die. A robber's going to take all the money I have whether it's $5 or $5,000.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Have you ever tried to resist armed government agents? Check out the The Whack'em & Stack'em Files to read some stories about how the government treats taxpayers (and everyone else).
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239725 - 01/13/04 04:10 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
With taxes, there is an understanding. You pay taxes in exchange for government services, and they only take a certain percent of your income, and that's before you get it, so in a way, it's not even yours.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
The mob calls the same thing, 'protection money.' There is no difference except in legal terminology (well, the mob does a better job of protecting you).
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239774 - 01/13/04 04:29 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
The mob doesn't care how much money you're making, so this might be a good analogy if there was a flat tax.
Basically, when you get a job, you know very well that what you're going to be making isn't really such-and-such amount of money, but rather such-and-such amount minus taxes, and you agree to work for that amount. Similarly, when you buy something at a store, you factor in sales tax before buying something. It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
Just like a kid who get's his lunch money stolen everyday by bullies? If he didn't voluntarily take money to school, no one would take it from him, therefore it is consensual?
So a woman is threatened with being beaten up or stabbed if she doesn't have sex with someone, if she then agrees to have sex it's consensual?
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Quote:
It's a consensual agreement.
Pay or go to jail is a consensual agreement? Something else your learned from a professor?
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239959 - 01/13/04 05:46 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's a consensual agreement. If you don't want to pay taxes, don't have a job.
Just like a kid who get's his lunch money stolen everyday by bullies? If he didn't voluntarily take money to school, no one would take it from him, therefore it is consensual?
Apples and oranges. If you take a job, they tell you what you're going to get paid, and you factor taxes into it. Therefore, you agree when taking a job that you are going to work for the amount of money left after taxes.
Quote:
So a woman is threatened with being beaten up or stabbed if she doesn't have sex with someone, if she then agrees to have sex it's consensual?
Another shitty analogy.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
|
Quote:
luvdemshrooms said:
Quote:
It's a consensual agreement.
Pay or go to jail is a consensual agreement? Something else your learned from a professor?
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours. And no, I didn't learn if from a professor(let it go--seriously). I'm using a thing called logic. You should try it sometime.
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Demand a refund.
--------------------
Join The N.R.A.
"Activism is a way for useless people to feel important, even if the consequences of their activism are counterproductive for those they claim to be helping and damaging to the fabric of society as a whole." - Thomas Sowell
"Some of the most vocal critics of the way things are being done are people who have done nothing themselves, and whose only contributions to society are their complaints and moral exhibitionism." - Thomas Sowell
"A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, which debt he proposes to pay off with your money." - G. Gordon Liddy
"Vive tu vida, no la mia".
|
Anarkhos
Without a Ruler
Registered: 01/13/04
Posts: 47
Last seen: 1 year, 13 days
|
|
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours.
Wrong. The money must be earned BY YOU before your employer credits it to you. Your employer is then threatened by the government to withhold your earnings from your paycheck.
Quote:
I'm using a thing called logic.
No you aren't, you are using something called rationalization.
--------------------
No masters, no servants.
|
silversoul7
Chill the FuckOut!
Registered: 10/10/02
Posts: 27,301
Loc: mndfreeze's puppet army
|
Re: The American poor. [Re: Anarkhos]
#2239998 - 01/13/04 06:03 PM (5 years, 9 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Anarkhos said:
Quote:
silversoul7 said:
It's not something you pay. It's something that comes out of your paycheck before it even becomes yours.
Wrong. The money must be earned BY YOU before your employer credits it to you. Your employer is then threatened by the government to withhold your earnings from your paycheck.
"Earned" is a loaded term. You "earn" what you agree to earn, and when you agree to it, it comes with an understanding between you, your employer, and the government that a certain percentage of it is not yours, but the government's.
Quote:
Quote:
I'm using a thing called logic.
No you aren't, you are using something called rationalization.
Call it what you will, but no one coerces you into taking a job(except maybe your parents or landlord).
--------------------
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong."--Voltaire
|
luvdemshrooms
Two inch dick..but it spins!?
Registered: 11/29/01
Posts: 13,213
Loc: Lost In Space
|
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Shop for: 
Edit 
Reply 
