Page 3 of 3 [ 42 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 6:25 pm

Raptor wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
If Democrats would spend money on people who are *actually poor*, I would listen. They won't.

Yep!
That's one of the things that kick-started me in a political direction early on. It wasn't people who were down on their luck or on actual disability getting help at taxpayer expense that bothered me, it didnt. It was the caliber of the people that were getting it but wouldn't do sh** to help themselves. There are too many people who are happy to spend their whole lives sitting in their own sh** as long as they're getting a check from uncle sugar.


Theres also too many people that are left to languish in their own misery but cant get a leg up through no fault of their own. It isn't as black and white as you make out.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 6:27 pm

Raptor wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:

It's got arbitrary enforcement and big brother's hand written all over it. It won't go over in this county. The majority is not denied anything that they can afford.

the bolded part being the emphasis. What we have the western world over is an economic apartheid, and this is conceded by prominent economists such as Max Keiser.


Apartheid is forced segregation. Retailers will take ANYONE's money and there is no law to prevent it. So much for your apartheid analogy.



Here, Max Keiser explains HOW it is apartheid.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMF4taqaJRQ[/youtube]


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 6:29 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
NobodyKnows wrote:
If Democrats would spend money on people who are *actually poor*, I would listen. They won't.

Yep!
That's one of the things that kick-started me in a political direction early on. It wasn't people who were down on their luck or on actual disability getting help at taxpayer expense that bothered me, it didnt. It was the caliber of the people that were getting it but wouldn't do sh** to help themselves. There are too many people who are happy to spend their whole lives sitting in their own sh** as long as they're getting a check from uncle sugar.


Theres also too many people that are left to languish in their own misery but cant get a leg up through no fault of their own. It isn't as black and white as you make out.


There, I went back and bolded it for you. It aint gonna get any better than that from me and there's plenty of room for it to get worse.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 6:31 pm

thomas81 wrote:
Here, Max Keiser explains HOW it is apartheid.

Having someone explain bullshi+ doesnt make it any less bullshi+.
In other words, i didnt waste my time watching the video.


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


thomas81
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 May 2012
Age: 39
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,147
Location: County Down, Northern Ireland

07 Jul 2014, 6:34 pm

Raptor wrote:
thomas81 wrote:
Here, Max Keiser explains HOW it is apartheid.

Having someone explain bullshi+ doesnt make it any less bullshi+.
In other words, i didnt waste my time watching the video.


Murica'.

Its like debating with Duke Nukem.


_________________
Being 'normal' is over rated.

My deviant art profile


Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,694
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Jul 2014, 6:48 pm

Hey, that used to be one of my fav games!
I'm flattered
:D

[img][800:689]http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-KsxWFBdMpk0/UWMK_ox-8NI/AAAAAAAAE8Q/WbqSXHeMa74/s1600/1291132464duke_nukem_forever_1.jpg[/img]


_________________
“Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views, but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.”
- William F. Buckley


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

08 Jul 2014, 12:18 am

Kraichgauer wrote:
LoveNotHate wrote:
Disingenuous.

This is not about fighting inequality. People would be angry if this guy moved his companies to China so some Chinese people could be brought out of poverty, or if he brought in cheaper foreign workers to replace his higher paid employees.

Many Americans would be arguing he is greedy, precisely because he is sharing wealth with the less well off.

This is about coveting his wealth for oneself.


I am so tired of you people who say that we who call for a return to greater equality are motivated by envy. The fact of the matter is, America was at it's best when there was a thriving middle class who were paid extraordinary wages and given extraordinary benefits. And that was accomplished by corporate America sharing the fruit of their spoils with the country. Unless that is returned to, we will be doomed to become a third world country. Desiring to just not survive but to thrive is hardly envy or covetousness.


You are proving my point when you argue that this guy's money should go to a group of wealthy people , and not the needy.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

08 Jul 2014, 7:36 am

NobodyKnows wrote:
An alternate interpretation:

The dirty-rich in Seattle and the Bay Area didn't get to where they are by being sweethearts.


Remember Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Big advocates for tax reform...AFTER they've made their wealth playing by the rules.

These guys are so rich that 50% taxation won't change how rich they are in relation to others. However, the new rules they propose would hurt people seeking to attain wealth and move on up.

Even when they talk "reform," it's "reform" that won't hurt them.



zer0netgain
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Mar 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,612

08 Jul 2014, 7:44 am

thomas81 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
/\ Define "excessive personal property" and how it could possibly become "unobtainable" or made "redundant". Why would the majority go along with it, or doesnt that matter in your world?


Excessive property is an amount of property beyond what a person needs to live happilly or beyond what could be deemed reasonable.

For example, you can only watch one HD flatscreen TV at a time or drive one sports car at a time.

In a RBE society where people are allocated energy credits based on their contributions into society, rather than dead cash, no-body would have greater spending power or power to acquire than another.

The majority would go along with it, because they would be able to enjoy the spoils that would be otherwise denied to them.


And that system would disenfranchise the people who do incredible things because they want the rewards that it brings.

Any working economic model has to reward a person's hard work. We will only get around this problem when there is no scarcity of goods and people who desire more just for the sake of having more can easily be satisfied without depriving others of their share. This won't happen until we master space travel and can harvest raw materials from otherwise "dead" worlds in our own star system.



TallyMan
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Mar 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 40,061

08 Jul 2014, 3:49 pm

zer0netgain wrote:
Any working economic model has to reward a person's hard work. We will only get around this problem when there is no scarcity of goods and people who desire more just for the sake of having more can easily be satisfied without depriving others of their share. This won't happen until we master space travel and can harvest raw materials from otherwise "dead" worlds in our own star system.


I don't think space travel will be the game changer so much as when nanobots become commonplace and make things; though by this time there will probably be the technological singularity and AI will take over and all bets are off then anyway.


_________________
I've left WP indefinitely.