So why do (especially AT P&N) socialists think it's ok to take from those who rightfully earned?

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.

When the other 99% of us get to that point we will let you know. Until then feel free to use some of your families extreme wealth to start a foundation or charity to help the poor recieve medical attention you so deperately want them to have.

Does anybody else find it unsurprising a rich person is out of touch with what people in the middle class? How their self percieved policies cost the Middle class but they can afford it?

What?

My family isn't me... They haven't died, so I haven't inherited anything.

And wealthy is not rich... they can take care of themselves and some family nicely, but that's about it.

You are about as out of touch with society as they come, so the irony is truly astounding here.

Greed is society, so I guess on that point I am out of touch... I car about otehr peoples' welfare and health... I know, I am a radical socialist! Believe it or not, I actually like some OTHER socialist programs too! Evil organizations like the post office, public school systems, and police!

Don't you see that your same "arguments" were the same garbage used against public school systems? How selfish can you be?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Nebor

And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.

I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous.
They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.

The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.

This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore.

There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents.

You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore.

We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not.

Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.

You have another major flaw in the bolded statement. You are very wrong about our grandparents and such not having the same barriers. Do you think there were a higher percentage of wealthy back then? I dont. Second, do you understand the main reason why just average joe cant become a CEO or a Google founder? It's not because of lack of opportunity. It's because of 1. intelligence, 2. education, and 3 drive. The fact is, 90% of the public arent exceptional in these areas. It takes all 3 to become CEO, or a Google founder. Let me give you a golf example. Every golfer I know would LOVE to play as well as Tiger. But you know what? No one I know is willing to put in the time and effort he has put in to get there. It doesnt happen by magic. CEO's dont just happen by magic. They are gifted for sure. But they are not the majority. Shit most people in this forum cant mange their own finances much less those of a Fortune 500 company. You think all a CEO does is sit around, play golf, and smoke cigars? Youre clearly in denial and very naive if you think so. They are exceptional people born with exceptional abilities. Most people arent, therefore most people wont be exceptional. But it's not for lack of opportunity.

Tiger Woods is great mostly because of natural talent, not extreme practice. You cannot become Pete Sampras or Tiger Woods by mere practice.

Additionally, becoming a CEO requires a degree of corruption that is similar to what becoming a politician requires.

 

[Siddhartha]

The police, public library, public schools and state universities, roads, etc are socialist programs. Should these programs be abolished?

BTW, the first US income tax put in place back in since 1861, has the country gone to hell since then?

 

[blackangst1]

"Mostly" because of natural talent? WTF you smoking? Read a biography or two about how many hours PER DAY he practiced through middle and high school then tell me mostly. Even given that, my point remains the same. Although the OPPORTUNITY exists for everyone, the talent to take advantage of it does not.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.

When the other 99% of us get to that point we will let you know. Until then feel free to use some of your families extreme wealth to start a foundation or charity to help the poor recieve medical attention you so deperately want them to have.

Does anybody else find it unsurprising a rich person is out of touch with what people in the middle class? How their self percieved policies cost the Middle class but they can afford it?

What?

My family isn't me... They haven't died, so I haven't inherited anything.

And wealthy is not rich... they can take care of themselves and some family nicely, but that's about it.

You are about as out of touch with society as they come, so the irony is truly astounding here.

Greed is society, so I guess on that point I am out of touch... I car about otehr peoples' welfare and health... I know, I am a radical socialist! Believe it or not, I actually like some OTHER socialist programs too! Evil organizations like the post office, public school systems, and police!

Don't you see that your same "arguments" were the same garbage used against public school systems? How selfish can you be?

Like I said use some of your families extreme wealth to creat a charity and stop hounding the middle class to pay for your guilt.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The police, public library, public schools and state universities, roads, etc are socialist programs. Should these programs be abolished?

BTW, the first US income tax put in place back in since 1861, has the country gone to hell since then?

It was also ruled unconstituional by the Supreme court in the 1890s.

 

[ayabe]

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Nebor

And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.

I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous.
They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.

The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.

This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore.

There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents.

You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore.

We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not.

Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.

You have another major flaw in the bolded statement. You are very wrong about our grandparents and such not having the same barriers. Do you think there were a higher percentage of wealthy back then? I dont. Second, do you understand the main reason why just average joe cant become a CEO or a Google founder? It's not because of lack of opportunity. It's because of 1. intelligence, 2. education, and 3 drive. The fact is, 90% of the public arent exceptional in these areas. It takes all 3 to become CEO, or a Google founder. Let me give you a golf example. Every golfer I know would LOVE to play as well as Tiger. But you know what? No one I know is willing to put in the time and effort he has put in to get there. It doesnt happen by magic. CEO's dont just happen by magic. They are gifted for sure. But they are not the majority. Shit most people in this forum cant mange their own finances much less those of a Fortune 500 company. You think all a CEO does is sit around, play golf, and smoke cigars? Youre clearly in denial and very naive if you think so. They are exceptional people born with exceptional abilities. Most people arent, therefore most people wont be exceptional. But it's not for lack of opportunity.

You can have intelligence, education, and drive and still never be rich. There is luck involved.

Nearly every segment of this economy is dominated by a major corporation, a mom and pop whatever store cannot compete with Walmart. This has happened all over the country, small business are crushed by large retailers. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just much harder.

You are naive if you think the corporate world doesn't very much depend on who you know or who your daddy knows. Look at all the unqualified sycophants at the Justice Department, arguably one of the most prestigious areas of government. People aren't chosen on their merits but instead by who they are friends with. Personal politics mean everything in the working world, you are never judged on your work merits alone.

The cost of tuition is astronomical, and the average student is graduating with significant debt, this will delay them from buying a house or beginning to save for their future. Contrast this with the guy who's parents paid everything for him, he's way ahead of the game. Equal access to AFFORDABLE education is the best hope for parity in our society.

I won't comment on golf because it doesn't matter how hard any of us practices, we will never be Tiger Woods, that analogy fails.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.

When the other 99% of us get to that point we will let you know. Until then feel free to use some of your families extreme wealth to start a foundation or charity to help the poor recieve medical attention you so deperately want them to have.

Does anybody else find it unsurprising a rich person is out of touch with what people in the middle class? How their self percieved policies cost the Middle class but they can afford it?

What?

My family isn't me... They haven't died, so I haven't inherited anything.

And wealthy is not rich... they can take care of themselves and some family nicely, but that's about it.

You are about as out of touch with society as they come, so the irony is truly astounding here.

Greed is society, so I guess on that point I am out of touch... I car about otehr peoples' welfare and health... I know, I am a radical socialist! Believe it or not, I actually like some OTHER socialist programs too! Evil organizations like the post office, public school systems, and police!

Don't you see that your same "arguments" were the same garbage used against public school systems? How selfish can you be?

Like I said use some of your families extreme wealth to creat a charity and stop hounding the middle class to pay for your guilt.

The people from hick States really kill me.

What guilt btw? Believing people in my country shouldn't suffer is guilt?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
The police, public library, public schools and state universities, roads, etc are socialist programs. Should these programs be abolished?

BTW, the first US income tax put in place back in since 1861, has the country gone to hell since then?

It was also ruled unconstituional by the Supreme court in the 1890s.

Cherry picking what to respond to, shocker!

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: blackangst1
"Mostly" because of natural talent? WTF you smoking? Read a biography or two about how many hours PER DAY he practiced through middle and high school then tell me mostly. Even given that, my point remains the same. Although the OPPORTUNITY exists for everyone, the talent to take advantage of it does not.

Yeah Woods and Sampras have no natural talent... Anyone could be a Tiger Woods and Sampras.. you just need practice!

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: blackangst1

Originally posted by: ayabe

Originally posted by: Nebor

And the rich WILL flee a high taxation area. And your idea that the rich aren't paying taxes simply doesn't pan out. They pay a majority of taxes. And if you push them hard enough, all the working people get hurt.

I didn't say that, but to deny that the rich have access to methods of hiding income from the government or claiming exemptions that the rest of us don't have access to is ridiculous.
They hire expensive and marginally ethical brokers/accountants that help them out in this regard.

The problem is that there are huge incentives for rich people to save, the people who already have the most disposable income. However, there is little available for the working man, who at the same time has the least amount of money available for saving.

This bronzed image of the self made man that everyone seems to enamored with doesn't exist anymore.

There are extreme barriers in place that make it much more difficult to move up the economic ladder that didn't exist for our parents or grandparents.

You cannot go from a stock room mail clerk to CEO, cannot happen anymore.

We are a service economy which makes most of us wage slaves whether we want to admit it or not.

Sure we have the carrot of wealth dangled in front of us, that keeps us on the treadmill, no more no less.

You have another major flaw in the bolded statement. You are very wrong about our grandparents and such not having the same barriers. Do you think there were a higher percentage of wealthy back then? I dont. Second, do you understand the main reason why just average joe cant become a CEO or a Google founder? It's not because of lack of opportunity. It's because of 1. intelligence, 2. education, and 3 drive. The fact is, 90% of the public arent exceptional in these areas. It takes all 3 to become CEO, or a Google founder. Let me give you a golf example. Every golfer I know would LOVE to play as well as Tiger. But you know what? No one I know is willing to put in the time and effort he has put in to get there. It doesnt happen by magic. CEO's dont just happen by magic. They are gifted for sure. But they are not the majority. Shit most people in this forum cant mange their own finances much less those of a Fortune 500 company. You think all a CEO does is sit around, play golf, and smoke cigars? Youre clearly in denial and very naive if you think so. They are exceptional people born with exceptional abilities. Most people arent, therefore most people wont be exceptional. But it's not for lack of opportunity.

You can have intelligence, education, and drive and still never be rich. There is luck involved.

Nearly every segment of this economy is dominated by a major corporation, a mom and pop whatever store cannot compete with Walmart. This has happened all over the country, small business are crushed by large retailers. I'm not saying it's impossible, it's just much harder.

You are naive if you think the corporate world doesn't very much depend on who you know or who your daddy knows. Look at all the unqualified sycophants at the Justice Department, arguably one of the most prestigious areas of government. People aren't chosen on their merits but instead by who they are friends with. Personal politics mean everything in the working world, you are never judged on your work merits alone.

The cost of tuition is astronomical, and the average student is graduating with significant debt, this will delay them from buying a house or beginning to save for their future. Contrast this with the guy who's parents paid everything for him, he's way ahead of the game. Equal access to AFFORDABLE education is the best hope for parity in our society.

I won't comment on golf because it doesn't matter how hard any of us practices, we will never be Tiger Woods, that analogy fails.

OK lets cover a basic principle of generalities shall we? They are generally true. Your nitpicking about intelligence, drive, and education are the exception not the rule.

How you can compare the Justice Dept and corporate America in the same sentance is beyond me. you obviously have no knowledge of how CEO's, CFO, etc are hired :roll:

And this comment: "Nearly every segment of this economy is dominated by a major corporation, a mom and pop whatever store cannot compete with Walmart." Do you have any idea how many mom and pop businesses make the owners mid six figures or above? Get a clue man. There are more millionaires every year. And it aint because they know someone.

As far as education goes...all education is not equal. For instance, someone with a degree in electrical engineering from MIT I guarantee has a better education than someone from the University of Podunk. To think it should all be "reasonably" priced is assinine. It will never happen nor should it.

 

[blackangst1]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: blackangst1
"Mostly" because of natural talent? WTF you smoking? Read a biography or two about how many hours PER DAY he practiced through middle and high school then tell me mostly. Even given that, my point remains the same. Although the OPPORTUNITY exists for everyone, the talent to take advantage of it does not.

Yeah Woods and Sampras have no natural talent... Anyone could be a Tiger Woods and Sampras.. you just need practice!

What part of talent did you miss in my post? The letters tee-a-ell-ee-en-tee perhaps?

 

[hellokeith]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The people from hick States really kill me.

"Jonh Karrey, plaese halp uss, where stukc in Irak"

Back on topic..

It'd be interesting to me to see how many P&N socialists have actually had to support themselves, i.e. your own residence with mortgage/rent payments, utility bills, car payment & insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, etc all of it coming out of your own pocket paid by the job you work. I was exposed to this way of life over a decade ago, and believe you me it made me a much more fiscal conservative than any politician or college professor or family member could ever impact me. Oh, I forgot paying for my own full time college tuition/books/fees while working full time, and taking calculus/physics/engineering classes at that.

Yeah, I think many a socialists would be converted if they were thrown into the deep end of the economic river.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's the alternative system? Laugh all you want, but I don't see a lot of examples of anarchist systems building advanced technological societies.

Try the U.S. from 1776 until about 1900. The wild west has tons of examples of towns that were in almost complete anarchy. The money was gold and silver, there were no income taxes or really any business regulations to speak of, and many times there wasn't even any official law enforcement around, especially on the wagon trails.

So according to your theory the weak should have already died out.

They did, at least in the "wild west". Is that REALLY the model you want the entire country to emulate...because it's not as great as it looks in the old movies.

Actually, it was a lot better than it was in the movies. The 'wild' west wasn't really all that wild. On the contrary, there was enormous economic growth, with people coming from Europe with nothing and becoming wealthy. Untapped natural resources had something to do with it, but it was mostly because of the radical, unregulated capitalism, coupled with hard money. Speaking of money, prices actually fell during this period. Imagine that.

In contrast, in 1913 the Federal Reserve is established, by 1929, there is a collapse and a terrible depression. Coincidence? Hmmmmm....

The weak were almost always taken care of by people in their own town. Nowadays you pay income tax to take care of the 'weak.' God knows how many hoops that the money and the recipients actually go through before they actually get the money.

We truly now live in a 'system' from the very beginning of our lives to the end. First we are born and issued a social 'security' card. That is our ticket into all of the future systems. Then, we grow up in a school system, by college we are into the debt system, after college(if we ever got there) we are into the debt and tax system (a double vice). And leading up to retirement we are in an 'entitlement system.' We were born into it, and almost all of us will die in it. And now it is so entrenched in society it has literally become a part of our thought process, and a way of communication. It is actually how we relate to each other.

The only way you can actually partially leave these sytems now is to literally leave the country.

What you are telling me and everyone else is that we just can't live without government imposed systems. This of course is insanity, but I can understand why people like you think the way that you do. You were born inside of a box with the lid pretty much firmly shut. Since the box is so old and has been around for so many generations it has become so familiar and firmly embedded in our culture. Anyone who actually wants to leave the box is now in the extreme minority and of course considered to be anti-social by many.

 

[jhbball]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The people from hick States really kill me.

"Jonh Karrey, plaese halp uss, where stukc in Irak"

Back on topic..

It'd be interesting to me to see how many P&N socialists have actually had to support themselves, i.e. your own residence with mortgage/rent payments, utility bills, car payment & insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, etc all of it coming out of your own pocket paid by the job you work. I was exposed to this way of life over a decade ago, and believe you me it made me a much more fiscal conservative than any politician or college professor or family member could ever impact me. Oh, I forgot paying for my own full time college tuition/books/fees while working full time, and taking calculus/physics/engineering classes at that.

Yeah, I think many a socialists would be converted if they were thrown into the deep end of the economic river.

Stop buying houses, bro.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The people from hick States really kill me.

"Jonh Karrey, plaese halp uss, where stukc in Irak"

Back on topic..

It'd be interesting to me to see how many P&N socialists have actually had to support themselves, i.e. your own residence with mortgage/rent payments, utility bills, car payment & insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, etc all of it coming out of your own pocket paid by the job you work. I was exposed to this way of life over a decade ago, and believe you me it made me a much more fiscal conservative than any politician or college professor or family member could ever impact me. Oh, I forgot paying for my own full time college tuition/books/fees while working full time, and taking calculus/physics/engineering classes at that.

Yeah, I think many a socialists would be converted if they were thrown into the deep end of the economic river.

With a freeloader chained to them

 

[Coldkilla]

Even being a Bus Boy at $2.33 an hour, I worked harder at that job than I ever did in my entire life.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: hellokeith

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
The people from hick States really kill me.

"Jonh Karrey, plaese halp uss, where stukc in Irak"

Back on topic..

It'd be interesting to me to see how many P&N socialists have actually had to support themselves, i.e. your own residence with mortgage/rent payments, utility bills, car payment & insurance, food, clothing, entertainment, etc all of it coming out of your own pocket paid by the job you work. I was exposed to this way of life over a decade ago, and believe you me it made me a much more fiscal conservative than any politician or college professor or family member could ever impact me. Oh, I forgot paying for my own full time college tuition/books/fees while working full time, and taking calculus/physics/engineering classes at that.

Yeah, I think many a socialists would be converted if they were thrown into the deep end of the economic river.

Using assumptions instead of arguments must make you feel intelligent... Worse, you use these assumptions to justify your greed!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.

When the other 99% of us get to that point we will let you know. Until then feel free to use some of your families extreme wealth to start a foundation or charity to help the poor recieve medical attention you so deperately want them to have.

Does anybody else find it unsurprising a rich person is out of touch with what people in the middle class? How their self percieved policies cost the Middle class but they can afford it?

What?

My family isn't me... They haven't died, so I haven't inherited anything.

And wealthy is not rich... they can take care of themselves and some family nicely, but that's about it.

You are about as out of touch with society as they come, so the irony is truly astounding here.

Greed is society, so I guess on that point I am out of touch... I car about otehr peoples' welfare and health... I know, I am a radical socialist! Believe it or not, I actually like some OTHER socialist programs too! Evil organizations like the post office, public school systems, and police!

Don't you see that your same "arguments" were the same garbage used against public school systems? How selfish can you be?

Like I said use some of your families extreme wealth to creat a charity and stop hounding the middle class to pay for your guilt.

The people from hick States really kill me.

What guilt btw? Believing people in my country shouldn't suffer is guilt?

That hilarious calling MN a "hick" state. Behind San Fran and Mass, this state is about as liberal as you get.

The guilt is written all over your face. You have wealth, are guilty for having such wealth while others dont. To compensate for this wealth your mission is to erect programs to help out those less fortunate than you. The only thing missing here is you seem to fall short on giving up your said wealth for these programs and expect people other than yourself to pay for your guilt.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Shivetya

Originally posted by: hellokeith
This has been bothering me for a while, and I still can't figure out the thought process.

1. Person works hard, plays by the rules, and makes money.
2. Person does not work hard and makes excuses, blames others, waits for handouts.
3. Socialist takes money from #1 and gives to #2, in exchange for continued political/economic power.

How is this not agreed upon by a concensus as ethically wrong? Even illegal?

This is easy.

Because they are jealous of people who make more money than they do. They then rationalize this by making claims that they are the ultimate authority of what is acceptable for any job position.

The problems are they fail to realize that the majority of people who earn large amounts of money worked hard to get where they are. There is no such thing as luck, if you want more luck with making money you have to spend more of your time trying to make money.

Life isn't fair. They just refuse to accept it so they vilify those who are better than they are.

My family is extremely wealthy, but I still want people to have access to healthcare. It isn't a child's fault that their parents are deadbeats and it isn't someone's fault if insurance company wants to exempt them from their "pre-existing conditions." I'd happily pay another 5% taxes to help people. When you have enough money, more money doesn't mean much.

When the other 99% of us get to that point we will let you know. Until then feel free to use some of your families extreme wealth to start a foundation or charity to help the poor recieve medical attention you so deperately want them to have.

Does anybody else find it unsurprising a rich person is out of touch with what people in the middle class? How their self percieved policies cost the Middle class but they can afford it?

What?

My family isn't me... They haven't died, so I haven't inherited anything.

And wealthy is not rich... they can take care of themselves and some family nicely, but that's about it.

You are about as out of touch with society as they come, so the irony is truly astounding here.

Greed is society, so I guess on that point I am out of touch... I car about otehr peoples' welfare and health... I know, I am a radical socialist! Believe it or not, I actually like some OTHER socialist programs too! Evil organizations like the post office, public school systems, and police!

Don't you see that your same "arguments" were the same garbage used against public school systems? How selfish can you be?

Like I said use some of your families extreme wealth to creat a charity and stop hounding the middle class to pay for your guilt.

The people from hick States really kill me.

What guilt btw? Believing people in my country shouldn't suffer is guilt?

That hilarious calling MN a "hick" state. Behind San Fran and Mass, this state is about as liberal as you get.

The guilt is written all over your face. You have wealth, are guilty for having such wealth while others dont. To compensate for this wealth your mission is to erect programs to help out those less fortunate than you. The only thing missing here is you seem to fall short on giving up your said wealth for these programs and expect people other than yourself to pay for your guilt.

I'm 25 and I work and raise a family... my grandparents were so poor they never bought a house or a car and my father had to take care of them financially... My parents are well off after saving for years... Yet I am guilty?

Meanwhile I have medical problems and without my wife's health insurance through her school I'd be exempted from at least 5 "pre-existing conditions", making medical problems hell for me.. which is my motivating for change in the system. But you already knew thatm which is obvious by your assumptions.

I am in favor of adding a 5% or so more tax to help people in this country.. Assumptions are NOT a substitue for an actual argument... anyone could make up any assumption to justify their warped opinion.

 

[Genx87]

What assumptions? You claimed your family has "extreme" wealth. You said it, not I.
As for your true motivations. I was obviously wrong, selfishness is the true motive. I should have known.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: Rainsford
What's the alternative system? Laugh all you want, but I don't see a lot of examples of anarchist systems building advanced technological societies.

Try the U.S. from 1776 until about 1900. The wild west has tons of examples of towns that were in almost complete anarchy. The money was gold and silver, there were no income taxes or really any business regulations to speak of, and many times there wasn't even any official law enforcement around, especially on the wagon trails.

So according to your theory the weak should have already died out.

They did, at least in the "wild west". Is that REALLY the model you want the entire country to emulate...because it's not as great as it looks in the old movies.

Actually, it was a lot better than it was in the movies. The 'wild' west wasn't really all that wild. On the contrary, there was enormous economic growth, with people coming from Europe with nothing and becoming wealthy. Untapped natural resources had something to do with it, but it was mostly because of the radical, unregulated capitalism, coupled with hard money. Speaking of money, prices actually fell during this period. Imagine that.

In contrast, in 1913 the Federal Reserve is established, by 1929, there is a collapse and a terrible depression. Coincidence? Hmmmmm....

The weak were almost always taken care of by people in their own town. Nowadays you pay income tax to take care of the 'weak.' God knows how many hoops that the money and the recipients actually go through before they actually get the money.

I'm not saying there weren't good points, but the general lawlessness certainly was not a good thing. And while you might credit capitalism, I think much of the growth was due to untapped resources that anyone could get for free/cheap.

We've had the federal reserve for nearly 100 years, during which time we've seen a huge amount of real economic growth. And a lot of the hated government intrusion intended to stabilize the economy after the great depression did exactly that...we haven't had anything close to a repeat of what was a fairly regular problem. Untethered capitalism repeatedly produced wild swings in the economy, government regulation has been a stabilizing factor that has helped the economy greatly.

We truly now live in a 'system' from the very beginning of our lives to the end. First we are born and issued a social 'security' card. That is our ticket into all of the future systems. Then, we grow up in a school system, by college we are into the debt system, after college(if we ever got there) we are into the debt and tax system (a double vice). And leading up to retirement we are in an 'entitlement system.' We were born into it, and almost all of us will die in it. And now it is so entrenched in society it has literally become a part of our thought process, and a way of communication. It is actually how we relate to each other.

The only way you can actually partially leave these sytems now is to literally leave the country.

What you are telling me and everyone else is that we just can't live without government imposed systems. This of course is insanity, but I can understand why people like you think the way that you do. You were born inside of a box with the lid pretty much firmly shut. Since the box is so old and has been around for so many generations it has become so familiar and firmly embedded in our culture. Anyone who actually wants to leave the box is now in the extreme minority and of course considered to be anti-social by many.

I am NOT saying we can't live without government imposed systems, I'm saying society as a whole functions better with them. Your egotistical "free thinker" bullshit aside, I think the problem with your ideology is that you are too busy living in a fantasy world to be realistic. I don't LIKE government intrusion, but the difference between people like me and people like you is that I'm willing to put up with things I don't like because I realize the world is a better place because of it. Your problem is that you think because you don't like something, that everyone would be better off it if was gone. To use a simple analogy, I don't like speed limits, but I realize the mess we'd have on the roads if we didn't have them.

That is actually a pretty good analogy for my point. If I'm driving through the middle of nowhere in Utah, I can drive (and have driven) pretty much any speed I want to that my car can physically handle. The only consideration for me is my own personal safety and how fast I can get to my destination. But in my daily commute, since I live and work in the extremely crowded Baltimore/Washington metro area, driving like that would be dangerous to me and everyone around me. There is a reason anarchy has always been popular on the "frontier", it's because there is enough land and resources and everything else, and few enough people, that doing your own thing tends to work out pretty well. That is not so true in modern society, where working together becomes a necessity rather than just a burden.

Your point about leaving the country is true enough, because that IS the only option left. You want complete freedom to do whatever you like at all times, move to some undeveloped part of the world and do your thing there...I imagine it would work pretty well. But the idea of being able to transform a country with 300 million people into "everyone for himself" is silly. It's an appealing fantasy, which might explain why your group isn't as small as you might think, but it's not real tuned in to reality.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87
What assumptions? You claimed your family has "extreme" wealth. You said it, not I.
As for your true motivations. I was obviously wrong, selfishness is the true motive. I should have known.

My family's money is not mine.. I am my own entity. I am selfish for wanting to pay more ot help people. Gotcha.

Sorry, forgot who I was dealing with. Carry on!

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
What assumptions? You claimed your family has "extreme" wealth. You said it, not I.
As for your true motivations. I was obviously wrong, selfishness is the true motive. I should have known.

My family's money is not mine.. I am my own entity. I am selfish for wanting to pay more ot help people. Gotcha.

Sorry, forgot who I was dealing with. Carry on!

If it isnt yours, then why bring it up? The bottom line is it is yours even if you do not possess it right now.

You are selfish because you realize your own medical conditions and want a system put in place paid for by others work. Nothing wrong with that but at least we know where you are coming from and your "true" motivations for such a system.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: Genx87
What assumptions? You claimed your family has "extreme" wealth. You said it, not I.
As for your true motivations. I was obviously wrong, selfishness is the true motive. I should have known.

My family's money is not mine.. I am my own entity. I am selfish for wanting to pay more ot help people. Gotcha.

Sorry, forgot who I was dealing with. Carry on!

If it isnt yours, then why bring it up? The bottom line is it is yours even if you do not possess it right now.

You are selfish because you realize your own medical conditions and want a system put in place paid for by others work. Nothing wrong with that but at least we know where you are coming from and your "true" motivations for such a system.

Having problems lets you recognize the flaws in the system. I want a system in place that lets everyone get care no matter their "pre-existing conditions" and I want others who have deadbeat parents to get care.

All you and others care about is your own greed. Money money money money. It is all that matters to you. Doesn't matter if people die from poor care as long as you get to keep your money!

Who cares if millions of Iraqis have to leave the country for their safety or tens of thousands die? At least American companies made money from it! Who cares if there is genocide in Darfur, there is no money to be made there or elsewhere in Africa so we don't care.

Your apathetic greed is too pervasive in society. people only care about themselves.

The fact remains that many many countries have good universal healthcare in place and it works.

People like you ALWAYS ignore the fact that public schools, police stations, and our post office is "paid by others" and it works well. People are just afraid of change... do you think people like you didn't exist when they started considering free public schools? Your viewpoint against change always loses.