Some poor people are poor because they just give up.

Having said that, I am poor because I am lazy and set unrealistic short term and long term goals for myself.

2/19/2008 11:19:19 PM

I think the best way to make government help self-correcting may be to strip the recipients off the public dole of their voting right. This simple move makes politicians unable to buy votes. After all this is really the danger. Moreover the reality we confront. We have two parties which are both fighting over who gives more to the people. Not who governs better really, rather the message has become elect me and I'll give you healthcare, or a "tax rebate" (shhh it's actually lump-sum welfare), or a pension plan, or a house, etc...

Both parties are engaging in this embarrasing tax payer funded party. I say if you get government money, NO VOTE FOR YOU.

2/19/2008 11:23:30 PM

On ambition, why should anyone be compelled to toil as wage slave to get by? Supposing that such subservience is the path to success, I'd still oppose to the system. So what if anyone can escape poverty by working long hours and living frugally? That's not good enough. That's not the ideal to strive for. No one should be subjected to bosses. No should have to labor for a paltry share of the world's abundant wealth.

2/19/2008 11:49:42 PM

wat?


What exactly would people do?

Where would shit come from?

2/19/2008 11:53:36 PM

Work together as equals and comrades.

Wage slavery isn't the only way to get things done.

2/20/2008 12:31:00 AM

Quote :

"why should anyone be compelled to toil as wage slave to get by"

b.c they lack the intelligence , eduactation, and/or motivation to get a better job.

Not my fault you work 12 hours sweating balls in the steel factory. Why should the gov't pay you to sit around all day. 500 years ago this person would have been cannon folder in some rich politicians/monarchs war for power.

2/20/2008 12:39:03 AM

Quote :

"mathman: I think the best way to make government help self-correcting may be to strip the recipients off the public dole of their voting right. This simple move makes politicians unable to buy votes. After all this is really the danger. Moreover the reality we confront. We have two parties which are both fighting over who gives more to the people. Not who governs better really, rather the message has become elect me and I'll give you healthcare, or a "tax rebate" (shhh it's actually lump-sum welfare), or a pension plan, or a house, etc... Both parties are engaging in this embarrasing tax payer funded party. I say if you get government money, NO VOTE FOR YOU."

Poor people don't vote, dumbass.

Politicians buy votes/support/funds when they continue to let super-rich people avoid taxes.

And you're pathetic for not seeing that. It isn't us vs. poor people. It's us vs. rich people.

99 percent of us against 1 percent.

It's hard for people to admit that because then they have to acknowledge that they're common and always will be common.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 12:42 AM. Reason : sss]

2/20/2008 12:40:13 AM

Quote :

"b.c they lack the intelligence , eduactation, and/or motivation to get a better job."

I don't like it even if low-end wage slavery is only a brief phase. You realize someone has to do the grunt labor, right? (Under the current system, anyway.) Your attitude is part of the problem. Such work is often humiliating on many levels. Calling the workers stupid and lazy doesn't help.

2/20/2008 12:44:59 AM

who else is gonna flip my burgers, put my honda together, clean the toilets at my work at night, landscape my apartment complex????

2/20/2008 12:47:02 AM

As long as people do such work, you should thank them and treat them as comrades.

They're not lazy idiots.

2/20/2008 12:58:50 AM

Quote :

"Poor people don't vote, dumbass. Politicians buy votes/support/funds when they continue to let super-rich people avoid taxes. And you're pathetic for not seeing that. It isn't us vs. poor people. It's us vs. rich people. 99 percent of us against 1 percent. It's hard for people to admit that because then they have to acknowledge that they're common and always will be common. "

Just curious, but do you have any idea how dumb you sound with this little gem?

Blaming everything on the rich is just as stupid as blaming the country's problems on the poor.

2/20/2008 2:33:03 AM

Quote :

"As long as people do such work, you should thank them and treat them as comrades."

Thank them for it in the form of monetary compensation, or what we call "wages"... so, with a slight terminology change, you are now advocating the very thing you earlier protested.

Also, while it might be nicer to treat them as "comrades", this does not mean that all workers should be treated as "equals"... in other words, if I'm investing my time and money into a college degree, at the end of the day I deserve more pay than someone whose job involves executing basic motor functions, even if their job might be more "humiliating"... besides that, in the 4 or 5 years it takes to get my degree, they could have moved out of their level of poverty with savings and hard work (provided they do not have some sort of mental handicap).


You should consider moving to China. I think you'd enjoy life there, comrade.

2/20/2008 3:40:06 AM

I blame the country's problems on people who spend too much time on internet forums.

2/20/2008 4:40:15 AM

Quote :

"Prawn Star: Just curious, but do you have any idea how dumb you sound with this little gem? Blaming everything on the rich is just as stupid as blaming the country's problems on the poor."

I'm not blaming everything on the rich.

I'm just saying that rich people should pay their fucking taxes like everybody else.

2/20/2008 7:18:15 AM

Jesus this thread went down the communist shitter in a heartbeat.

Quote :

"Alternatively, how about an economic system that doesn't require ambition? We have plenty of material wealth. There's no need to divide abundance based on favored personal qualities. "

ambition is exactly the reason why this country has its "abundance" of wealth. you cant take that away and expect to maintain the status quo.

2/20/2008 8:46:36 AM

^It's not clear to me that he's interested in maintaining the status quo.

2/20/2008 9:02:33 AM

status quo in regards to the overall wealth that the US enjoys. I think he feels you can spread that wealth over all the classes and even out the "distribution" of it.

2/20/2008 9:52:47 AM

Quote :

"the major problem i see with this that makes him different from the other people in the same situation is that he is educated - regardless of whether he told people he had a piece of paper or not - he had the intelligence/education to get out of the situation he was in i think everyone can agree you don't only learn things from books in college..."

There are plenty of people working "low wage" jobs who could be educated if they wanted it. They chose not to, for whatever reason.

Dropping out of high school, 95% of the time, is a choice.

2/20/2008 9:53:15 AM

You got anymore statistics hidden up your ass?

2/20/2008 10:06:08 AM

Quote :

"I'm just saying that rich people should pay their fucking taxes like everybody else. "

The top 1% of taxpayers earn 19% of total income, yet pay 36% of all income taxes. So they are paying approx twice their share in taxes. How much more do you want from them before you think it's "fair"?

The bottom 50% of income earners get 13% of all income and pay 3% of all income taxes.

If you tax an activity, you will get less of that activity. Taxing high achievers more will just result in less high achievement.

2/20/2008 10:23:27 AM

Quote :

"I'm just saying that rich people should pay their fucking taxes like everybody else. "

That has to be one of the funniest things Ive ever read on here.

"Top 5% pay 53.25% of all income taxes. The top 10% pay 64.89%. The top 25% pay 82.9%. The top 50% pay 96.03%."

But what is rich?

The top 7 percent of those filing returns, those reporting adjusted gross income of $75,000 or more, paid 51 percent of total U.S. income taxes.

People making $75,001, a group that includes many households in which both spouses work, may object that they don't feel particularly rich.
The top 3 percent of filers, those making $100,000-plus, paid 40 percent of the taxes.
The top four-fifths of 1 percent of filers, who make $200,000 or more, paid 26 percent of the taxes.
The top one-twentieth of 1 percent of filers, those making $1 million or more--and Tom Wolfe's little demonstration in Bonfire of the Vanities notwithstanding, nobody's going to tell me those guys aren't rich--paid 10 percent of the taxes. That's a mere 67,000 households, who on average paid income tax of $707,000 apiece.


Yeah, those 67thousand people that pay for 10% of all taxes should really be doing more. I know the gimecrats consider me rich too, and the taxes I pay hurt.

2/20/2008 10:29:32 AM

For we each of us deserve everything, every luxury that was piled in the tombs of the dead kings, and we each of us deserve nothing, not a mouthful of bread in hunger. Have we not eaten while another starved? Will you punish us for that? Will you reward us for the virtue of starving while others ate? No man earns punishment, no man earns reward. Free your mind of the idea of deserving, the idea of earning, and you will begin to be able to think.

2/20/2008 10:31:09 AM

Quote :

"think the best way to make government help self-correcting may be to strip the recipients off the public dole of their voting right."

Wow.

2/20/2008 10:42:19 AM

this is a joke.

don't tell me he didn't use the college education he received from his prestigious private university (Merrimack!), or the skills learned as the child of upper-middle class parents.

i've been homeless too, and i know this is a sham.

he doesnt have disabilities. he doesnt have mental issues. he doesnt have drug dependency. he doesnt have negative background marks (criminal, driving, credit) ....

yeah, he's a real freakin hero. hes a priveledged white boy from a private college who went out and showed all the uneducated "bums" that he can succeed at life better than they can.

woo hoo.

as if homeless people really care about eating out at restaurants and putting rims on their caddy.

i can't wait for the inevitable moment that someone who was with him during this time comes out and exposes his lies.

for the record, when i was homeless (for over a year) i never once accepted food stamps or any sort of welfare payments. ,many of the homeless that i knew, didn't.

this guy is a total loser.





[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 12:45 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 12:39:15 PM

Why would he have drug dependency or a criminal record?

He's trying to show that people can overcome poverty, not stupidity.

2/20/2008 12:45:24 PM

Quote :

"The top 1% of taxpayers earn 19% of total income, yet pay 36% of all income taxes. So they are paying approx twice their share in taxes. How much more do you want from them before you think it's "fair"? "

while inherently true to which i respect; i lot of the top echelon though is also able to find ways to semi or completly illegally evade paying taxes easier than common folk.

2/20/2008 12:49:28 PM

^I think our govt has created this system that penalizes people with wealth from keeping it in this country, the same with manufacturing jobs.

But its a completely different to say rich dont pay their share of taxes.

You know I support a fed sales or flat income tax, which would be fairer to all.

2/20/2008 1:21:31 PM

Quote :

"I say if you get government money, NO VOTE FOR YOU. "

Hell I'd be tempted to give up my vote in exchange for some $$$

2/20/2008 1:39:14 PM

JoeSchmoe wins the thread.

^ That's been outlawed for quite some time now.

Quote :

"GoldenViper: Work together as equals and comrades. Wage slavery isn't the only way to get things done."

I don't know that (1) is possible, or that I would desire to see any efforts I can imagine to make it possible forcibly implemented on the human race.

Despite all the piss and moaning in the thread, I fundamentally agree with (2).

Quote :

"HUR: 500 years ago this person would have been cannon folder in some rich politicians/monarchs war for power."

Oh I see. Because they hand you Big Macs or sell you cigarettes at the gas station in modern times, they aren't still cannon fodder in a rich politicians/monarchs war for power.

Quote :

"HUR: who else is gonna flip my burgers, put my honda together, clean the toilets at my work at night, landscape my apartment complex????"

Robots.

Invent them and make $texas before somebody else does.

Capitalism++

Quote :

"tromboner950: Also, while it might be nicer to treat them as "comrades", this does not mean that all workers should be treated as "equals"... in other words, if I'm investing my time and money into a college degree, at the end of the day I deserve more pay than someone whose job involves executing basic motor functions, even if their job might be more "humiliating"... besides that, in the 4 or 5 years it takes to get my degree, they could have moved out of their level of poverty with savings and hard work (provided they do not have some sort of mental handicap)."

Listen, Jr., there's plenty about the world you rather obviously do not understand. I'll be as brief and polite as possible.

The Capitalist job world does not work like mom's fridge. That multi-year "effort" people put toward that clever finger painting called a BA in Theatre, Philosophy, or any Liberal Art does not at all guarantee them any better real estate on the Fridgidaire than the worker whose GED has him handing out french fries.

A college degree is only a ticket to the race for a job, but whether you end up beneath your sister's BS in Quantum Mechanics with honors or on top of Calvin at Wac-Arnold's on the pay scale has to do with the demand for your labor.

How many job postings do you see in the Technician read

"WANTED: Some apathetic self-righteous faggot who thinks and writes a lot of vitriol against Consumerism and the State, but possesses few social or practical skills."

Philosophy degrees tend not to end up on the high side of the pay scale in Capitalist systems. Coal Miners and factory workers usually make more money than they do.

Supply and demand is a two way street. If nobody wants your skills, your efforts don't "deserve" shit. That's just the nature of Capitalism.

Quote :

"tromboner950: You should consider moving to China."

And you should consider cracking open a book on the history of capitalism before you start spouting xenophobic garbage like this. You look like a fool.

Quote :

"DaBird: ambition is exactly the reason why this country has its "abundance" of wealth. you cant take that away and expect to maintain the status quo."

Who's taking it away?

GoldenViper's not talking about removing ambition, but no longer requiring it in order to to maintain a comfortable living for oneself and family.

Quote :

"EarthDogg: How much more do you want from them before you think it's "fair"?"

All I see here is "The billionaires are suffering!"

Please, tell us.

Just how much do they need back from us to get some goddamnn satisfaction once in awhile!?

Poor fellas. If ONLY they were as cute as the dolphins!!

Quote :

"EarthDogg: Taxing high achievers more will just result in less high achievement."

Agreed.

So let's tax the ever loving FUCK out of the money in the hands of those whose "achievements" are limited to winning the trillion dollar genetic lottery or earning their money the old fashioned way (by marrying into it).

The coexistence of Capitalism with Egalitarianism is such a bald-faced lie when you look at the statistics on those two facts of modern wealth.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : ...]

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 1:41 PM. Reason : DAMMIT]

2/20/2008 1:40:06 PM

Start of this thread: "Poor folk need to bust ass and live as frugally as possible. If they don't, they're lazy bums who deserve whatever they get."

End of this thread: "Damn the government for stealing my money! Taxes hurt me. I need every grimy penny!"

2/20/2008 1:40:22 PM

Quote :

"he doesnt have disabilities. he doesnt have mental issues. he doesnt have drug dependency. he doesnt have negative background marks (criminal, driving, credit) .... "

a majority of those things listed are SELF INFLICTED.

That's half the point of this entire debate. YOU ARE IN CONTROL OVER YOUR DESTINY.

2/20/2008 1:44:51 PM

Quote :

"I don't know that (1) is possible, or that I would desire to see any efforts I can imagine to make it possible forcibly implemented on the human race."

Well, I certainly wouldn't want force. In theory, I don't even support the taxes folks are complaining about. However, as long the state exists, I'd rather it do positive things.

Quote :

"How many job postings do you see in the Technician read "WANTED: Some apathetic self-righteous faggot who thinks and writes a lot of vitriol against Consumerism and the State, but possesses few social or practical skills.""

Too few. Far too few.

2/20/2008 1:55:00 PM

Of course everyone's in control of their own destiny.

Few are encouraged to take control of it, but they do have it.

At the risk of blowing much harder on a topic I've summarize the facts:

SOME Poor People ARE Lazy.

SOME Obscenely Wealthy People ARE ALSO Lazy. [Hilton, Paris; Spears, Britney; many actors, etc.]

But indictments of laziness are not what this thread was about, and they don't serve any real intellectual cause. Truth told, the topic probably belonged in the Lounge from the start, but here we are.

With a title like "Why Are People Poor?" or "On Laziness..." we may have brewed some real debate in a topic worth discussing. Instead we've got trolls splattering their shorts trying to outdo each other's uninformed insults of the poor.

Quote :

"GoldenViper: Well, I certainly wouldn't want force. In theory, I don't even support the taxes folks are complaining about. However, as long the state exists, I'd rather it do positive things."

Agreed, with the unfortunate caveat that I believe tax policies are behind class divisions in Democracies. How can the state get people to work around one another as equals and comrades? I've heard this before, but you rarely articulate this when challenged in a thread. Please, explicate.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:05 PM. Reason : ...]

2/20/2008 1:56:47 PM

Quote :

"Few are encouraged to take control of it, but they do have it."

So it's our duty to go to the homeless shelters and encourage people to take control of the life that they live?

2/20/2008 2:02:34 PM

but whether or not what the reasons are: with our current system a sizable portion of our population will be poor and not be able to afford the amenities that most of us take for granted (decent food, health care, etc)

2/20/2008 2:03:01 PM

Quote :

"Why would he have drug dependency or a criminal record? He's trying to show that people can overcome poverty, not stupidity. "

GG

Quote :

"Who's taking it away? GoldenViper's not talking about removing ambition, but no longer requiring it in order to to maintain a comfortable living for oneself and family. "

ok...how would you go about not requiring it? giving people money and goods? what would then inspire anyone to go through the schooling to be doctors, lawyer, engineers, etc...? the goodness of their heart? give me a fucking break. you are one naive SOB.


the world is a nasty, mean and unforgiving place. you have to earn your place in it. the predator who does not stalk its prey does not eat. its all very simple. the individual, in 95% of all cases, is responsible for their own ass. if they dont choose to take advantage of public schools, federal college loans and any of the other hundreds of government programs to better themselves in life, whose fault is that? mine, just because I am a tax payer? do I not already give enough? I busted my ass in a single-parent home, put myself through college on two jobs and have earned my career and the $texas I make. anyone else can do the same.

2/20/2008 2:05:47 PM

^^^ Duty? Not at all. But as a reasonable exercise of free speech, why not?

I mean, don't get violent or nothing. But I don't see anything wrong with advocacy groups showing up at homeless shelters with directions to nearby, hiring fast food restaurants.

Quote :

"DaBird: give me a fucking break. you are one naive SOB."

That naivety must stem from my BS Management degree from your school, my two years (and ongoing) of FINRA Series 7 and 66 licensure and corresponding personal and professional invesment-mananagement experience.

Your grunts are loud and all, but I'm not really put off by name-calling.

But while we're on the topic of naivety, you tell me what you call it when as an operating social construct, the abstract concept of value is privately printed then loaned by a consortium to banks and governments at interest, then passed on to you--again as taxes or interest--and ultimately you and everyone else repay the debt with your labor.

If that's not mass naivety, I don't know what is.

Quote :

"DaBird: the world is a nasty, mean and unforgiving place. you have to earn your place in it. the predator who does not stalk its prey does not eat. its all very simple. the individual, in 95% of all cases, is responsible for their own ass."

Right, and since Homo Sapiens, particularly of the American variety, are the ones of concern here and happen to fall well within that 5% of exceptions given that the species is survived by its social nature, not its individual hunting ability, we'll continue...

Quote :

"DaBird: if they dont choose to take advantage of public schools, federal college loans and any of the other hundreds of government programs to better themselves in life, whose fault is that?"

Poor administration of governance is the fault of many. The administrators, their appointers, and of course, the complacent who ignore their incompetence.

If the institutions are unused, launch an investigation into why. Correct the problems.

Quote :

"DaBird: I busted my ass in a single-parent home, put myself through college on two jobs and have earned my career and the $texas I make. anyone else can do the same"

Neither I, nor GoldenViper to the best I can tell, have argued to the contrary. Seriously.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:24 PM. Reason : ...]

2/20/2008 2:06:33 PM

Quote :

"but whether or not what the reasons are: with our current system a sizable portion of our population will be poor and not be able to afford the amenities that most of us take for granted (decent food, health care, etc)"

what is sizable?

2/20/2008 2:08:15 PM

Quote :

"How can the state get people to work around one another as equals and comrades? I've heard this before, but you rarely articulate this when challenged in a thread. Please, explicate."

Uh, I don't think the state can. It's a fundamentally oppressive institution. I want anarchy.

However, I think some states do better than ours. Europe is the classic example. Democratic socialism isn't ideal, but I'd prefer that system over what we've got.

Quote :

"ok...how would you go about not requiring it? giving people money and goods? what would then inspire anyone to go through the schooling to be doctors, lawyer, engineers, etc...? the goodness of their heart? give me a fucking break. you are one naive SOB."

People would work because they wanted to. When removed from the price system, work isn't such an unpleasant thing. Haven't you ever done some task simply because you considered it worth doing?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:16 PM. Reason : worth doing]

2/20/2008 2:11:01 PM

you are one naive ignorant SOB.

2/20/2008 2:14:16 PM

Now that you've demonstrated your ability to type words and click "Post Reply!," which any primate can do, let's see if you can explain what you meant by that...

...while I wait...

Quote :

"DaBird: giving people money and goods?"

This is more GV's ally, but I'll try. Let's start with goods.

So everyone, every home whether they want them or not suddenly gets a book of stamps.

They will have literally NO tradeable value on the secondary market as everyone's name will be printed on the stamps. They are redeemed for gasoline, bread, milk, eggs, diapers, feminine products, and other survival necessities. Shops carrying these items must accept these stamps to receive business licenses and are subject to regular inspection by a combination OSHA/FDA entity to ensure goods are of high quality.

Note how businesses may still compete, but no longer over items of necessity?

Quote :

"DaBird: what would then inspire anyone to go through the schooling to be doctors, lawyer, engineers, etc...? the goodness of their heart?"

Did I mention there were honors in that NCSU Management degree of mine?

They taught us to believe exactly that in two-separate courses I took while pursuing that degree.

Philosophy?

No.

Political Science?

No.

Foreign Film Faggotry?

No.

Introduction to Business taught by Greg Young and Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Neither class relied on altruism or mere belief to buttress its claims. Turns out the concept has been studied, restudied, and restudied again for decades:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motivation#Business

Quote :

"At lower levels of Maslow's hierarchy of needs, such as Physiological needs, money is a motivator, however it tends to have a motivating effect on staff that lasts only for a short period (in accordance with Herzberg's two-factor model of motivation). At higher levels of the hierarchy, praise, respect, recognition, empowerment and a sense of belonging are far more powerful motivators than money, as both Abraham Maslow's theory of motivation and Douglas McGregor's Theory X and theory Y (pertaining to the theory of leadership) demonstrate. Maslow has money at the lowest level of the hierarchy and shows other needs are better motivators to staff. McGregor places money in his Theory X category and feels it is a poor motivator. Praise and recognition are placed in the Theory Y category and are considered stronger motivators than money."

The article goes on, and I realize it's Wikipedia, but this is the exact same data cited at work to this very day. The vastest of theory on motivation indicates that general satisfaction beats monetary reward every time.

And think about it for a second. Like the chicken and the egg.

What came first, the dollar or the wheel?

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:47 PM. Reason : ...]

2/20/2008 2:26:15 PM

Quote :

"People would work because they wanted to. When removed from the price system, work isn't such an unpleasant thing. Haven't you ever done some task simply because you considered it worth doing? "

work is ok, but I would rather have much less responsibility and have spent much less on my schooling and still be able to have the things I want....but then, who wouldnt? who would then do my job? who would choose the 50+ hour work week and stress? nobody. at least, not enough to fill the need. the whole world, including nature, works like this. you get out what you put in. some choose less, others choose more. choosing is a wonderful thing.

Quote :

"That naivety must stem from my BS Management degree from your school, my two years (and ongoing) of FINRA Series 7 and 66 licensure and corresponding personal and professional invesment-mananagement experience. Your grunts are loud and all, but I'm not really put off by name-calling. But while we're on the topic of naivety, you tell me what you call it when as an operating social construct, the abstract concept of value is privately printed then loaned by a consortium to banks and governments at interest, then passed on to you--again as taxes or interest--and ultimately you and everyone else repay the debt with your labor. If that's not mass naivety, I don't know what is."

I dont care what school you went to, how many degrees/certifications you have, you obviously have very little common sense. Classic liberal. Your naivety stems from the fact that you think value is privately printed. Value is assigned by the people. The beauty of capitalism. Value has been assigned by people on things since Adam jerked off into theprimoridal ooze.

Quote :

"Right, and since Homo Sapiens, particularly of the American variety, are the ones of concern here and happen to fall well within that 5% of exceptions given that the species is survived by its social nature, not its individual hunting ability, we'll continue..."

I was equating hunting with the persuit of ones goals. Metaphors are great.

Quote :

"Poor administration of governance is the fault of many. The administrators, their appointers, and of course, the complacent who ignore their incompetence. If the institutions are unused, launch an investigation into why. Correct the problems. "

Laughable. Another typical liberal answer..."ITS THE FAULT OF THE GOVERNMENT THAT PEOPLE ARENT HELPING THEMSELVES OMG" "WE MUST INVESTIGATE WHY THAT THERE ARE A PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE WHO CAN NEVER HELP THEMSELVES NO MATTER WHAT!!"


From my first post in this thread...

Quote :

"From "The Bad Boy of Baltimore" a biography of H L Mencken "By the mid-1930's, thanks to the New Deal, all that self-reliance had changed, prompting Mencken to declare: 'There is no genuine justice in any scheme of feeding and coddling the loafer whose only ponderable energies are devoted wholly to reproduction. Nine-tenths of the rights he bellows for are really privileges and he does nothing to deserve them.' Despite the billions spent on an individual, 'he can be lifted transiently but always slips back again.' Thus, the New Deal had been 'the most stupendous digenetic enterprise ever undertaken by man.... We not only acquired a vast population of morons, we have inculcated all morons, old or young, with the doctrine that the decent and industrious people of the country are bound to support them for all time. The effects of that doctrine are bound to be disastrous soon or late.' When someone asked, "And what, Mr. Mencken, would you do about the unemployed?" He looked up with a bland expression. "We could start by taking away their vote," he said, deadpan. Mencken was not surprised when the majority disagreed. "There can be nothing even remotely approaching a rational solution of the fundamental national problems until we face them in a realistic spirit," he later reflected, and that was impossible so long as educated Americans remained responsive "to the Roosevelt buncombe." "

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 2:43 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 2:42:57 PM

Quote :

"Classic liberal"

2/20/2008 2:45:02 PM

Quote :

"SOME Obscenely Wealthy People ARE ALSO Lazy. [Hilton, Paris; Spears, Britney; many actors, etc.]"

I hardly condone our societies obsession with celebrity, but to say these people are lazy is a bit of a stretch. Spears had a time where she was busting her ass doing concerts, appearances, creating products, etc. Just because she's a hot mess now doesn't mean she didnt earn her money.

Paris is the same. The girl gets paid 100k for an appearance at a club, but she still goes out and does appearances and such.

2/20/2008 2:50:21 PM

Quote :

"DaBird: I dont care what school you went to, how many degrees/certifications you have, you obviously have very little common sense. Classic liberal."

Ha! I yearned for the days I was called a liberal! Thank you!

Quote :

"DaBird: Your naivety stems from the fact that you think value is privately printed."

Check your reference books.

The Federal Reserve is about as Federal as Federal Express. It's also about as public as the Council on Foreign Relations.

Given that no other institution carries the right to print dollar bills, I'd like to hear the explanation on this one.

Quote :

"DaBird: Value is assigned by the people. The beauty of capitalism. Value has been assigned by people on things since Adam jerked off into theprimoridal ooze. "

POP MENTAL QUIZ

ENVISION SOMETHING VALUABLE

If your mind drew up an image of something useful, good for you. If it drew the image of something you wouldn't take with you on a desert island, please explain yourself.

Quote :

"DaBird: Laughable. Another typical liberal answer..."

What, recommending holding the government accountable for responsibly administrating its policies? I know. I may as well be wearing a Che Guevara hat.

WTF, dude.

Until I realized what a piss poor manager of campaign funds he was, I was gonna vote for Ron Paul.

Everyone dig the liberal.

So, yeah, about the couple paragraphs of your article. Again...see that post of mine you pushed aside as though it were irrelevant. I'll bold the relevant parts for you:

Quote :

"Homo Sapiens, particularly of the American variety, are the ones of concern here and happen to fall well within that 5% of exceptions given that the species is survived by its social nature, not its individual hunting ability, we'll continue"

The top has always supported the bottom in social species. Nothing new under the sun.

Except perhaps the volume of the bitching.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 3:05 PM. Reason : ]

2/20/2008 3:00:32 PM

This sounds like something right out of a Daniel Quinn book.

2/20/2008 3:02:47 PM

Gamecat

1. how can you have a social economics discussion with a person who insists on believing that the government assigns value to things?

do rappers pay $10k for rims because W says thats what they are worth? do they spend that much on them because that is how much they cost to manufacture?

here is a clue...NO

they spend $10k on rims because popular culture (people) think they are cool. if people did not think they were cool, they would cost much, much less. this is what we call the free market. W does not issue emails to rim manufactures instructing them to raise or lower prices.

this same metaphor can apply to almost anything you can buy, no matter if it is useful on a desert island or not.

2. liberal is probably not the right word for you. hopeless irrational idealist is probably a better term. at least liberals base their opinions (mostly) in reality. you do ignore the meat of the post which is you dont need a fucking government program to tell you why people arent using government programs. they dont use them because they are, by and large, fucking idiots.

3. as it has already been pointed, the top DOES support the bottom in our society. you want them to do it more. I want them to do it less. necessity breeds ambition and independence. you want more people suckling at the government tit. I want less. this is the point you have completely missed.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 4:27 PM. Reason : .]

2/20/2008 4:25:09 PM

Quote :

"DaBird: 1. how can you have a social economics discussion with a person who insists on believing that the government assigns value to things? "

I mean this with sincere respect:

ARE YOU HIGH?

Citation please.

I refuse to waste another ASCII character addressing this question until you show me where I did this.

Quote :

"DaBird: 2. liberal is probably not the right word for you. hopeless irrational idealist is probably a better term."

Citation, please.

Quote :

"DaBird: at least liberals base their opinions (mostly) in reality."

Where have I errored? Show me.

Quote :

"DaBird: you do ignore the meat of the post which is you dont need a fucking government program to tell you why people arent using government programs."

Since when is the commissioning of a government study by an existing institution (even extra-governmental institutions) considered the equivalent of a new government program?

Quote :

"DaBird: they dont use them because they are, by and large, fucking idiots."

All hail, DaBird. Bringer of of infinite wisdom without citation, inquiry, or coherent explanation whatsoever.

I've offered science. You've ignored it.

You'd also do well to read this before saying such vitriolic things as the above about large groups of other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error

Even if you don't, others will. And they will laugh at you.

[Edited on February 20, 2008 at 4:53 PM. Reason : \/ NP, b. Next time use a Soap Box worthy thread title and it won't get derailed... ]

2/20/2008 4:46:27 PM

glad you guys derailed the thread....thanks

[insert it wasn't me it was him back and forth]

2/20/2008 4:51:05 PM

My only problem with the current system is often people are held back into a cycle of poverty even though they are willing or were capable but now can not due to the certain laws and regulations of our gov't work against them.

For example the future Einstein could have gotten caught smoking weed and now all of a sudden his financial aid is gone. Yes he can still find the way to get succeed but now the barrier he has to overcome is a lot tougher. Maybe he should have not smoked that joint since its "illegal" but i find it ridiculous that this is used as a barrier to success b.c some politician decided that "drugs are bad".

Another example is the 17 year old in Ga who got charged with a sex crime for getting head from a 15 yr old. yes it was overturned but potentially upon release from prison he would have been stuck with the label as a sex offender for the rest of his life. Stuck in the same category as guys who rape women or 40 yr old men molesting 12 year olds.

2/20/2008 4:54:10 PM