rich/poor [Archive]

vordabois

10-20-2005, 02:48 PM

I'll contribute to this thread later, but because I gotta work, I'll just do the cheap and easy thing by pulling out some choice quotes...

"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country.... Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed." - Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864 (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)

"All for ourselves, and nothing for other people, seems, in every age of the world, to have been the vile maxim of the masters of mankind."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations

"No society can surely be flourishing and happy when part of the members are poor and miserable."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The liberal reward of labor, therefore, as it is the necessary effect, so it is the natural symptom of increasing national wealth. The scanty maintenance of the laboring poor, on the other hand, is the natural symptom that things are at a stand, and their starving condition that they going backwards fast."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The rate of profit... is naturally low in rich and high in poor countries, and it is always highest in the countries which are going fastest to ruin."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Whenever the legislature attempts to regulate differences between masters and their workmen, its counsellors are always the masters. When the regulation, therefore, is in favor of the workmen, it is always just and equitable; but it is sometimes otherwise when in favor of the masters."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"Our merchants and master-manufacturers complain much of the bad effects of high wages in raising the price, and thereby lessening the sale of their goods both at home and abroad. They say nothing concerning the bad effects of high profits. They are silent with regard to the pernicious effects of their own gains. They complain only of those of other people."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"The subjects of every state ought to contribute toward the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities; that is, in proportion to the revenue which they respectively enjoy under the protection of the state ....[As Henry Home (Lord Kames) has written, a goal of taxation should be to] 'remedy inequality of riches as much as possible, by relieving the poor and burdening the rich.'"
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

"A hundred times every day I remind myself that my inner and outer life are based on the labors of others."
-- Albert Einstein

Cool As Ice Cream

10-20-2005, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by DrHibbert
Some may not deserve it, but how do we prevent it? If someone who has earned riches wants to give their children some of their money, do we make that illegal? That's what I think.

I don't see why people who didn't really deserve the money they have, wouldn't be allowed to enjoy it.

Nak Nak

10-20-2005, 06:27 PM

They should just give it to me. I would rent a warehouse, fill it with expensive gadgets and toys and let children play in it! If that isn't appropriate use of wealth i don't know waht is!23fghsdfgsdfg ser q235 q34 fcbv xsgyu2n4egvz cfg q3wsxv

Jackal

10-20-2005, 06:31 PM

Yes. Paris deserves it, because her parent's, or grandparent's worked to get it. Therefore if she wants to continually buy overpriced clothing and chihuahua's she should.

Adam Smith can try to give me a guilt trip, but jeez, he's from 1760. Maybe back then giving was a great thing, but people are different now.

America's welfare system is so overly abused. That's the main problem with being in a high tax bracket. I see people in line buying things they don't need with food stamps like pop, margarita mix, chips, candy. I don't understand why they get junk food when obviously they are starving to death and need help.

I am heartless, but I also worked minimum wage type jobs from age 16 to age 28 and did just fine. I had a car, and food and shelter that whole time and I have a huge problem with people who can't do that much. Excluding disabled. That whole time I didn't get everything I wanted, and made $5 last for a weeks worth of food, why can't they? That's even with spending half of my extra cash on weed and beer.

Nak Nak

10-20-2005, 06:35 PM

You must have great business acumen!

ramblingrose

10-20-2005, 07:49 PM

I've got this stupid disease at the moment that makes me need to lie on the floor a lot. I realise that sounds fairly trivial but it's actually quite annoying (especially when it comes on in clubs). It means I shouldn't go to work because it's unsafe, the job I do means I can't go passing out all the time. But I've got to go back on Monday, against medical advice, because the NHS treats their staff like shit and I'm on SSP, which means I get £68.20 a week. My rent is £64 and my council tax and stuff comes to at least the other £4.20, so I'm not sure what I'm supposed to do other than turn tricks. Being in financial difficulty is extremely fucking stressful and I'd suggest that the reason poor people buy "things they don't need" is because their miserable lives are shit. If I didn't have a credit card which has enabled me to buy cigarettes I would probably have firebombed the hospital in a Michael Douglas style fit of pique by now.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-21-2005, 03:20 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
Yes. Paris deserves it, because her parent's, or grandparent's worked to get it. Therefore if she wants to continually buy overpriced clothing and chihuahua's she should.

Adam Smith can try to give me a guilt trip, but jeez, he's from 1760. Maybe back then giving was a great thing, but people are different now.

America's welfare system is so overly abused. That's the main problem with being in a high tax bracket. I see people in line buying things they don't need with food stamps like pop, margarita mix, chips, candy. I don't understand why they get junk food when obviously they are starving to death and need help.

I am heartless, but I also worked minimum wage type jobs from age 16 to age 28 and did just fine. I had a car, and food and shelter that whole time and I have a huge problem with people who can't do that much. Excluding disabled. That whole time I didn't get everything I wanted, and made $5 last for a weeks worth of food, why can't they? That's even with spending half of my extra cash on weed and beer.
Thats seriously screwed logic. They deserve to be able to rape the poor of this world? Well I deserve to be rich becasue someone else is too. By your logic, we all deserve to be rich. But then of course there wouldnt be such a thing as rich. You really havent thought this through.

So the father of Economics, (who had nothing to with the poor by the way), is irrelevant because of his ERA! Wow, looks like we should ignore want with food stamps? They should have more all great minds of the past then eh? Lets all be stupid. :rolleyes:

Why shouldnt the poor be able to buy what they freedom considering how much they get ripped off by the ugly raping rich fuckers.

Simple solution, anyone with a personal wealth of more than 5mill, will have everything above that mark stripped off them and given to the needy. Enough of the greedy wankers and people like you excusing their evil ways.

Jackal

10-21-2005, 10:38 AM

How am I raping the poor of this world?

I wasn't only talking about millionaires, I'm talking about middle-class too.

Everyone does deserve to be rich. In America everyone has just as much chance as the next guy.

Adam Smith gave most of his wealth to the poor.

Who do you think the rich are who are raping the poor? Utility companies, stores, landlords, be more specific.

I'm not greedy or evil. I could buy things to flaunt around and show off, but I'm not that way. I feel lucky because it's all my husband's doing. Not mine, without him I would be poor. I still spend like I'm poor and I'm happy with what I have I don't want more of anything. I have a simple $200.00 gold wedding band, no diamonds.

He however built up his wages by working 12+ hours a day, sometimes working 48 or more hours straight on a deadline. For bosses who were assholes. He didn't see our child's first 4 Halloween costume's. He got home after 9 p.m. for years. He's spent 12 years now "on call" in case of emergency's, he's left in the middle of the night several times. He's had the stress of whole companies relying on what he does. He got a business call on our honeymoon and spent 2 hours on the phone. He gets business calls all night and all weekend long.

So, if some lazy fuck thinks they can sit on their ass all day instead of work hard for a living, why the fuck should they get my husband's money?

Plain and simple: Poor people won't do what rich people will.

Your idea about giving money away is ridiculous.
Why 5 mill? That's excessive, anything over $80,000.00 is more than necessary to make a good living and save for the future.

People on welfare should have some rules about what they buy, it's other people's money that they are wasting. Working poor can buy what ever they want.

ramblingrose, if you are ok to go to the bar, then your ok to go to work. Same rule as a child to sick to go to school, can't play outside later.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-21-2005, 11:35 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
How am I raping the poor of this world?

I wasn't only talking about millionaires, I'm talking about middle-class too.

Everyone does deserve to be rich. In America everyone has just as much chance as the next guy.

Adam Smith gave most of his wealth to the poor.

Who do you think the rich are who are raping the poor? Utility companies, stores, landlords, be more specific.

I'm not greedy or evil. I could buy things to flaunt around and show off, but I'm not that way. I feel lucky because it's all my husband's doing. Not mine, without him I would be poor. I still spend like I'm poor and I'm happy with what I have I don't want more of anything. I have a simple $200.00 gold wedding band, no diamonds.

He however built up his wages by working 12+ hours a day, sometimes working 48 or more hours straight on a deadline. For bosses who were assholes. He didn't see our child's first 4 Halloween costume's. He got home after 9 p.m. for years. He's spent 12 years now "on call" in case of emergency's, he's left in the middle of the night several times. He's had the stress of whole companies relying on what he does. He got a business call on our honeymoon and spent 2 hours on the phone. He gets business calls all night and all weekend long.

So, if some lazy fuck thinks they can sit on their ass all day instead of work hard for a living, why the fuck should they get my husband's money?

Plain and simple: Poor people won't do what rich people will.

Your idea about giving money away is ridiculous.
Why 5 mill? That's excessive, anything over $80,000.00 is more than necessary to make a good living and save for the future.

People on welfare should have some rules about what they buy, it's other people's money that they are wasting. Working poor can buy what ever they want.

ramblingrose, if you are ok to go to the bar, then your ok to go to work. Same rule as a child to sick to go to school, can't play outside later.
For every winner, there must be multiple losers. All the money that make people better off, is making it worse for those in need.

If everyone deserves to be rich, they would no such thing.

Everyone with money. The more money you have, the more you are raping those in need.

I dont give a shit how supposedly hard your husband or any other fucker works, capitalism isnt a meritocracy.

Nice of you to stereotype poor people as "lazy" and not doing what rich people will. What a load of utter bullshit. You couldnt be more wrong.

5mill is merely a benchmark, and yes I am being very liberal in that figure, cos Im nice like that.

If people on welfare should have rules, then so should everybody else. Thats only fair. Its not other peoples money, its the government's. Once youve paid it in tax, its not yours anymore. Thats the price you pay for your society. Dont like it? Blame the government, dont pay your taxes, just dont blame those who the system is there to support.

ramblingrose

10-21-2005, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Jackal

ramblingrose, if you are ok to go to the bar, then your ok to go to work. Same rule as a child to sick to go to school, can't play outside later.

Um, actually, no, see if I pass out in the supermarket or a bar it doesn't matter, but if I pass out in an operating theatre it does. And "rich people do what poor people won't"? Jesus you're self righteous. Have you heard of things like poor education, social deprivation and unemployment?

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-21-2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by ramblingrose
Um, actually, no, see if I pass out in the supermarket or a bar it doesn't matter, but if I pass out in an operating theatre it does. And "rich people do what poor people won't"? Jesus you're self righteous. Have you heard of things like poor education, social deprivation and unemployment?
you will get used to that on here.

Jackal

10-21-2005, 02:03 PM

Danny, I assure you I'm not raping anyone.

I'm sure you turn down all your pay raises and bonuses. Great for you! :)

I thought everything you do, until I had more money. I'm not rich, I'm only better off than I've ever been, and I plan to love everything about it, and not feel guilty.

Not all poor people are lazy, not all wealthy people are greedy and evil.

---
Everywhere you pass out can be equally dangerous.

I'm a poorly educated, anti-social, housewife, I experience those everyday! :-D

No, I'm not self-righteous at all. If I seperate myself from my husband's money I am poor. But, I would work 2 or 3 jobs before I went on welfare if I had too. The people who can work and won't are the only lazy people I'm refering too.

kendra

10-21-2005, 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
That's even with spending half of my extra cash on weed and beer.

Originally posted by ramblingrose
Being in financial difficulty is extremely fucking stressful and I'd suggest that the reason poor people buy "things they don't need" is because their miserable lives are shit

Allison, you did exactly what the people buying soda with foodstamps are doing - yours just happened to be drugs and alcohol, and they can only afford sugar it seems. ramblingrose is right - it sounds like a shitty excuse, a WEAK excuse, but that's the explanation. Why do starving people pay to have 100+ channels on their television? If your whole life you've never had enough money to see beyond tomorrow, at least you can fucking enjoy HBO, Cinemax, and TLC. That's the mentality.

A pretty good book on this subject is The Working Poor: Invisible in America by David K. Shipler (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0375708219/qid=1129921211/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-5254863-7795041?v=glance&s=books&n=507846). Poor people aren't lazy, and they aren't necessarily unwilling to do what better-off people have done. There are so many twists and turns to each individual's story.

ramblingrose

10-21-2005, 03:12 PM

amen to kendra.

Jackal, I'd find it easier to stomach self-righteous preaching from someone who actually DID earn their own living. I don't care if you used to, you don't now, and I'm willing to bet that a fair number of the "lazy" people you're slagging off used to work, but had to stop for reasons slightly more compelling than bagging a rich husband. Why is living off a man any less shameful than claiming off the state? I don't get it.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-21-2005, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
Danny, I assure you I'm not raping anyone.

I'm sure you turn down all your pay raises and bonuses. Great for you! :)

I thought everything you do, until I had more money. I'm not rich, I'm only better off than I've ever been, and I plan to love everything about it, and not feel guilty.

Not all poor people are lazy, not all wealthy people are greedy and evil.

---
Everywhere you pass out can be equally dangerous.

I'm a poorly educated, anti-social, housewife, I experience those everyday! :-D

No, I'm not self-righteous at all. If I seperate myself from my husband's money I am poor. But, I would work 2 or 3 jobs before I went on welfare if I had too. The people who can work and won't are the only lazy people I'm refering too.
Ok, first of all, Ive never had a pay rise (outside of inflation which is forced, as is everyones, including those relying on welfare)

Ok, dont you be guilty for raping the needy, good for you! :yes:

Obviously everywhere she passes out isnt as equally dangerous as she already pointed out.

Well, your poor education is showing. So basically youre sponging off your husband, yet youre complaining of others who are sponging. I guess by your logic, your husband should dictate what you spend money on, considering its not your money, youre just being lazy.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-21-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by kendra
There are so many twists and turns to each individual's story.
This is the perfect crux to a very good point. Enough with the generalisations. Im not generalisationing the rich, Im just expaining where ther money comes from, whether they are willing or not.

Nak Nak

10-21-2005, 07:08 PM

I fully believe that the meritocratic system was never truly open.

Jackal

10-21-2005, 07:26 PM

Sure, take the easy way out and say I'm sponging off my husband. Yes I am, that was the plan for our child. If, he couldn't support us we would not have had a child. I don't have any shame "living off of a man" because my job is raising our son and taking care of our house. Yes, he has some sort of input into what I buy sometimes, I'm not free to buy a new sofa or car without his approval!

Obviously people have different reasons for being on welfare and I've pointed out who I'm speaking of.

The difference of someone buying pop and chips with food stamps and me buying weed and beer is that I earned my money by working, not by filling out a paper and asking for help.

People who are starving so badly that society needs to feed them don't NEED junk food. Or the margarita mix, and if they have $7 to $20 bucks for tequilla then why aren't they buying food with that money.

I didn't bag a rich husband, he was poor to begin with.

Yes, I understand how cable tv, gamecubes, and weed and beer can make a poor person's life somewhat happier than having nothing ever for entertainment. I understand how arrogant I sound too.

I could be considered lazy, but the only one I'm accountable to is my husband. I'm not lying around my house asking the government to pay my way. That could effect thousands of poor people which do need help. There is a difference.

I don't hate the poor, or really care what they do. My first statement was only that I had grown to think better of the rich instead of being jealous and hating them.

My beliefs are only guidelines, they change everyday and of course I adjust them on a case by case system. I don't lump groups of people together and think I know all of them.

vordabois

10-22-2005, 02:39 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
America's welfare system is so overly abused. That's the main problem with being in a high tax bracket. I see people in line buying things they don't need with food stamps like pop, margarita mix, chips, candy. I don't understand why they get junk food when obviously they are starving to death and need help.

OMG, ok Jackal, NO.

Welfare is abused... OK, so what do you propose we do about it? Why do you not provide any thoughts about alternatives? Without any mention of an alternative, I am certainly led to believe that you propose we do away with a system that's proven to work completely because "so many" of them buy junk food.

Talk solutions instead of categorically claiming the poor waste the money given to them. For one, that claim is wrong... I work as a supervisor of the cashiers at a major grocery store... I KNOW. Yes, a few of them do waste the money, but a vast, vast majority of them come in with coupons and competitor ads to reduce the money taken off their food stamp card. I see this with my own eyes every damn day. One time a while ago, I asked myself why they would do this. I come to research and find out that welfare doesn't cover the costs of living. It's pretty remarkable, really. As a site (http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-welfareincentive.htm) you might be interested to peruse states:

The two largest welfare programs -- by far -- are Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) and food stamps. In 1992, the average yearly AFDC family payment was $4,572, and food stamps for a family of three averaged $2,469, for a total of $7,041. In that year, the poverty level for a mother with two children was $11,186. Thus, these two programs paid only 63 percent of the poverty level, and 74 percent of a minimum wage job.

And, you know, I very much disdain those that abuse the food stamps, few as they may be. I don't disdain them for wasting my money per se, I disdain them because they justify attitudes like yours who go around trying to paint the recipients of food stamps in one overall color (while saying that you don't mean to, of course). I am a firm believer in public welfare programs, and as far as justifying aid for the lowest classes, even some of the most ardent economic libertarians (including our currently absent anti-establishment friend Ted) understand that something is needed to offset the income disparity.

vordabois

10-22-2005, 07:43 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
Adam Smith can try to give me a guilt trip, but jeez, he's from 1760. Maybe back then giving was a great thing, but people are different now.

Adam Smith was the guy who is revered as the intellectual Father of Capitalism. ;)

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

See the guy in black and white with the big nose? He's also the guy that made the "invisible hand" famous with this legendary statement that any capitalist (or any learned non-capitalist, for that matter) knows well:

"Every individual… intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his original intention. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of society more effectively than when he really intends to promote it."
-- Adam Smith, Wealth Of Nations

(SIDE NOTE: My personal favorite variation of this phrase, stated by John Maynard Keynes, is: "Capitalism is the extraordinary belief that the nastiest of men, for the nastiest of reasons, will somehow work for the benefit of us all.")

Smith was no moron, and he certainly wasn't going to try to bog down his revolutionary theory -- essentially his life's work -- as an unattainable dream-world fantasy. He told it like it was. He identified the weaknesses in his theory, and he pointed out the spirit that will keep it alive, while dazzling people with what it could do. (And Lord have mercy, it fucking worked... Who knows where we'd be if that innovative spirit hadn't been fostered by a free market for over 200 years now.) We just can't lose sight of our roots, we can't ignore the things he's said, no matter how wealthy we are.

It's not at all that the rich shouldn't be rich, no no... As far as social attitudes go, the fact that there are rich people is what drives our whole system. "Rich" is what we all work hard to be!

It's just that tending to the poor is not something that works against us all the time. Remember, full employment is still considered to be from 2% to 7% unemployment by all credible economists. And even though that figure may vary widely with the loonies, everyone agrees that it is impossible to have 100% employment. In fact, Milton Friedman won the Nobel Prize for economics in 1976 for making this assertion, and for refining it into something called "the natural rate of unemployment".

So take that a step further to realize that not only is some form of welfare necessary, but that our goal is to keep welfare recipients rotating on and off the rolls, and even though reform is to be considered as it is presented, there is simply no better alternative yet to the current system.

As it stands, the typical welfare recipient is a single mother who cannot work because she is disabled or just had a baby. A healthy majority of them are off welfare rolls after two years. Only about 19.6% of them are still on at the five year mark, and those 19.6% are the people who are not physically capable of working.

Don't get simplistic ideas about who these people are, because they are not who you think they are. If you see some dumbass buying crab legs, realize that there are more than about 20 who do not. And once they blow that shit on crab legs, they're gonna hafta eat Ramen Noodles until the next payment. The dent in their pocketbook is as big -- or bigger -- than ours.

Even though it's enticing to adopt the simple claim that the poor are poor because they want to be, look at the facts. That notion is really quite ridiculous, and ultimately only serves to subjugate the poor and empower the rich.

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist. Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler of a few years back."
-- John Maynard Keynes

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-22-2005, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by vordabois
Sound intelligent comments
Matt: The Man, the Legend.

Jackal

10-22-2005, 10:09 AM

Of course you're right again, Matt.

I don't know how to fix the welfare problem. The abuser's of the system would have to stop lying. If someone need's help, I'm all for helping them, and I know we have programs to teach them skills to get off welfare, and many do.

The poor that need the checks don't waste them, I know that. I'm directing my anger at the people who continually take the checks and don't need them. There's no way to protect the system completely, and that anger's me.

Static Split Screen

10-22-2005, 12:00 PM

My mom used to have to be on welfare because my dad was in jail for selling weed. Believe me, it's not enough to live on. We ate homemade bread and not much else. For entertainment we went to the park or the library. We lived in bascially a studio apartment that is probably half as big as your living room. I had barely any clothes. My mom did end up going back to school, getting her MA, and now we live in a 5 bedroom house, but my mom's still in tons of debt. She now teaches 6 classes when full-time is 3, and she's just BARELY making even. It ain't that easy to be rich.

Nak Nak

10-22-2005, 01:37 PM

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
Matt: The Man, the Legend.

So true. I wish he was president of a worldwide government.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-22-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Nak Nak
So true. I wish he was president of a worldwide government.
Me too. Quite clearly the most intelligent blamovian.

Static Split Screen

10-23-2005, 01:20 PM

The world would be a better place.

XenonDreams

10-25-2005, 11:29 PM

huge CF of praise for matt

Well really, I agree. Except the part about the world government.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-26-2005, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by XenonDreams
Well really, I agree. Except the part about the world government.
Of course. Him in power would be your version of leftie hell.

negatifzeo

10-28-2005, 01:15 AM

Why is all your anger directed at the welfare system? The welfare system should be the least of your concerns regarding your "hard earned tax dollars", but I will say this: Welfare is not something that can be fixed. It is a good program, and I prefer to know it's there in case I need it. Our tax dollars should goto helping our fellow Americans, it's just the right thing to do. There will always be bad people to take advantage of anything good, that's just the way it is. Welfare is not the problem, the people are.

But back to my main point, why the outrage over welfare? How can this even be an issue in light of what's going on? Tax cuts for the rich?! We're borrowing money from China!?! We're spending billions a day on a war in Iraq?!?! And you worry about welfare!?!

Originally posted by Jackal
Of course you're right again, Matt.

I don't know how to fix the welfare problem. The abuser's of the system would have to stop lying. If someone need's help, I'm all for helping them, and I know we have programs to teach them skills to get off welfare, and many do.

The poor that need the checks don't waste them, I know that. I'm directing my anger at the people who continually take the checks and don't need them. There's no way to protect the system completely, and that anger's me.

vordabois

10-28-2005, 01:43 AM

Originally posted by negatifzeo
How can this even be an issue in light of what's going on? Tax cuts for the rich?! We're borrowing money from China!?! We're spending billions a day on a war in Iraq?!?! And you worry about welfare!?!

Now they're even putting more restrictions on health care to save money while they're handing out tax cuts.

It's truly appalling to see that people aren't starting to wonder what the hell is going on.

negatifzeo

10-28-2005, 01:57 AM

It's just crazy! There should be uproar, the "liberal media" should be questioning this and raising hell in op/eds every single day. But as usual, nothing will be said until the consequences arrive.

Originally posted by vordabois
Now they're even putting more restrictions on health care to save money while they're handing out tax cuts.

It's truly appalling to see that people aren't starting to wonder what the hell is going on.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-28-2005, 04:38 AM

Originally posted by negatifzeo
Tax cuts for the rich?!
This particularly, makes criticising the piss-poor American welfare system very dumb indeed

More money into welfare NOW!

Jackal

10-28-2005, 11:30 AM

I'm not worried about welfare.

Yes, I am worried about the war, the government, the debt of the country, bird flu, regular flu, aids, starving, tornadoes, hurricanes, health care, law-suits, accidents, car wrecks, the ozone, pollution, Africa, Tibet, child-labor, prisoner's of war, innocent family's in war torn countries, terrorism, viruses, water supply, price of oil, rapist, car-jackers, and everything under the sun that's real or imagined.

The world is a fucked up place.

Billions of people are just like me. We just exist and don't try to fix anything. It's very wrong probably. On the other hand I wonder if it would matter at all to change anything, because there's always something worse and loop-holes to get around.

A lot of people get killed trying to change the world. It takes up some people's whole life trying to change one law. Laws that later can change back.

Young people are gung-ho to create change because they are just learning about the attrocities of the world. They believe in change and hope. I did too. Now I'm jaded and wonder why people don't pull their heads out of their asses and help themselves. I'm this hard on myself everyday. If I find myself bitching about something often, I change it.

Once you get married and have a good thing, add a kid or more your whole life starts to revolve around that. You go from being a right-fighter to having something you love and must protect. You loose interest in others because your too focused on your own little world at home. It's a shame, but it happens.

I just believe people don't give a shit about anything unless it has to do with them. Or unless the media makes them feel guilty.

I don't have a point. Just blabbing. :) No facts, just my twisted opinions again, sorry.

negatifzeo

10-28-2005, 01:25 PM

I agree with everything you just said. You're exactly right about marriage. This is why Republicans are so gung-ho on protecting the "sanctity of marriage", against pre-marital sex, and just desperate-in-general to presereve the nuclear family. They'd like you to shut the fuck up and worry about your own problems, and let them do whatever they want.

Jackal

10-28-2005, 08:05 PM

Jeez junior, is it pick on Allison night or something?

You may be right, I don't know, I believe in pre-marital sex and had plenty of it. I belive in anyone doing anything as long as they aren't forcing someone to do it with them.

You shut the fuck up, I'm just having conversations. I can say and do whatever the fuck I want too, am I Republican? I don't know the fucking difference to be honest, no matter how many times I tried to understand the clear difference--it all seems to be a bunch of fucking dickheads doing whatever the hell they choose once they are elected anyway. And the people get lies and half-truths no matter who's in charge.

Nak Nak

10-28-2005, 09:40 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
Jeez junior, is it pick on Allison night or something?

You may be right, I don't know, I believe in pre-marital sex and had plenty of it. I belive in anyone doing anything as long as they aren't forcing someone to do it with them.

You shut the fuck up, I'm just having conversations. I can say and do whatever the fuck I want too, am I Republican? I don't know the fucking difference to be honest, no matter how many times I tried to understand the clear difference--it all seems to be a bunch of fucking dickheads doing whatever the hell they choose once they are elected anyway. And the people get lies and half-truths no matter who's in charge.

Democrats - Lesser evil
Republicans - Greater evil

Both parties are puppets controlled by Evil.
The Democrats are operated by the Left hand of Evil and the Republicans are controlled by the right. It is likely that Evil is Right Handed, so naturally the Right puppet is the stronger and can thus smite humankind with more power.

This is why you must vote Democrat so as to avoid the heftier smiting.

negatifzeo

10-29-2005, 10:22 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
Jeez junior, is it pick on Allison night or something?

You may be right, I don't know, I believe in pre-marital sex and had plenty of it. I belive in anyone doing anything as long as they aren't forcing someone to do it with them.

You shut the fuck up, I'm just having conversations. I can say and do whatever the fuck I want too, am I Republican? I don't know the fucking difference to be honest, no matter how many times I tried to understand the clear difference--it all seems to be a bunch of fucking dickheads doing whatever the hell they choose once they are elected anyway. And the people get lies and half-truths no matter who's in charge.

I'm not picking on you here, FUCKFACE. I was just making a point about Republicans. Idiot.

Jackal

10-29-2005, 10:53 AM

:) good morning.

Fab

10-29-2005, 11:07 AM

Originally posted by negatifzeo
I'm not picking on you here, FUCKFACE. I was just making a point about Republicans. Idiot. it does amuse me when people on message boards get visibly wound up.

Static Split Screen

10-29-2005, 01:14 PM

Originally posted by Fab
it does amuse me when people on message boards get visibly wound up.

I agree. Makes me wonder how they react to things in person.

Nak Nak

10-29-2005, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Static Split Screen
I agree. Makes me wonder how they react to things in person.

I have a feeling that Kris' face goes red and he huffs and puffs like a fat boy who has just tried to run a marathon.

Narcissistic Nihilist

10-29-2005, 11:37 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
I don't have a point.
NOW we are talking!

vordabois

11-19-2005, 01:45 AM

Originally posted by Narcissistic Nihilist
This particularly, makes criticising the piss-poor American welfare system very dumb indeed

More money into welfare NOW!

House votes to cut $700 mln in food stamps
By Charles Abbott
Fri Nov 18, 6:11 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. House of Representatives voted on Friday to cut $700 million from the food stamp program, despite objections from antihunger groups complaining that estimates show some 235,000 people would lose benefits.

The House bill, which also trimmed other social programs for the poor in an effort to reduce federal spending by $50 billion, was narrowly approved 217-215.

House and Senate negotiators now must write a final, compromise version of legislation to pare federal spending over five years. The Senate did not touch food stamps in its version of a $35 billion budget-cutting bill.

Food stamps, the major U.S. antihunger program, help poor people buy food. Some 25.8 million Americans received food stamps in a program run by the U.S. Agriculture Department.

Senate Agriculture Committee chairman Saxby Chambliss said through a spokesman that he was aiming for "zero" cuts in food stamps during talks with the House. As a committee chairman, the Georgia Republican would be a senior negotiator.

The final bill should abandon proposals to cut food stamps, urged Ellen Vollinger of the Food Research and Action Center. "In nutrition, the Senate did the right thing," she said.

Bread for the World, another antihunger group, said the prospect of food stamp cuts "will make Thanksgiving bleaker for hundreds of thousands of hard-working families." It pointed to government estimates that 38.2 million Americans live in "food insecure" households that have trouble buying enough food.

House Republican leaders say the cuts are only a sliver of food stamp spending that runs more than $35 billion a year. Earlier this week, House Majority Leader Roy Blunt said the cuts would focus the program on "the people you intended to help instead of just adding on at the edges."

In a statement, the White House said it supported the House "efforts to narrow overly broad exemptions from the food stamp program's eligibility limits." President (George W.) Bush proposed restrictions in February that are similar to the House-approved steps.

Under the House plan, roughly 165,000 people now automatically enrolled in food stamps when they get assistance from welfare programs would lose food stamps. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said these were mostly working families with children.

States would have the option to continue offering free school lunches to families cut off of food stamps. The Center on Budget said it was unlikely all states would do so.

The House proposal also would require 70,000 legal immigrants in most cases to wait seven years to become eligible for food stamps, rather than the current five years. That brings the total number of people affected by the plan to 235,000.

http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-11-18T231107Z_01_MCC883445_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-FUNDING-FOODSTAMPS.xml&archived=False

negatifzeo

11-19-2005, 08:09 AM

Originally posted by vordabois
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=politicsNews&storyID=2005-11-18T231107Z_01_MCC883445_RTRUKOC_0_US-CONGRESS-FUNDING-FOODSTAMPS.xml&archived=False

Yeah, and if I'm not mistaken they just voted themselves a payraise also. Seriously. Oh, and they've got to cut more taxes for the rich. Yay!

Jackal

11-19-2005, 10:13 AM

I fucking hope so. Because it's sad when you only get half of a huge bonus check.

Narcissistic Nihilist

11-19-2005, 11:46 AM

He was being sarcastic.

Tax cuts for the rich is one of the most disgusting things a Western government can do.

It isnt sad to have your pay cut, its justice. Those that earn more should pay more. Simple as.

Jackal

11-19-2005, 02:21 PM

No. We don't owe more than the next guy.

Narcissistic Nihilist

11-19-2005, 04:16 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
No. We don't owe more than the next guy.
Oh yes you do.

Its a simple matter of equations and maths. The more you get out of society, the more you owe it.

Its that same society you got a rich living from, ergo you owe it more than anyone else.

Are you saying you havent got anything out of society? What about the money you have now? You owe it all to the next guy.

You more you get out of it, the more you owe it, the more you should put back in to it. Its that society that made you well off, its that society you need to repay.

Higher taxes for the rich. Its the most decent, the most just, and the most moral way of the world.

El Loto

11-19-2005, 04:59 PM

If somebody has got rich by starting from nothing and working their arses off then of course they deserve it. I know of a businessman called Conrad Chau and he owns two pharmacies, a take-away (which his wife runs), property in Aberdeen and Hong Kong. I think he is worth about a million and that is actually his ambition, to be a millionaire.

Fab

11-19-2005, 05:03 PM

Right, but all their money is coming from society, so they owe society something. It's hardly a devastating blow to them, society needs the money, they can afford to be taxed that much, seems fair to me.

vordabois

11-20-2005, 01:13 AM

One thing this upsurge in republican representation in Congress is doing... Back in the day when democrats ruled Congress, they would fashion bills so that they gained a hefty majority vote. They did this for a reason... They had the audacity to think that a representative assembly actually representing a good slice of society was ideal.

The republicans nowadays are playing that 217-215 game. They don't fashion their bills to gain a hefty majority. They are using their slim majority to vote in bills that they favor... Screw whether it represents what most of America wants. As long as they get those two extra votes for the majority, to them, that's all they care about.

:mad:

vordabois

11-20-2005, 09:06 AM

Jackal, you are essentially proposing a flat tax, a system that has been rejected by just about every notable economist out there. Instead, some have revised their efforts to push for this thing called a "fair tax" which is a bit better, but still exhibits some of the worst effects of the flat tax.

What liberals and most moderates (and a lot of conservatives) support is the current progressive tax, where the higher the income of the person, the more they pay.

Reagan and his supply-side loonies advocated a regressive tax where a significant portion of the tax burden is shifted to the poor, and the subsequent rise in corporate tax savings would have theoretically caused economic growth that would eventually "trickle down" to the lower classes in the form of higher pay and higher employment rates... A kind of "trust me" policy that blew up in our face. (I can't believe some people still fall for that shit after what we saw happen in the 80s. Remember Carville's quote? "It's the economy, stupid!")

ANYWAYS, for all intents and purposes, the flat tax isn't truly flat. When flat tax people talk about a flat tax, they are referring to a flat income tax. Unfortunately, almost all other taxation tends to be regressive... Sales tax and the like. (Engel's Law [originally applied to food]: "With a given set of tastes and preferences, as income rises, the proportion of income spent on food falls, even if actual expenditure on food rises." Though food is not taxed in America, this actually goes for all other required expenditures... transportation, clothing, shelter.) So, given that the flat tax means that income tax would be equal and that sales tax (and the others) would remain regressive, it would, in actuality, equate to an overall regressive tax on the citizens.

That alone is good enough of a reason for the progressive tax to me. To propose that the poor pay MORE than the higher income people is just unfathomable.

But there is yet another reason... Progressive taxation is meant to maintain a potent middle class (or consumer class), the lifeblood of our market. Before progressive taxation, the size of the middle class was incredibly inconsistent. One year, we'd have a huge middle class, a few years later, it would almost disappear. This, of course, led to recessions and depressions. So what we did was to institute a new income tax in 1913 with a progressive structure, and its main goal was to make the middle class more robust, larger, and multi-generational (something that actually benefits everyone). History proved to us that if we let our economy go at a total flat tax, the market would fluctuate greatly and eventually, it could get to the point where our market could collapse. And it did. We had at least 7 depressions, and the last one was the one that was so bad that we felt it was necessary to institute something that would prevent it from ever getting that bad again. So we ceded powers to the government to work for that middle class and keep it floating because nothing else could. Some decry this as communism or socialism or whatever nonsense. But these people are just... ugh... obscenely ignorant.

Now, I'm not sure if you are in one of the top tax brackets, but my parents are. They are high middle-class. One of my father's interests is economics, actually, and a lot of what I know comes from him. He’s a rich liberal! :-p But he’s a strong supporter of progressive taxation. If you are a consumer -- anywhere in the low or middle class -- there is no logical reason (not a single one under the sun!) that you should EVER support a flat tax. I can't reiterate that enough. You don't understand what you propose! If we let the middle class disappear, we’re looking at serious, serious trouble ahead.

Jackal

11-20-2005, 11:17 AM

But then, why would anyone want to make more money if it's to be taken away? We already pay what comes out to be 43% in taxes, when you add the 8% sales tax on. How much higher do you think it should be? If it was you would you want nearly half or more of your earned money to be taken away?

I know flat tax is bad. I agree. I think the very wealthy (Oprah) should pay more than us, so of course we should pay more than someone making less. But shouldn't there be a limit?

Maybe there is, I don't know.

DrHibbert

11-20-2005, 11:25 AM

43%? Where do you live?

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0106989.html

<<But then, why would anyone want to make more money if it's to be taken away?>>

More money is more money.

$300k/year = 33% taxes = $200k/year = many boats and cars and houses.

$25k/year = 15% taxes = 22,250/year = pinto, apartment, and YAY LOW TAXES!!!! Still shitty.

DrHibbert

11-20-2005, 11:26 AM

Sales tax is state imposed and is the same for poor and rich people.

Jackal

11-20-2005, 11:46 AM

Yikes, he doesn't make that much, he said he is in a 36% tax bracket. ???????? I am wrong if that's right.

We have 2 shitty cars. A nice home, nothing special, no boat. No name brand clothing, no HDTV, nothing special. We're saving for when we're old and have to pay tons of money for medicine.
:)

I know the sales tax is the same for everyone.

Yes, I would gladly pay the taxes to live this way, than to return to having nothing. But jeez, can't I bitch about it occasionally? :)

Jackal

11-20-2005, 12:07 PM

Ok, he says he never said that tax bracket! (he did!)

Fab

11-20-2005, 01:12 PM

Originally posted by Jackal
We're saving for when we're old and have to pay tons of money for medicine. ah, as shit as the NHS is, at least it exists at all.

El Loto

11-20-2005, 04:46 PM

Exactly. People should be thankful for the NHS. The NHS loses so much money everyday but it still exists for the good of the people. At least the Tories went no further with the Internal Market. I'm sure if they got re-elected in 1997 they would have attempted to privatise the NHS. Aneurin Bevan is a legend. It's thanks to him we have an NHS. When I was in hospital after my bike accident I was surprised by how good the service is. I don't have a single complaint about my stay in hospital except that my parents could have taken in some pyjamas to save me from lying around in my under wear. But anyway. The NHS doesn't deserve the abuse and criticism it gets too easily.

Fab

11-20-2005, 05:02 PM

Private Funding, however, is the work of the Devil. My mum works in an NHS cancer hospital which is relocating in a year or so to a private funded place, and they recently got some new scanning things that would have gone to the new building with them but had to send them back because the private funding people had a contract with another comany to only have their equipment in the new building, costing the NHS 1/4 of a million. Go fuck a sheep, private funding.

sorry, i just needed a rant.

Narcissistic Nihilist

11-21-2005, 03:26 AM

Originally posted by Jackal
But then, why would anyone want to make more money if it's to be taken away?
They shouldnt. It would be a better world without all that greed.

Jesus, your taxes are so incredibly low in the US, no wonder your public transport is practically non-existent and you have no health service.

The whole tax bracket in the US needs to be higher.

ramblingrose

11-21-2005, 06:50 AM

Originally posted by Fab
Go fuck a sheep, private funding.

Amen to that. The NHS is going to hell and nobody should assume that there's going to be one in twenty years. At the moment the trust that I work in is fucked and someone has decided that the best way to sort out the financial mess is to cut back harder and harder on staff so it is physically impossible for most departments to provide any kind of service that isn't shit.
In my department we need at least four nurses to do the work, and at the moment there are often only two or three, so part of the service has actually been withdrawn. The people who control the budgets need to realise that nobody can be in two places at once, and Tony Blair makes me sick banging on about patient choice when a ten minute tour round an NHS hospital will prove that he doesn't give a shit about patient care, never mind choice. Don't get me started on various health ministers past and present.

ramblingrose

11-21-2005, 06:54 AM

Originally posted by El Loto
Exactly. People should be thankful for the NHS. The NHS loses so much money everyday but it still exists for the good of the people. At least the Tories went no further with the Internal Market. I'm sure if they got re-elected in 1997 they would have attempted to privatise the NHS.

This government have done pretty much fuck all to reverse the damage done under the conservatives, all they've done is pile on the pressure with meaningless targets, which has a negative effect on patient care.

Aneurin Bevan is a legend. It's thanks to him we have an NHS.

Poor Bevan must be turning in his grave.

When I was in hospital after my bike accident I was surprised by how good the service is. I don't have a single complaint about my stay in hospital except that my parents could have taken in some pyjamas to save me from lying around in my under wear. But anyway. The NHS doesn't deserve the abuse and criticism it gets too easily.

And there is a disgraceful press/government conspiracy to blame the NHS workers who are on the front line for the appalling failings of government and management.