NationStates Jolt Archive

A Libertarian Manifesto

It is true to say that many ideals held by persons on this earth are perhaps unachievable in those person’s lifetimes, or perhaps requiring of overwhelming effort and dedication to bring about. On occasion however, these ideals are not only impossible to achieve in the desired sense, but their achievement would result in extreme unfairness.

The most obvious such ideology is Communism. In theory it seems a rational, sensible idea - to ensure that every person does their fair share of the labour, and that every person receives a fair share of the returns from that labour. However, there are numerous considerations which result in such an idea not only being flawed in application, but also in principle. Nonetheless, I shall first contend with the practical applications of Communism.

On a small scale, for instance a tribal community or even a street of a modern day suburb, the idea of Communism holds up extremely well. How many times has one requested the assistance of a neighbour for some difficult task, or been petitioned for a cupful of sugar? When a new family moves into the area, it is often customary for them to be granted gifts by their new neighbours, whilst in return hosting a function such as a barbeque or dinner party. These serve not as redistribution of wealth, but as the establishment and continuation of friendship.

A friend is a thing which has been spoken of at length - I shall not attempt to match preceding writers with a profound statement of their value. The difference between a friend and a stranger is great, however. It is certainly true that a person in trouble should be aided, but there is no moral way to enforce morality. Prisons and executions are immoral, but they are judged to be the best balance between safety and morality. However one cannot cause a man to act in a moral fashion if he does not wish to, save through the rule of law. A man who would give his life willingly for a friend might not be as willing in the case of a stranger - and with fair cause. It is indeed an act of heroism to put oneself in jeopardy, and heroism ought to be solidly encouraged, but it cannot morally be forced.

Yet, Communism dictates exactly such protocol. Whilst capitalist nations allow people to donate to charities as they see fit, paying only the taxes that their elected representatives create, Communism seeks to set a tax rate of, essentially, 100%. What motivation does a person have to work, if he and his family are not to see the benefits? Surely, though, this family will be provided for by the other people of the community? Of course, this is true, but what if the community decides the family does not ‘need’ a television or computer? To whom can he petition his case, if there is no government? And what motivation will a man have to work, if he sees his efforts unrewarded? And so, this man falls out of the system, or at least is half-hearted and unproductive in his work.

The largest problem of Communism’s implementation however is that the ideal is the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. In democratic countries, we have the ‘dictatorship of the majority’, an imperfect but manageable system. Moreover it is saved by the fact that the majority should rarely if ever have to ability to condemn through legal means personal choices in lifestyle and spending. Conversely under Communism these exact things are dictated. A citizen of a capitalist country may spend a year’s earnings on a sports car if he so desires. A citizen of a Communist country cannot purchase things, he can receive only that with which he is issued - decided by whom? In the absence of his government one must presume it would be his neighbours. Who among us would willingly allow a neighbour to restrict our access to our entertainment mediums? What if your neighbours held a religious belief which condemned the reading of books as heretical?

Or alternatively, the State would enforce the regulations. Who else can say what a man’s ‘need’ is? The State must take control, as there is no free market. One cannot allow people to simply take what they desire, for supplies would expire within days, if not hours. One cannot provide a means for persons to earn those things they desire beyond subsistence goods, because such would display that labour is subject to the forces the Communists so despise. One can only, therefore, hope that the rulers of the State decide that it is perfectly acceptable for a family to have sufficient plumbing, heating, and electricity. Under Capitalism of course one can acquire as good as system as they can afford, and their efforts in work are converted into monies which can be rendered in exchange for goods and services.

The jobs market cannot be left open in Communism, because there would be few farmers, no sewage workers, and countless swarms of office workers, writers, artists, and so on. It is a pleasant idea to think that Humans will work because the work must be done, but in reality we will not do so and there is no way, totalitarianism excepted, which it could be engendered into large proportions of the populace.

The ideological flaws of a Communist idea are even more fundamental than the practical ones. Whilst it is not beyond the realms of possibility that a Communist state would at least survive without the starvation of millions, there is no avoiding the fact that Communism is ironically an exceptionally unfair system.

Consider two men. One is capable of doing $8 worth of work per hour (Bear in mind of course that the value of his work is determined by quality, quantity, and supply and demand.), whilst the other is capable of a mere $5 work per hour. To ensure the latter can feed his family, he receives a minimum wage of perhaps $6.20, whilst his colleague still benefits from a higher pay. Under a Communist government of course, both men would be receiving in the end the same level of pay. There is no justifiable argument for this; if it is under $5 (Or the equivalent thereof.) then neither man will be receiving just reimbursement for his effort and skills. If it falls in the middle of the two, the less skilled man might rejoice, but why should the less able or less motivated receive the benefits of the harder or more inspired workers? If it is above $8, the problem lessen slightly, but the fact remains that the $8 man is receiving a smaller return than he is due when compared to the $5 man - and in such a case both men must be draining resources from other, harder workers.

Consider an artist. He paints in the Cubist style. However, the people in his neighbourhood see no artistic merit in this, and therefore declare his art does not contribute to society and therefore he ought instead to work the fields as all other do. In a Capitalist society, his fate would be dictated by current trends, market forces, and his own abilities. In a Communist society, his fate would be dictated singularly by current trends. Communism does not give people the chances that Capitalism does. Even though many fail in Capitalism, it is their own initiative and abilities which determines the fair majority of their success or failure.

Or what if the artist was a brilliant poet, who’s words could move a listener to tears? And if that poet does not approve of the Communist system his only choices are to change his poetry, or to be silenced by the disapproving majority. Communism is not a free form of society. It is not a free form of government. Communism slides - it has done so in every attempt to implement it - towards a totalitarian police state. Capitalism has flaws, but its very presence and flourishing nature proves that it was a natural evolution of trade which works well.

It has been said that the measure of a society is how it treats its poor and disenfranchised.

The measure of a society is how it treats its aberrations and deviants who cause no harm to others.

No rational mind will condemn the pursuit and punishment of rapists and murderers, but there is no reasonable case to be made for condemning homosexuality, sado-masochism, polygamy, or any other activity involving only adults capable of giving and having given consent. The ultimate goal of Libertarianism is to liberate Mankind from his neighbour’s prejudices and petty dislikes. It is a social progress of the highest order to permit activities which are found distasteful by the majority, because the majority has no legal or moral ascertation over his fellow man. The government should exist to protect the people who are being subjected to such harassment, not to support the harassers.

The government similarly has no right to religion - not does religion have right to government. The bailiwick of religion is to guide people through their lives. Whether or not another feels this guidance is needed or desired is no business of others. By reducing social controls to only crimes which harm or defraud others directly, the separation of church and state can be more strongly ensured. If a church chooses to marry only heterosexual couples that is the prerogative of the church, but the same is true if a church chooses to marry homosexual couples, among other things.

Combine the social freedom to do as one pleases, so long as no others are harmed, with the economic freedom and responsibility which Communism destroys, and you create a unique thing; a truly free society. A society in which a person may take almost any action they desire, and a society where they must live with the consequences of said actions. Libertarianism ferments responsibility of the highest form, and does so equally to all peoples. Libertarianism ferments freedom of choice, of worship, of all things.

It is true that certain people - the mentally ill, for example - require a great deal of care and assistance. Whilst there is no reason for this to devolve onto any other person (Except those who caused the condition, if such a cause existed.), Humanity is a charitable species. When disaster strikes we commit millions. We drop money into collection boxes daily. We give to charities who’s sole purpose is to alleviate the plight of others - staffed by people with genuine care and concern. This is a system far more commendable and effective than any socialist system, which sees not only undedicated and uncaring people, but endless reams of red tape and plutocracy which not only stifles the aid efforts, but which demand portions of the aid money for itself.

Humanity cannot be forced to be moral. It can only be led into a fair system of personal responsibility and personal achievement, to flourish and prosper, or it can be led down the opposing path - that of putting society before the individual.

Comments? I agree entirely with what is said there (Though, as I wrote it and did so without any satire, that's not a surprise.), but I know other people don't. I want to know why not, that I can revise it and improve it. And have fun crushing people who disagree. :P

:( No replies makes me think I did baaaaad ;___;

Anyways, time for bed! Hopefully there'll be replies on the morrow :p

I agree with a good deal of it, but I find it funny that it only compares itself to Communism, which is just a branch of Socialism.

However, the idea of having just charity instead of welfare is outright ridiculous. Not very many people are gonna willingly donate a good amount of money to help less fortunate people.

:( No replies makes me think I did baaaaad ;___;

Anyways, time for bed! Hopefully there'll be replies on the morrow :p
*replies*

:( No replies makes me think I did baaaaad ;___;

Anyways, time for bed! Hopefully there'll be replies on the morrow :p
I fell asleep!

i believe that people should be rewarded in society for what they contribute to society as a whole, instead of being rewarded for what they can take for themselves.

i believe that people should be rewarded in society for what they contribute to society as a whole, instead of being rewarded for what they can take for themselves.

I agree completely.

i believe that people should be rewarded in society for what they contribute to society as a whole, instead of being rewarded for what they can take for themselves.

Uhuh.

That's capitalism.

Uhuh.

That's capitalism.

No, capitalism rewards nobody but the upper classes.

Uhuh.

That's capitalism.


actually, that's communism.

a capitalist society rewards the good businessmen, who make money by taking money from the rest of the people by convincing them to buy their things. (ie: in a capitalist society, the ones who end best are the ones who help only themselves)

No, capitalism rewards nobody but the upper classes.

Not really, but nevermind. (In fact, it tends to be the opposite, which is why the upper class tends to be conservative, and anti-capitalism; capitalism being an outgrowth of classic liberalism).

Not really, but nevermind. (In fact, it tends to be the opposite, which is why the upper class tends to be conservative, and anti-capitalism; capitalism being an outgrowth of classic liberalism).

You've really got your definitions fucked up.

However, the idea of having just charity instead of welfare is outright ridiculous. Not very many people are gonna willingly donate a good amount of money to help less fortunate people.

There you are wrong my friend...

http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/exceptional_nation2.pdf

Just compare what is done in Europe to the U.S. and you will see a striking difference in the way Charities are used to assist the less fortunate in our Societies, comparitively.

Regards,
Gaar

There you are wrong my friend...

http://www.jewishresearch.org/PDFs/exceptional_nation2.pdf

Just compare what is done in Europe to the U.S. and you will see a striking difference in the way Charities are used to assist the less fortunate in our Societies, comparitively.

Regards,
Gaar

PFFFFF! You expect me to outright believe something without some actual graphs and statistics?

No, capitalism rewards nobody but the upper classes.

Does it surprise me that you don't believe that Capitalism rewards those that work hard and contribute to the overal good and welfare of the Society, no.

Just as it doesn't surprise me that you believe most U.S. citizens wouldn't give unless they had to, when in fact, even though we "are forced to", many still give willingly over and above what is taken.

Regards,
Gaar

PFFFFF! You expect me to outright believe something without some actual graphs and statistics?

ok, try these and then let's talk...

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8536128&postcount=57

Regards,
Gaar

Does it surprise me that you don't believe that Capitalism rewards those that work hard and contribute to the overal good and welfare of the Society, no.

My dad busted his ass eight hours a day for twenty years, and where are we now? In a 1,250 square foot house, on welfare. My sister has to pay for a lot of our things (TV, electricity, internet access, etc.). And you know what? $275 worth of food stamps don't last even a month with three people under one roof.

Just as it doesn't surprise me that you believe most U.S. citizens wouldn't give unless they had to, when in fact, even though we "are forced to", many still give willingly over and above what is taken.

I know that a lot of people give. I also know for a fact that they'd also leave the homeless in the dust, as well as the minorities. I find it funny that you think almost everybody would give to every person below the poverty line. Get this: They wouldn't. That's why we have social programs and TAXES.

And once again --- I don't appreciate "regards" when you don't mean it.

You've really got your definitions fucked up.

No, my definitions are fine. What do you think liberalism is? Adam Smith was a liberal, Milton Freidman was a liberal. John F. Kennedy was a conservative. Franklin Roosevelt was a conservative.

Lenin was a buttplug, and Marx was a very lazy man looking to justify why he sent out his wife and mistress to support him while he smoked fine cigars and disapproved of Engel's girlfriend.

Please learn something.

Fuck, an average of $851 per American donated to charities every twelve months? That isn't anywhere close to what Taxes pay for!

Many, many poor people would be seriously fucked if social programs and welfare were to be scrapped.

Fuck, an average of $851 per American donated to charities every twelve months? That isn't anywhere close to what Taxes pay for!

Many, many poor people would be seriously fucked if social programs and welfare were to be scrapped.

If by 'fucked' you mean find useful jobs, then yes. Otherwise no.

My dad busted his ass eight hours a day for twenty years, and where are we now? In a 1,250 square foot house, on welfare. My sister has to pay for a lot of our things (TV, electricity, internet access, etc.). And you know what? $275 worth of food stamps don't last even a month with three people under one roof.

I am sorry to hear about your living conditions, might I ask where your Father and Mother are today? How old are you and your sister, and why are you on welfare?

Please don't feel you have to answer these questions at all, but you are the one that has brought these conditions into the discussion and I can hardly comment on them if I don't understand why you are in them.

I know that a lot of people give. I also know for a fact that they'd also leave the homeless in the dust, as well as the minorities. I find it funny that you think almost everybody would give to every person below the poverty line. Get this: They wouldn't. That's why we have social programs and TAXES.

And once again --- I don't appreciate "regards" when you don't mean it.

Well, I believe you are wrong here, and I watch the opposite "happen" all the time.

Sincerely,
Gaar

No, my definitions are fine. What do you think liberalism is? Adam Smith was a liberal, Milton Freidman was a liberal. John F. Kennedy was a conservative. Franklin Roosevelt was a conservative.

Roosevelt was a Conservative!?!?

The President that basically forced Social reform on the U.S. citizens was a Conservative?

I'm sorry, I believe you misunderstand the term.

Regards,
Gaar

Roosevelt was a Conservative!?!?

The President that basically forced Social reform on the U.S. citizens was a Conservative?

I'm sorry, I believe you misunderstand the term.

Regards,
Gaar

No I don't. Roosevelt's policies were an attempt to maintain the social status quo. Almost at every level he tried to strangle private enterprise, except for those which were already fully established. Social security was in furtherance of that policy in as much as it reduced the pool of available labor.

Roosevelt was extremely conservative, Hoover - think private enterprise and non-interference by gov. - was the liberal.

Meh... I never agreed with that "to each according to his merit, to each according to his own need" quote. In my experience, I always heard it when someone was trying to defend American capitalism. In developed countries today, one is not supposed to be condemed to the social status he/she was born to. He/she had the ability to climb the social ladder in such societies. However, "to each according to his merit, to each according to his own need" does not accomplish that. Your merit or value to society has nothing to do with what your entitled to and what you deserve to be entitled. In the US, where I live, you're entitled to what you have. At least that's what it seems in American capitalism. You're only entitled to what your money can buy and the value of your money has NOTHING to do with merit. If that were true, people like Paris Hilton wouldn't be making more than people who have more "merit" than her. The American government has don eabsolutely nothing to guarantee you will have what you are entitled to. I don't disagree with capitalism. In fact, I enjoy many of the things it brings. However, Canada and almost all of the European countries have been able to pull off a good balance between socialism and capitalism. A capitalist society is not good. A capitalist economy is good. A communist government not good. A communist society not good. A capitalist economy and a more socialist government is what we need. This would be where this idea would succeed the most. This is NOT America.

No I don't. Roosevelt's policies were an attempt to maintain the social status quo. Almost at every level he tried to strangle private enterprise, except for those which were already fully established. Social security was in furtherance of that policy in as much as it reduced the pool of available labor.

Roosevelt was extremely conservative, Hoover - think private enterprise and non-interference by gov. - was the liberal.

So you believe that Conservatives try to "strangle private enterprise"?

Status quo? We had a Social Security before Roosevelt? Again, I believe you may have your terms mixed up...

Regards,
Gaar

Capitalism rocks.
You know, when I look at ns, I'm worried that the world is turning socialist. Then I feel okay, because I realize all the liberal commies are wasting their lives on here instead of accomplishing something in the real world. So they aren't much of a threat at all.

Capitalism rocks.
You know, when I look at ns, I'm worried that the world is turning socialist. Then I feel okay, because I realize all the liberal commies are wasting their lives on here instead of accomplishing something in the real world. So they aren't much of a threat at all.

TOUCHE!

;) :D ;) :D ;) :D

I am sorry to hear about your living conditions, might I ask where your Father and Mother are today? How old are you and your sister, and why are you on welfare?

My mom's a bitch who owes us a total of almost $100,000 in child support and various other fees, my dad can't stand for more than ten minutes without getting horrible foot pain, and my sister's 30. Why am I on welfare? Well, my dad's condition. He tried to work a few years ago, but he couldn't. It was impossible. We were getting $340 a month in food stamps before that, and as soon as the conservative bastards at the Human Resources center found out about it, they stripped it down to $240 a month. He didn't make a single penny when he tried going back to work, and they fucked us!

The only welfare we get is food stamps. My dad doesn't get disability because the filthy slime of a judge denied it to him, without even looking at his medical records. The mother fucker also threw away the recommendation by a doctor HE appointed to examine him!!

Please don't feel you have to answer these questions at all, but you are the one that has brought these conditions into the discussion and I can hardly comment on them if I don't understand why you are in them.

I understand completely, and I assure you that nothing I've just said is bullshit.

Well, I believe you are wrong here, and I watch the opposite "happen" all the time.

You don't live in the South. Many, many people down here don't give a flying fuck about the needy, especially those in the Human Resources center.

So you believe that Conservatives try to "strangle private enterprise"?

Status quo? We had a Social Security before Roosevelt? Again, I believe you may have your terms mixed up...

Regards,
Gaar

Many states had a pension scheme before Roosevelt federalized it, but that is beside the point.

Who pays the for the bulk of social security? And who does it benefit? Furthermore, the system was introduced to re-inforce the exisiting social order - or at least quiet dissent.

And yes, traditionally conservatives do, indeed, strangle private enterprise.

The problem here, I think, is that you are caught up in the modern US weltunschaung. Liberal != socialist: Conservative != Free Market. Unfortunately the republicans have forged an unholy alliance of several different schools of political thought under the umbrella of "conservative", some of which include classic liberalism.

For example, I am what most people on this board whould term a "conservative", but in fact I am a liberal. Most self described liberals here are actually socialists of some stripe.

My mom's a bitch who owes us a total of almost $100,000 in child support and various other fees, my dad can't stand for more than ten minutes without getting horrible foot pain, and my sister's 30. Why am I on welfare? Well, my dad's condition. He tried to work a few years ago, but he couldn't. It was impossible. We were getting $340 a month in food stamps before that, and as soon as the conservative bastards at the Human Resources center found out about it, they stripped it down to $240 a month. He didn't make a single penny when he tried going back to work, and they fucked us!

Why don't you take her to court? (Your mother that is).

Why don't you take her to court? (Your mother that is).

It's still pending. It's been in "pending" status since 1994.

It's still pending. It's been in "pending" status since 1994.

Hmm, I doubt that. Nothing "pends" for eleven years. I suggest you try another attorney.

Hmm, I doubt that. Nothing "pends" for eleven years. I suggest you try another attorney.

I'm thinking if he is on welfare, the state assigned his father a lawyer.

Oh yeah, that's right --- It's hanging in limbo. It was supposed to be pending until 1998, but we couldn't afford an attorney, and we sure as hell weren't going to get a state-appointed one.

Sorry for leaving out such an important detail... I just haven't thought about the whole thing in a long time.

Uhuh.

That's capitalism.
Actually, that's free-market capitalism. Laissez faire capitalism is closer to what one can take for oneself.

Regardless, $270 per month is plenty to feed three individuals, one of which is disabled. I spend $40 per month on food, and I'm a 23 year old male with a high metabolism. Also, if you were really in trouble, you would have neither internet access nor a computer. You obviously take for granted the luxuries that you have. Try moving to the third world and complaining about the life you have here.

Oh yeah, that's right --- It's hanging in limbo. It was supposed to be pending until 1998, but we couldn't afford an attorney, and we sure as hell weren't going to get a state-appointed one.

Sorry for leaving out such an important detail... I just haven't thought about the whole thing in a long time.

Well it's gone now then. Frankly, if, indeed, your mother owed $100,000 in child support it would have been a bread and butter case for a lawyer, and would have been taken on retainer.

In any event, if you couldn't afford your own lawyer, why did you refuse a state appointed one?

Regardless, $270 per month is plenty to feed three individuals, one of which is disabled. I spend $40 per month on food, and I'm a 23 year old male with a high metabolism. Also, if you were really in trouble, you would have neither internet access nor a computer. You obviously take for granted the luxuries that you have. Try moving to the third world and complaining about the life you have here.

maybe if they only eat bread. :p

maybe if they only eat bread. :p
You mean, "maybe if they never go to restaurants." Bread is much cheaper than that. It's 70 cents for a loaf of wheat bread, and it could feed a person for days.

Id like to see you eat bread and only bread everyday. :)

Id like to see you eat bread and only bread everyday. :)
I've been known to do such things, but that's only out of laziness in going to the grocery store. However, my point still stands. That would probably cost about $10 per month per person.

Well it's gone now then. Frankly, if, indeed, your mother owed $100,000 in child support it would have been a bread and butter case for a lawyer, and would have been taken on retainer.

In any event, if you couldn't afford your own lawyer, why did you refuse a state appointed one?

The state-appointed lawyers they were allowing us were very bad at what they did. We weren't going to risk anything, and we would've been risking a lot with one of those jokers.

Regardless, $270 per month is plenty to feed three individuals, one of which is disabled. I spend $40 per month on food, and I'm a 23 year old male with a high metabolism. Also, if you were really in trouble, you would have neither internet access nor a computer. You obviously take for granted the luxuries that you have. Try moving to the third world and complaining about the life you have here.

Nobody's equal. You may spend $40 a month on food, but each of us eats a lot of food every day. We shouldn't have to ration every single piece of food. And you know what? We're usually left with about $70 in the last two weeks before the next food stamp payment goes out.

My sister pays for the internet access and the computers we have, along with our cable access, electricity, my school, and other things. If she didn't do that, we'd be screwed.

You mean, "maybe if they never go to restaurants." Bread is much cheaper than that. It's 70 cents for a loaf of wheat bread, and it could feed a person for days.

$.70 a loaf? My fucking ass. The cheapest bread at our local H-E-B is $1.65 a loaf, and the cheapest at the local Wal-Mart is $1.70 a loaf.

And you can't eat out with food stamp money.

The state-appointed lawyers they were allowing us were very bad at what they did. We weren't going to risk anything, and we would've been risking a lot with one of those jokers.


Risking what? I thought you all were destitute?

Risking what? I thought you all were destitute?

Risking his custody of us, that's what. Ever heard of a counter suit?

$.70 a loaf? My fucking ass. The cheapest bread at our local H-E-B is $1.65 a loaf, and the cheapest at the local Wal-Mart is $1.70 a loaf.

And you can't eat out with food stamp money.

Ehh? Flour is like a dollar a pound. You can make tonnes of bread with that.

Recipe for bread:

3 cups flour
1 cup water. (Room temp.)
1/4 oz. yeast.
Tsp. of Sugar.
Tbs. oil.

Put yeast in water, with sugar. Leave for fifteen minutes.
Place flour in mixing bowl. Make a well in the center. Pour in water/yeast mixture. Slowly stir in water until combined, making a big dough ball.

Place dough on floured surface, knead until smooth (about 15 mins.)

Let dough rest in warm place (1-2 hours depending on temp.)

Place rested dough on floured surface, punch down and knead again until smooth. (about 5 mins).

Shape dough. Let rest for another 30 mins.

Bake at 350 in a pre-heated oven for 25 mins ( or until golden brown).

You see, try this out. you food stamp will go further.

My dad busted his ass eight hours a day for twenty years, and where are we now? In a 1,250 square foot house, on welfare. My sister has to pay for a lot of our things (TV, electricity, internet access, etc.). And you know what? $275 worth of food stamps don't last even a month with three people under one roof.

Why not 10 hours?

$.70 a loaf? My fucking ass. The cheapest bread at our local H-E-B is $1.65 a loaf, and the cheapest at the local Wal-Mart is $1.70 a loaf.

And you can't eat out with food stamp money.

If I can get bread for $.90 in Santa Barbara, among the highest living expenses in the ation, from the damned VONS (Safeway), you can surely find a place where you can get bread for less than $1.65. Try a bakery that sells day old non-fresh bread.

Are there no prisons? Are there no workhouses? Are there no poorhouses?

Surely the poor and disabled can ration their food, and certainly those who can should work in order to take up the slack; 10, 12, 14, 16 hours a day even.

We do make home-made food, and the money still runs out. Milk is $2.75 a gallon for fat-free, the cheapest of the cheap. Flour is almost $2.00 a pound, and don't even get me started on meat!

And bakeries... Are you shitting me? The only thing close to a bakery in Tomball is the local Donut shop, and they don't make bread (though it's odd that they make bread for their kolaches).

We do make home-made food, and the money still runs out. Milk is $2.75 a gallon for fat-free, the cheapest of the cheap. Flour is almost $2.00 a pound, and don't even get me started on meat!

Er. Either Texas has prices roughly double that of California or you're mis-informed...

And bakeries... Are you shitting me? The only thing close to a bakery in Tomball is the local Donut shop, and they don't make bread (though it's odd that they make bread for their kolaches).

Google Says Otherwise (http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Bakery&near=Tomball,+TX&sa=X&oi=localr)

Er. Either Texas has prices roughly double that of California or you're mis-informed...

How could I be mis-informed if I'm the one who does the shopping (along with my brother)?

Google Says Otherwise (http://www.google.com/local?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&q=Bakery&near=Tomball,+TX&sa=X&oi=localr)

Well, then I obviously don't go about town enough.

Flour is almost $2.00 a pound, and don't even get me started


No it isn't. I just checked in my kitchen, I have a fresh bag of flour (5lbs), for which I paid less than $2. Don't be lazy. Bake your own bread slacker.

Honestly, you are nothing but a whiner. Straighten up and fly right boy. You don't even know the cost of flour, and you lecture everyone else about how tough it is. Next thing you will tell us is that you don't have an oven.

Listen fuckwit, I have been far poorer that you can imagine, and I didn't whine. Start living within your means, and stop bothering the rest of us.

No it isn't. I just checked in my kitchen, I have a fresh bag of flour (5lbs), for which I paid less than $2. Don't be lazy. Bake your own bread slacker.

Honestly, you are nothing but a whiner. Straighten up and fly right boy. You don't even know the cost of flour, and you lecture everyone else about how tough it is. Next thing you will tell us is that you don't have an oven.

Listen fuckwit, I have been far poorer that you can imagine, and I didn't whine. Start living within your means, and stop bothering the rest of us.

Your just a dick who dosnt give a shit about anyone else.

No it isn't. I just checked in my kitchen, I have a fresh bag of flour (5lbs), for which I paid less than $2. Don't be lazy. Bake your own bread slacker.

Honestly, you are nothing but a whiner. Straighten up and fly right boy. You don't even know the cost of flour, and you lecture everyone else about how tough it is. Next thing you will tell us is that you don't have an oven.

Listen fuckwit, I have been far poorer that you can imagine, and I didn't whine. Start living within your means, and stop bothering the rest of us.

No, food couldn't POSSIBLY cost more in other parts of the country!

Whining? No. Pissed off? yes.

Your just a dick who dosnt give a shit about anyone else.

You, sir, are correct.

*snip*

While I believe fully in personal responsibility, I also believe in a little thing called compassion...

And I would think that anyone that has truly "been there" would have just a bit of sympathy, knowing how hard it can be.

I wish you luck Potoria and hope that you take some of this advice to Heart and do some things to help make things better for yourself as well as those around you...

Your sister is to be commended for helping out... :D

Regards,
Gaar

Your just a dick who dosnt give a shit about anyone else.

Yes, I don't give a shit about the lazy. You are right.

I could feed a family of twenty on the food stamp allowance he is given. But I guess if you don't get macdonalds twice a week you are poor.

While I believe fully in personal responsibility, I also believe in a little thing called compassion...

And I would think that anyone that has truly "been there" would have just a bit of sympathy, knowing how hard it can be.

I wish you luck Potoria and hope that you take some of this advice to Heart and do some things to help make things better for yourself as well as those around you...

Your sister is to be commended for helping out... :D

Regards,
Gaar

Things will definitely work out. I'm just pissed at the fact that we've been screwed over.

Yeah, I've given her my regards. It's a good thing that she works, because we can't...

While I believe fully in personal responsibility, I also believe in a little thing called compassion...

And I would think that anyone that has truly "been there" would have just a bit of sympathy, knowing how hard it can be.

I wish you luck Potoria and hope that you take some of this advice to Heart and do some things to help make things better for yourself as well as those around you...

Your sister is to be commended for helping out... :D

Regards,
Gaar

This is utter bollocks. I have been "there" and have learned how to stretch a pound of chopped beef for a week. I have no sympathy because I know exactly how far $250 a month for food can go.

If you are that poor, stop buying prepared food. You can't afford it.

No it isn't. I just checked in my kitchen, I have a fresh bag of flour (5lbs), for which I paid less than $2. Don't be lazy. Bake your own bread slacker.

Honestly, you are nothing but a whiner. Straighten up and fly right boy. You don't even know the cost of flour, and you lecture everyone else about how tough it is. Next thing you will tell us is that you don't have an oven.

Listen fuckwit, I have been far poorer that you can imagine, and I didn't whine. Start living within your means, and stop bothering the rest of us.

Whao. Maybe you should back off a little.

You are being more than a bit rude and very insensitive.

You are making assumption and then hurling accusations and insults.

It isn't flattering to you.

Methinks me smells a troll.

You cannot eat at any restaurant with foodstamps. The closest store to me is Buy-For-Less. It has a crappy selection, but is cheaper than Walmart or Albertsons. Milk there is 2.99 a gallon. Bread starts at .99 a loaf, but I buy the 1.65 a loaf stuff because I like it better. I really hopes it chaps your hide that I live at more than the most subsistence level. I have no A/C, but I do have a color TV. A friend gave me his old one. My computer is ten years old.

Most people who give to charity give to the cause of the month. This leaves out the less glamorous causes. A lot of peoples yearly charity dollars go out at Christmas, great if that's ,the only time of the year you need to eat.

And I hope this chaps your hide too- I give twenty dollars a year to the ACLU. :p

You are being more than a bit rude and very insensitive.


It isn't flattering to you.

That is my way. But I believe in the 'tough love'.

Edit: And at least know the cost of flour.

Most people who give to charity give to the cause of the month. This leaves out the less glamorous causes. A lot of peoples yearly charity dollars go out at Christmas, great if that's ,the only time of the year you need to eat.

What, you mean Charities don't store the surplus of nonperishable they get at Christmas (cash and canned food) and give it out over the remainder of the year? :rolleyes:

Yes, I don't give a shit about the lazy. You are right.

I could feed a family of twenty on the food stamp allowance he is given. But I guess if you don't get macdonalds twice a week you are poor.

Boy, you are fuckin moron. I hope you don't have children because if you did they'd probably be emaciated. In which if you didn't, you wouldn't know what it takes to feed a family. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Food stamps are not money. MacDonalds does not accept food stamps. Baking things tend to cost more than if you bought them. Baking bread would probably cost more than buying it.

What, you mean Charities don't store the surplus of nonperishable they get at Christmas (cash and canned food) and give it out over the remainder of the year? :rolleyes:

The donations don't last anywhere near all year. When I was living at the transitional living center, which was for the mentally ill who were ready to be released from the hospital but had no place to go, the food from the foodbank frequently had mold or weevils in it. But we were only a bunch of homeless nuts, so I guess it should have been just fine. :rolleyes:

Boy, you are fuckin moron. I hope you don't have children because if you did they'd probably be emaciated. In which if you didn't, you wouldn't know what it takes to feed a family. :rolleyes:

EDIT: Food stamps are not money. MacDonalds does not accept food stamps. Baking things tend to cost more than if you bought them. Baking bread would probably cost more than buying it.

The combined cost of making your own bread is roughly the same as buying it, if not more. First off, there's the flour. Then there's the salt, sugar, baking soda, and spices (depends on the type of bread). Then, there's the electricity you use with an egg beater and an oven.

It might even cost more than buying a loaf.

The combined cost of making your own bread is roughly the same as buying it, if not more. First off, there's the flour. Then there's the salt, sugar, baking soda, and spices (depends on the type of bread). Then, there's the electricity you use with an egg beater and an oven.

It might even cost more than buying a loaf.

Baking bread would cost more.

Well it's gone now then. Frankly, if, indeed, your mother owed $100,000 in child support it would have been a bread and butter case for a lawyer, and would have been taken on retainer.

In any event, if you couldn't afford your own lawyer, why did you refuse a state appointed one?

Are you a lawyer?

Are you volunteering to take the case on "contingency"? (Not retainer)

I think not. I think your need to argue with someone by denying their situation demonstrates little more than that you are a callous idiot.

Baking bread would cost more.

Yeah, it would, seeing as my oven takes twice as long to bake things as newer models, and it uses a lot more electricity. It's from the late 1970's, and it sucks.

Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
Well it's gone now then. Frankly, if, indeed, your mother owed $100,000 in child support it would have been a bread and butter case for a lawyer, and would have been taken on retainer.

In any event, if you couldn't afford your own lawyer, why did you refuse a state appointed one?

Perhaps because they knew they weren't going to get the money from her anyway.

Lacadaemon, if this topic is getting you so riled up, perhaps you need to take a break to think about what you're typing before you post it. I shall not be so lenient if you go off your lid again.

Oksana, do not retaliate in kind - it makes nobody look good.

~ Tsar the Mod.

Yes, I don't give a shit about the lazy. You are right.

I could feed a family of twenty on the food stamp allowance he is given. But I guess if you don't get macdonalds twice a week you are poor.

You could feed a family of twenty for a month on $275 in food stamps.

Let's see. $275 by 20. That's $13.75 per peson for a month.

$13.75 over 30 days = $0.49 per day.

You can eat on 49 cents a day? Bullshit.

Grow up. Food stamps isn't living high on the hog.

Stop being an idiot.

Lacadaemon, if this topic is getting you so riled up, perhaps you need to take a break to think about what you're typing before you post it. I shall not be so lenient if you go off your lid again.

Oksana, do not retaliate in kind - it makes nobody look good.

~ Tsar the Mod.

I'm sorry. I'll try not to do that again.

The donations don't last anywhere near all year. When I was living at the transitional living center, which was for the mentally ill who were ready to be released from the hospital but had no place to go, the food from the foodbank frequently had mold or weevils in it. But we were only a bunch of homeless nuts, so I guess it should have been just fine. :rolleyes:

Which might just be why they continue to push more and more and more for cash donations.

I'm sorry. I'll try not to do that again.


Me too.

Oh and sorry for calling you a dick, I dont like being mean. :fluffle:

Sometimes I just want to... :eek:

I wanted to do it very badly, but I really held myself back. On a flame-lenient forum, I would've ruined the man's self esteem.

I wanted to do it very badly, but I really held myself back. On a flame-lenient forum, I would've ruined the man's self esteem.

No I wasn't going to do that. Sometimes I just want to shake people.

No I wasn't going to do that. Sometimes I just want to shake people.

I understand. But on flame-lenient forums (there aren't many, but I've been to them), I'm relentless. I don't like it when people fuck with me, and I make very special photoshopped images for them (among other things).

Which might just be why they continue to push more and more and more for cash donations.

Which makes sense. Though it's not strictly legal, some of the people who still had food stamps from before spent them feeding the rest of us. The center would run out of funds before the end of the month, once the electric was turned off. This wasn't a government funded center, it got money from private donors and The United Way.

Baking bread would cost more.

I'm sorry but, it wouldn't be too difficult to prove this wrong...

Take a 5lbs bag of Flour and some yeast and see how many loaves you can make from just that.

Even if a bag of flour is $2 and the yeast is $1 and let's assume you spend $1 on power...

$4 for at least 8 loaves of Bread, I believe that is 50 cents a loaf and I believe that's a conservative estimate, it is likely even a bit less than that..

I could go get some real numbers and show how this is even a bit high, but hopefully you get the point.

Regards,
Gaar

Humanity cannot be forced to be moral. It can only be led into a fair system of personal responsibility and personal achievement, to flourish and prosper, or it can be led down the opposing path - that of putting society before the individual.


You cannot force people to be moral, no, but it's not a question of morality. It's a question of solidarity. Emphasising the need for the individual to show solidarity towards society is not an attack against the individual; it does not deprive him of any fundamental rights, nor even of any minor rights.

I disagree strongly with the idea that man should be left free to accumulate wealth far beyond his needs, with no regard for the needs of his fellow men. You may call that freedom; I don't. I call it unjustifiable selfishness.

Which is why I'm fully in favour of taxes strong enough to provide for the needs of those who are less fortunate, and to give them decent living conditions. While not rich by any stretch of the imagination, I'm fortunate enough to have a steady salary that allows me to live in reasonable comfort. I find it not only acceptable but perfectly natural that I should be taxed in favour of those less lucky than me.

Any politician who offered me the chance to pay fewer taxes would never get my vote.

Being a staunch Libertarian myself, I have to offer up a pair of small copper coins. I'd like to touch on one thing in particular from a bit earlier in this thread if I may, now that the appropriate warnings have been issued.

First up is food prices. I'm not certain what started this argument or what each opposing side believes in, but I can guess it probably has something to do with subsidized food costs versus free market driven food costs. In Mexico, for example, the government regulates the price of bread. The thinking behind this is it allows $BUM to get a loaf of bread for a peso any time. It works in a sense, I suppose, at least to the extent that it's meant to work. The bum can get his bread, but the country as a whole [as you can sort of see by looking at Mexico City] pays a larger price. What happens when you subsidize food prices is you make begging a full time job. People realize that they can beg for 8 hours and feed themselves for a day, so they rig up some shanty towns and have at it. I won't pretend to say that the people who would encourage this kind of policy don't have the best interests of their fellow man at heart, but the most effective solution to reducing hunger and poverty isnt always the most obvious one.

Let me explain how governments does this, in case anyone doesn't know. The US does it too, with some diary products I believe, but not to the extent that many others do. The backbone of any price setting scheme is the subsidy. A subsidy is when the government takes tax money from you by force [all tax money is taken by force] and spends it on something you wouldn't be willing to pay for on the free market. Subsidies support questionable or obsolete businesses in the name of the public interest--because the government doesn't trust us to do what's best for us on our own. To my knowledge, the U.S. government is currently spending a shit ton of money on agricultural policies that make about as much sense as Mighty Mouse raping Elmer Fudd at the Academy Awards. You see, if the weather is really bad and we have lots of droughts and freezes, the government has to pay disaster aid and crop insurance to farmers, and the farm bill gets pretty bloated. For this reason, farm bills usually end up running us a tad more than we think they will, especially during a bad season. In some years, the actual cost ended up running about $60 billion, where only 12 or 15 billion was budgeted.

In the States, agricultural policy was formulated in 1794 when some Pennsylvania farmers started the Whiskey Rebellion in response to a tax on corn liquor. Corn liquor. By now, here in '06, we're getting ready to spend about $19 billion on various agricultural goals: and the sad thing is that number's a decrease. As mentioned above, however, this number may prove much smaller than the actual cost: don't forget about all that disaster aid and crop insurance.

But wait! What if the weather's really good and we have a super-pimpin' uber-yield growing season?

Glad you asked. What happens then, my friend, is we have to buy up surplus commodoties and pay farmers to cut down on planting. This has been happening a lot lately: many farmers are being paid not to grow anything on their land. When this happens, too, it makes the farm bill cost even more. So yeah, farm bills suck.

Many people think that subsidy money goes to poor farmers laboring on millions and millions of farms across the nation, which is a misnomer on a lot of levels. As of 1990, there were roughly two million farms in the US, if you go by the rather liberal Census definition of any place with $1000 annual sales of farm products. My old house in Akron would have qualified if my grow light hadn't blown the fuse box off the wall.

Of these farms, about 300,000 of them were full time farms, with annual sales over $100,000. The USDA as of the time of this statistic had roughly 106,000 employees, which was one for every three full time farms in the country. 19 billion dollars. 106,000 people would be better fit to serve our farm economy by getting off their asses and plowing that goddamn cornfield.

Between 1985 and 1989 the government was spending about $1 million for every full time rice farmer in the country, and the annual subsidy for each American Dairy cow was between $600 and $700--greater than the per capita income of half the world's population. Where's your sense of moral outrage now, socialists?

Another thing I just want to touch on here is the concept of parity, conceived in the 20s, when mechanization and better fertilizer caused agricultural prices to drop. Farmers liked that they could grow more stuff, but they didn't like that other farmers could grow more stuff too. They wanted to turn the clock back to the days when their crops raked in a fatter wad. The US government is sort of like a permanent frat pledge to every special interest in the nation--willing to undertake any task no matter how absurd or useless. They obliged, and parity was born.

If they had applied this concept to the auto industry, a typical economy car would cost well over 40 grand. And this is a car without A/C, 34 horsepower, no heat, no tape deck, radio, or windows around the front seat. Who still thinks price fixing is a good idea?

Being that parts of this were paraphrased from P/J/ O'Rourke's Parliament of Whores, I should quote him:

This being America, we haven't pursued Marxist goals with tanks, secret police and gulag camps; we've used money. And the result has been a uniquely American totalitarian screw-up. Instead of terrible shortages, we've created gross overproduction. Instead of making people dirt poor, we've made them filthy rich.

I'm sorry but, it wouldn't be too difficult to prove this wrong...

Take a 5lbs bag of Flour and some yeast and see how many loaves you can make from just that.

Even if a bag of flour is $2 and the yeast is $1 and let's assume you spend $1 on power...

$4 for at least 8 loaves of Bread, I believe that is 50 cents a loaf and I believe that's a conservative estimate, it is likely even a bit less than that..

I could go get some real numbers and show how this is even a bit high, but hopefully you get the point.

Regards,
Gaar

That's $4 you just spent, hon. Potaria said bread costs about $2 where he lives. That's not too hard to prove.

That's $4 you just spent, hon. Potaria said bread costs about $2 where he lives.

But according to his figures, it costs .50 per loaf.

But according to his figures, it costs .50 per loaf.

But he didn't figure the additional electricity costs.

But according to his figures, it costs .50 per loaf.

That's very true but if you've ever made bread you'd see that it's much smaller than store breader. Thicker probably but not longer.

But he didn't figure the additional electricity costs.

Additional? You think it would cost more than $1 to bake all 8 loaves? I think you can do more than 1 at a time...

Regards,
Gaar

You cannot force people to be moral, no, but it's not a question of morality. It's a question of solidarity. Emphasising the need for the individual to show solidarity towards society is not an attack against the individual; it does not deprive him of any fundamental rights, nor even of any minor rights.

I disagree strongly with the idea that man should be left free to accumulate wealth far beyond his needs, with no regard for the needs of his fellow men. You may call that freedom; I don't. I call it unjustifiable selfishness.

Which is why I'm fully in favour of taxes strong enough to provide for the needs of those who are less fortunate, and to give them decent living conditions. While not rich by any stretch of the imagination, I'm fortunate enough to have a steady salary that allows me to live in reasonable comfort. I find it not only acceptable but perfectly natural that I should be taxed in favour of those less lucky than me.

Any politician who offered me the chance to pay fewer taxes would never get my vote.

Yes, it is an attack against the individual. The individual comes before society - I'm close to agreeing with Thatcher here for Christ's sake; "There's no such thing as society." Well plainly there is, the fact that more than a dozen people live in one place is society, but society is a social, personal affair, not an economic or moral one (One has a moral duty not to get in other people's way as much as can be avoided, basically.).

You can call it selfishness if you so desire, and I would agree. Accumulating sevel billion dollars and not giving it to anyone in need is pretty selfish, but that selfishness is on the head of the billionnaire. Taking his money is no more right than walking into your neighbour's house and taking his iPod because you don't have one.

I'm in the bracket of people who your taxes are going to help (That's right, I'm on welfare, and I'm an anti-taxation Libertarian. Amazing how I might believe in something which would cause me harm, eh?), and I certainly don't think I have any entitlement to your money and earnings and more than I'd have the right to drive your car around. I would hope that you might be charitable and give because of kindness, but I would never sanction forcing you to, and I would never condemn you for not doing so.

Melkor Unchained also makes a very good post. And consider; if those farmers weren't being paid to not farm their lands, there would be more food. Which means cheaper food or - better yet - more possibility for donations to charity.

to put it at its simplest:

in a capitalism, everything that you are able to get is given to you.

it means that the people who come out the best are the ones who are the best at convincing people to give them money (whether through the distribution of goods or the provision of services, if you can convince people to give you money, you win). people who cannot do that are screwed over.( people who have no goods to provide or services to offer get fucked)

in a communism, everything that you have is taken, and everything that you need is given to you. yes, it means that the CEO does not get four jacuzzis on his learjet, but it also means that the man who loses a leg does not also lose his job and his house


overall, i think the system where everyone gets what they need is more fair than the system where the few get what they want

Ah, if only that's how it worked. Unfairness is rampant in socialism, perhaps moreso than capitalism, as pointed out way back in the first post.

I agree with a good deal of it, but I find it funny that it only compares itself to Communism, which is just a branch of Socialism.

However, the idea of having just charity instead of welfare is outright ridiculous. Not very many people are gonna willingly donate a good amount of money to help less fortunate people.

You would be surprised. American gave $240.92 BILLION in 2002, and that is inline with trend.

Look to the bottom and you will see an excerpt from giving usa's annual report(their site is down so I cant link you directly to the report
http://www.bostrom.com/solutions/Solutions2-4.htm

Imagine how much more would be donated if the govt didnt take such a large bite out peoples pockets. You also have to factor in that private charities are more efficient in getting the aid into the actual needy persons hands. With govt programs you have tons of bureaucracy. Tons of govt employee that must be paid, lotsa inneficiencies ect.

No, capitalism rewards nobody but the upper classes.

Yeah right. Thats a good way of thinking. [/sarcasm]

No, capitalism rewards nobody but the upper classes.
Capitalism rewards everyone, who is willing to contribute in a way that other people find useful or attractive. Some people provide goods or services that are seen as more desirable, as such, these people are rewarded more. It's not some evil dark cabaal that controls all the money and keeps it from the little guy.

I'm a fan of the pattern of distribution that Robert Nozick proposed, it's a very libertarian pattern.

"From each as he chooses, to each as he is chosen."

Capitalism rewards everyone, who is willing to contribute in a way that other people find useful or attractive. Some people provide goods or services that are seen as more desirable, as such, these people are rewarded more. It's not some evil dark cabaal that controls all the money and keeps it from the little guy.

Those willing and able, who are frequently aided by a little luck. It doesn't work for everyone. But only a social darwinist thinks it works best. Then we could just kill off all the less able.

Those willing and able, who are frequently aided by a little luck. It doesn't work for everyone. But only a social darwinist thinks it works best. Then we could just kill off all the less able.

And don't forget about the people who never had a chance. We'll just have to let them rot in the gutter.

Those willing and able, who are frequently aided by a little luck. It doesn't work for everyone. But only a social darwinist thinks it works best. Then we could just kill off all the less able.

If you're going to bring luck into the equation, then you're at a loss. Why should a 'lucky' person who makes a million be punished, but an 'unlucky' person who is dirt-poor be rewarded? Undoubtedly, good and bad things happen to everyone, but that doesn't mean anyone else is required to help or hinder them in theirn efforts.

If you're going to bring luck into the equation, then you're at a loss. Why should a 'lucky' person who makes a million be punished, but an 'unlucky' person who is dirt-poor be rewarded? Undoubtedly, good and bad things happen to everyone, but that doesn't mean anyone else is required to help or hinder them in theirn efforts.

I see that somebody lacks compassion. That dirt-poor person isn't being rewarded. He's being helped because he never had a chance otherwise.

And don't forget about the people who never had a chance. We'll just have to let them rot in the gutter.

What people who never had a chance? The mentally ill excepted, everyone has a 'chance', the fact is it's often too much hard work for people to bother. (And the mentally ill still have a chance, I know numerous people who take medication for mental problems and remain in well-paid employment.).

And don't forget about the people who never had a chance. We'll just have to let them rot in the gutter.

And of whom are you speaking? Virtually everyone in America has a chance. Indeed a 4.0 at "East Compton High" with a 1550 on the SATs still gets you nearly paid for scholarship and admission to Ivy or similar College. Indeed if you make it to Yale or Harvard they'll cover your education 100% if you're parents are poor.

As Far as America is concerned 99.9% of people has a chance. It is how you decide to use your time that determines whether you put that chance to good use or not.

What people who never had a chance? The mentally ill excepted, everyone has a 'chance', the fact is it's often too much hard work for people to bother. (And the mentally ill still have a chance, I know numerous people who take medication for mental problems and remain in well-paid employment.).

Typical Libertarian* way of thinking. So lemme get this straight --- These people born into poverty can just magically get a job without getting an education?

*Americanized Libertarian, mind you.

Those willing and able, who are frequently aided by a little luck. It doesn't work for everyone. But only a social darwinist thinks it works best. Then we could just kill off all the less able.
I'm not saying it's guaranteed that if you're smart and if you 'think' you have a good product, it's what other people think about what you have to offer. If people like it, you made it, if they don't, you don't.

tell me:

why should the son of a millionaire get off easy and not have to do a minute of work in his life when the son of a drunkard who cannot go to a good school live on the street?

yea, that's a fair system :rolleyes:

Typical Libertarian* way of thinking. So lemme get this straight --- These people born into poverty can just magically get a job without getting an education?

*Americanized Libertarian, mind you.

Those in Poverty can't get an education? Wait, you mean low interest student loans and scholarships don't exist? ROTC doesn't exist?

Wait, you mean, people like myself, who have 0 money from their parents to pay for college can't afford an Education? But. Wait. I'm paying for my education. Damn. I must be the only person who figured that one out.

tell me:

why should the son of a millionaire get off easy and not have to do a minute of work in his life when the son of a drunkard who cannot go to a good school live on the street?

yea, that's a fair system :rolleyes:

Son the drunkard can go to a Good School. Son of the Millionare does need to work. And quite a bit typically.

Typical Libertarian* way of thinking. So lemme get this straight --- These people born into poverty can just magically get a job without getting an education?

*Americanized Libertarian, mind you.
Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend. And if a student works their ass off and excels there, there are plenty of scholarships and the like for college or technical school.

Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend. And if a student works their ass off and excels there, there are plenty of scholarships and the like for college or technical school.


despite the part where the education system is horribly underfunded, and many schools in poorer places are falling apart, severly lacking in textbooks, overridden with gang violence, or some combination of the above?

If you're going to bring luck into the equation, then you're at a loss. Why should a 'lucky' person who makes a million be punished, but an 'unlucky' person who is dirt-poor be rewarded? Undoubtedly, good and bad things happen to everyone, but that doesn't mean anyone else is required to help or hinder them in theirn efforts.

The rich are being punished by paying taxes? Is that how they are being punished?

It's a reward to be allowed to eat? What exactly is the reward we get for being poor?

I see that somebody lacks compassion. That dirt-poor person isn't being rewarded. He's being helped because he never had a chance otherwise.

Yes, I'm SO without compassion. You know, I'm not even going to bother listing compassionate things I've done in my life, partly because it's none of your business, and partly because you probably wouldn't care to differentiate between 'helping someone voluntarily' and 'helping someone on pain of imprisonment'.

I'm dirt-poor. The ONE area of entertainment I've put ANY money into for over a year is videogames (and three CDs.), and it's around the mark of $150 in actual money probably, as I've got most stuff by trading older games in. Most of what I have is from gifts; my family wouldn't be eating if my grandmother weren't helping us out. My mom legally cannot work due to various health issues, although she's trying to get the doctor's ok on the matter, my step-dad was made redundant and hasn't found a job, and I'm looking for employment myself. Is it so impossible for you to imagine that despite the fact we almost always buy the constituent parts of our dinner and make it ourselves, despite the fact that I've not been to the movies since before Christmas*, and despite the fact that I personally only eat one real meal a day to try and save money (I'm 6'3" and weight about 140lbs.), that I still don't feel any entitlement to what you have earned, and what you own? Sure, IF you want to donate, that's fine! It's greatly appreciated! But I have no right whatsoever to take it from you.

I tell you this because of the absolute opposite of trying to get pity - I don't want pity, and I don't like feeling as though I'm an illegal and immoral drain on others. Which is why on Tuesday once everything is open, I'm yet again going to evnture out looking for a job. It's not fun and it's not encouraging, but it's entirely on my back to sort it out.

*Edit: Apologies, I lie. I went a few adys after Christmas, and I also saw Million Dollar Baby, though this was paid for by a friend.

Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend. And if a student works their ass off and excels there, there are plenty of scholarships and the like for college or technical school.
That's not so. Books and supplies still cost moola.

That's not so. Books and supplies still cost moola.
Not that much though. My campus job gets me enough money every month to pay for books and supplies for the quarter.

despite the part where the education system is horribly underfunded, and many schools in poorer places are falling apart, severly lacking in textbooks, overridden with gang violence, or some combination of the above?

Out of all the things you listed the only valid one is the gang violence. The education system is over-funded if anything. If a student can't keep himself out of a gang its his fault. If the student gets killed as a result of school violence it sucks but that would call for more police and discipline at that school.

Never mind that even in those environments plenty of people manage to create a good and better life for themselves through hardwork. The chance exists even there. It is not an equal chance as someone who lives in say a New York Penthouse, but they both have a decent chance that is primarily based on how much work they are willing to put in.

But wait, maybe that’s why people push for school voucher programs. You know, so the parents can send those kids to schools that actually get the job done? And let the schools that are doing a shitty job disappear? Hmm.

Out of all the things you listed the only valid one is the gang violence. The education system is over-funded if anything. If a student can't keep himself out of a gang its his fault. If the student gets killed as a result of school violence it sucks but that would call for more police and discipline at that school.

Never mind that even in those environments plenty of people manage to create a good and better life for themselves through hardwork. The chance exists even there. It is not an equal chance as someone who lives in say a New York Penthouse, but they both have a decent chance that is primarily based on how much work they are willing to put in.

But wait, maybe that’s why people push for school voucher programs. You know, so the parents can send those kids to schools that actually get the job done? And let the schools that are doing a shitty job disappear? Hmm.

Stop trying to speak for the rest of the country when you're only speaking for your locale.

That's not so. Books and supplies still cost moola.

BS. Many scholarships are out there that will give you tens of thousands of dollars. And if you're lacking cash there are tons of low to no interest loans to cover your education.

Not that much though. My campus job gets me enough money every month to pay for books and supplies for the quarter.
Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend.
LOL! Campus? So you're talking about university? I thought you were talking about public school.

Stop trying to speak for the rest of the country when you're only speaking for your locale.

I am speaking for the large majority of the country and not my locale when it comes to that post. Perhaps you would care to refute it or concede your argument.

Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend.
LOL! Campus? So you're talking about university? I thought you were talking about public school.

Books at high-schools are free smart guy. You want to talk about the cost of books you are assumed to be talking about a College.

BS. Many scholarships are out there that will give you tens of thousands of dollars. And if you're lacking cash there are tons of low to no interest loans to cover your education.
Golly! And every public school student is eligible for this?

Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend. And if a student works their ass off and excels there, there are plenty of scholarships and the like for college or technical school.
Not everyone can get a scholarship. And not everyone can get a good job. There are only so many "good" jobs. If by some miracle everyone got the highest paying job they had the ability to do, then we'd have all management and no workers. (close, anyway) I know plenty of bright hard working people who just make it- living paycheck to paycheck. There is not enough room for everyone to be at the top. Realistically, there have to be more people at the bottom than on the top. We need more cashiers than stockbrokers.
If you are relying on this system, it seems only fair that you help make life livable to those below you on the ladder. They are doing the same for you.

Anyone can get an education in the US. We have public schools, which you don't have to pay to attend.
LOL! Campus? So you're talking about university? I thought you were talking about public school.
Okay, I'm confused.

When I was elementary through high school, I never had to pay for books. Ever. The schools always provided them. The only money we ever had to pay for these schools, was the ten dollar activity fee.

Now that I am going to University, I do have to pay for books. They cost money, but they are not all that expensive. I do pay for the university.

Books at high-schools are free smart guy. You want to talk about the cost of books you are assumed to be talking about a College.
Ah! Not so in every State. For the record, which State are you from?

Golly! And every public school student is eligible for this?

Virtually anyone who is considered poor is eligible for low interest loans. Virtually everyone with decent grades is eligible for a plethora of scholarships.

Out of all the things you listed the only valid one is the gang violence. The education system is over-funded if anything. If a student can't keep himself out of a gang its his fault. If the student gets killed as a result of school violence it sucks but that would call for more police and discipline at that school.

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/03/18/school_funding_doubles_this_year.php

highlights:

if you remember, a court ruled that NYC schools deserve $5.6 billion more a year from Albany, but Albany has done nothing to put that money into the works, so let's see what will happen


Let's hope that besides teachers and improved facilities, the public schools get some toilet paper. (there is a link in there to a story about that)

I am speaking for the large majority of the country and not my locale when it comes to that post. Perhaps you would care to refute it or concede your argument.
Ooh! nice ego...!

I am speaking for the large majority of the country and not my locale when it comes to that post. Perhaps you would care to refute it or concede your argument.

I went to a very under-funded (or should I say the funding was skewed towards the teachers) school in Port Isabelle. The books in the library were all horribly out-dated (the latest science books were from 1966), the carpets in the hallways reeked of mildew, the paint was peeling and ridden with lead, and the walkways in between buildings weren't very pleasant to walk on (the rain canopies were very old, and had never been maintained). The food the Cafeteria served was terrible, and the food the teachers got was extremely delicious Mexican food. The lowest-paid teacher at the school got $45,000 a year, and the Guidance Counseler got almost $70,000!

The school would've been very well-rounded if the funding wasn't so skewed toward the teachers. But I mean it --- Everything was horribly out-dated. Everything. It wasn't much better than a Ghetto school (in fact, from the playground, it looked like one).

Not everyone can get a scholarship. And not everyone can get a good job. There are only so many "good" jobs. If by some miracle everyone got the highest paying job they had the ability to do, then we'd have all management and no workers. (close, anyway) I know plenty of bright hard working people who just make it- living paycheck to paycheck. There is not enough room for everyone to be at the top. Realistically, there have to be more people at the bottom than on the top. We need more cashiers than stockbrokers.
If you are relying on this system, it seems only fair that you help make life livable to those below you on the ladder. They are doing the same for you.
People are not rewarded on a merit basis. They are rewarded by how other people view what they have to offer. You could be the smartest person in the world, yet you specialised in a field that is overpopulated and low paying.

And if someone works hard, gets good grades, and is in need of help, they can get a scholarship. I know a guy who has a full ride to my university because he is a double-minority. He's an appalachian and his dad's handicapped.

There is far more to being successful than just being smart. It's a multi-skill thing. And just being smart doesn't cut it.

Ah! Not so in every State. For the record, which State are you from?

Care to provide a list on any state that doesn't provide you with free books in k-12? I live in California and it is so. I know that in Ohio, Virginia and Hawaii it is also so.

Ooh! nice ego...!

Oooh! Constructive and valid retort!

I went to a very under-funded (or should I say the funding was skewed towards the teachers) school in Port Isabelle. The books in the library were all horribly out-dated (the latest science books were from 1966), the carpets in the hallways reeked of mildew, the paint was peeling and ridden with lead, and the walkways in between buildings weren't very pleasant to walk on (the rain canopies were very old, and had never been maintained). The food the Cafeteria served was terrible, and the food the teachers got was extremely delicious Mexican food. The lowest-paid teacher at the school got $45,000 a year, and the Guidance Counseler got almost $70,000!

The school would've been very well-rounded if the funding wasn't so skewed toward the teachers. But I mean it --- Everything was horribly out-dated. Everything. It wasn't much better than a Ghetto school (in fact, from the playground, it looked like one).
Well, the problem is not in a rich v. poor thing, it's in the setup of the school.

I went to a very under-funded (or should I say the funding was skewed towards the teachers) school in Port Isabelle. The books in the library were all horribly out-dated (the latest science books were from 1966), the carpets in the hallways reeked of mildew, the paint was peeling and ridden with lead, and the walkways in between buildings weren't very pleasant to walk on (the rain canopies were very old, and had never been maintained). The food the Cafeteria served was terrible, and the food the teachers got was extremely delicious Mexican food. The lowest-paid teacher at the school got $45,000 a year, and the Guidance Counseler got almost $70,000!

The school would've been very well-rounded if the funding wasn't so skewed toward the teachers. But I mean it --- Everything was horribly out-dated. Everything. It wasn't much better than a Ghetto school (in fact, from the playground, it looked like one).

As you've noted the problem is not funding. The school might even be overfunded perhaps. Distribution of the funding is the problem.

Ah! Not so in every State. For the record, which State are you from?
Ohio, and I know that people from Pennsylvannia, Kentucky, Indiana and Michigan don't have to buy their books, unless they ruin them, that is.

http://www.gothamist.com/archives/2005/03/18/school_funding_doubles_this_year.php

highlights:

(there is a link in there to a story about that)

Yes because a court knows how money a school needs? BS. The School got an extra 13 some billion dollars. Quibbling about 5.6 million more is meaningless. Especially when you can easily get hundreds of millions of more dollars where it is needed through proper management of the money.

In anycase the point still stands and remains. Good grades through hardwork and SAT/ACT scores gets you into a good college.

As you've noted the problem is not funding. The school might even be overfunded perhaps. Distribution of the funding is the problem.

Yeah, like I said, it would've been a very well-rounded school if they fixed the funding issues. A fucking Guidance Counselor getting $70,000 a year for sitting in a portable building eight hours a day, getting the occasional visit from a wayward student...

Typical Libertarian* way of thinking. So lemme get this straight --- These people born into poverty can just magically get a job without getting an education?

*Americanized Libertarian, mind you.

Magically... no! But through hard work and effort..Yes!.

Thats the whole point of entry level jobs(and why minimum wage is stupid). They should be used by people who lack marketable skills to develop marketable skills. Even if that skill is simply the ability to responsibly show up to work in a consistant manor.

edit:
changed minimum wage to entry level to avoid confusion

As you've noted the problem is not funding. The school might even be overfunded perhaps. Distribution of the funding is the problem.


then the point still stands: the kids are not in an environment condusive to learning.

in this case, it may be a distribution of funds.

in many other cases, it is lack of funds.

then the point still stands: the kids are not in an environment condusive to learning.

in this case, it may be a distribution of funds.

in many other cases, it is lack of funds.

In the nice and vast majority of cases it is the distribution. Teachers and Administrators at schools are vastly overpaid and their unions make it almost impossible to remove them.

A student may not be in an environment "conducive to learning" well so f'ing what. Does that stop the student from going to a public Library in the rich part of town and reading? Nope. The only person to be blamed for a student with bad grades is that student.

Unistate, you present a well thought out arguemnt. THere is one problem you are merging government and economy. True in the Communist system the two are intertwined but as many dictatorship in Africa have showed us a totalliarian dictatorship can be capitalist "Blood gems." I know that Arendt in her book qualifies those African Dictatorships as non-tolitarian but the fact is the two are often two different things.
Definition is also a problem what is Capatilst and what is Socialist. Marx and Smithare give two entilry different model true but in the end exicution gives way to theroy. Adam Smith hislef had argued for a form of Unemploymnet insurance. So how can I be sure that 1960 China is different form China today or Sweden today or for that matter the US today?

Not everyone can get a scholarship. And not everyone can get a good job. There are only so many "good" jobs.

That’s pretty much the point. You work hard. You play the game. You do as well as you can. If you make it. Great. If you don't make it to the top, oh well, you'll be well enough off if you worked hard. Most of the time.

Go look up the statistics on poverty in the United States, I'm fairly sure I've already thrown them at you before. Even the poor in America have a car, a color television and a decent house.

If by some miracle everyone got the highest paying job they had the ability to do, then we'd have all management and no workers. (close, anyway) I know plenty of bright hard working people who just make it- living paycheck to paycheck. There is not enough room for everyone to be at the top. Realistically, there have to be more people at the bottom than on the top. We need more cashiers than stockbrokers.

So what? Cashiers live a decent life. Stockbrokers sometimes live a better one. The Stockbroker lives a better one because he worked harder earlier in life and probably works harder in his career than a cashier.

If you are relying on this system, it seems only fair that you help make life livable to those below you on the ladder. They are doing the same for you.

Problem is, those below "me" on the ladder are living nicely. Very very few people aren't. Help them out sure. But as it stands most of the cases of poverty are not caused by "falling through the cracks" but by a lack of effort.

In the nice and vast majority of cases it is the distribution. Teachers and Administrators at schools are vastly overpaid and their unions make it almost impossible to remove them.

A student may not be in an environment "conducive to learning" well so f'ing what. Does that stop the student from going to a public Library in the rich part of town and reading? Nope. The only person to be blamed for a student with bad grades is that student.


just out of curiosity, where did you go to school?

i tend to notice that the people who overinflate the value of hard work are the ones who never had to do any.

the ones who say "just get over it" never had to do it themselves.

you expect the people who have everything going against them to do as well as the ones with everything going for them?

get realistic.

Yeah, like I said, it would've been a very well-rounded school if they fixed the funding issues. A fucking Guidance Counselor getting $70,000 a year for sitting in a portable building eight hours a day, getting the occasional visit from a wayward student...

Guidance Counselors make $70k!!!!

Damn! I knew I got in the wrong line of work.

Would someone mind telling me which State pays their Counselors this kind of money in a Public School? Cause I would say that this may be part of their problem...

Regards,
Gaar

Guidance Counselors make $70k!!!!

Damn! I knew I got in the wrong line of work.

Would someone mind telling me which State pays their Counselors this kind of money in a Public School? Cause I would say that this may be part of their problem...

Regards,
Gaar

Port Isabelle is a city in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. And I'm not shitting you. $70,000 a year for that one Guidance Counselor. The whole school system in that town is corrupt. The principle was recently jailed for biting, yes, BITING a kid in her office. A substitute teacher I had went under different aliases and was a drug dealer. One Mr. Garza used illegal forms of corporal punishment, such as belt buckles, paddles with weighted tassles, and paddles with speed holes.

It was a horrible, horrible place. And it probably still is.

just out of curiosity, where did you go to school?

i tend to notice that the people who overinflate the value of hard work are the ones who never had to do any.

Public High-school in Santa Barbara, California. Left it midway my sophomore year for the City College because the school sucked and I tested out and began taking college courses to transfer to UCSB, which I've been accepted to and start in the fall. So far I pay for my education with work, church scholarships and I will be paying for my UCSB education with an ROTC scholarship. Something about believing in the duty one owes to his country.

the ones who say "just get over it" never had to do it themselves.

Eh? I'm sure you can fill the proper set of swear words directed at you.

you expect the people who have everything going against them to do as well as the ones with everything going for them?

get realistic.

I expect those that triumph to do better. Having everything going for you creates complancey. Everything going against you creates a stronger person. Does that mean most will triumph? Nope. Does it mean most will fail? Probably. Does it mean someone who started out middle class will probably end his life middle class? Probably. I've got little to no sympathy for someone who wasn't able to pull himself up and expect to propped up by others. I've got little but contempt for people who started middle class and ended middle class and think they accomplished anything.

Port Isabelle is a city in the Rio Grande Valley area of Texas. And I'm not shitting you. $70,000 a year for that one Guidance Counselor. The whole school system in that town is corrupt. The principle was recently jailed for biting, yes, BITING a kid in her office. A substitute teacher I had went under different aliases and was a drug dealer. One Mr. Garza used illegal forms of corporal punishment, such as belt buckles, paddles with weighted tassles, and paddles with speed holes.

It was a horrible, horrible place. And it probably still is.
Damn, that beats our embezzling financial person! $135,000 is nothing compared to the biting principal!

Damn, that beats our embezzling financial person!

Everything in the Rio Grande Valley is corrupt to the point of being ridiculous. It's like Mexico, only cleaner (much cleaner). You'd be surprised at how widely-available Marijuana is. Not that it's a bad thing, though :D. Fuck, my cousin smokes the stuff, and he's got no problems.

I expect those that triumph to do better.

and those that don't?

i suppose that the ones who had everything going against them and didn't 'get over it' should just lie down and rot?

and those that don't?

i suppose that the ones who had everything going against them and didn't 'get over it' should just lie down and rot?

According to him? Of course.

Everything in the Rio Grande Valley is corrupt to the point of being ridiculous. It's like Mexico, only cleaner (much cleaner). You'd be surprised at how widely-available Marijuana is.
That is perhaps one of the funniest (yet sadly true) statements I have ever come across on the forum.

and those that don't?

i suppose that the ones who had everything going against them and didn't 'get over it' should just lie down and rot?
No, they should try again. Get a job, even a crummy job will do. A person can dig themselves up from a crappy situation, it takes effort and self denial.

and those that don't?

i suppose that the ones who had everything going against them and didn't 'get over it' should just lie down and rot?

Those people would tend to fall into the state of "poverty" which means they're well nourished, don't even work 40 hours a week, have a decent house, a car and a color television with cable. I've got not pity for that. Especially considering I didn't even have cable for the first 15 years of my life.

Unistate, you present a well thought out arguemnt. THere is one problem you are merging government and economy. True in the Communist system the two are intertwined but as many dictatorship in Africa have showed us a totalliarian dictatorship can be capitalist "Blood gems." I know that Arendt in her book qualifies those African Dictatorships as non-tolitarian but the fact is the two are often two different things.
Definition is also a problem what is Capatilst and what is Socialist. Marx and Smithare give two entilry different model true but in the end exicution gives way to theroy. Adam Smith hislef had argued for a form of Unemploymnet insurance. So how can I be sure that 1960 China is different form China today or Sweden today or for that matter the US today?

All valid points, and I thank you for contributing to the thread so well. I don't particularly like combining society, government, and economy, but they are often closely intertwined. I don't personally understand why the main parties appear to have evolved in much of the world as moral freedom but economic constraints (Liberals) vs economic freedom with moral constraints (Republicans) - to me the logical path seems to be libertarianism vs authoritarianism. Just me, though :p

I don't object to unemployment insurance, nor other provisions along those lines - people lose their jobs, it's a hard fact of life. The thing is, people should generally be aware that it might happen and try saving money away as much as possible, until they create a bulwark with which they can sustain themselves whilst looking for a new job.

Definition is certainly a problem, I'll agree with you on that :p Seems like every day on NS I learn a new definition for an old term.

That is perhaps one of the funniest (yet sadly true) statements I have ever come across on the forum.

I think you'd like the Rio Grande Valley. Most of the (white) people there aren't even from Texas (varey rarely will you come across somebody who sounds like a cotton picking idiot), and the Mexican population happens to be very nice. It's a very corrupt region, but overall, it's pretty good.

No, they should try again. Get a job, even a crummy job will do. A person can dig themselves up from a crappy situation, it takes effort and self denial.


ok, then, now we see that 'anyone' :rolleyes: can get better and climb the social ladder.

except the disabled, of course.

and the ones who live in places with no opportunities for rising above gas station attendant.

and the ones who did not get the education to rise above cashier.

and the ones who went to prison and will never get hired again.

and the ones who are sick, and cannot afford food and shelter on top of their medicines.

Those people would tend to fall into the state of "poverty" which means they're well nourished, don't even work 40 hours a week, have a decent house, a car and a color television with cable. I've got not pity for that. Especially considering I didn't even have cable for the first 15 years of my life.


are you kidding?


where do you live?

have you ever been to new york?

i went once, with my youth group to a soup kitchen.

those people did not have a house, car, or color TV.

try looking at the impoverished for yourself, instead of just reading about them from conservative bloggers.

That’s pretty much the point. You work hard. You play the game. You do as well as you can. If you make it. Great. If you don't make it to the top, oh well, you'll be well enough off if you worked hard. Most of the time.

Go look up the statistics on poverty in the United States, I'm fairly sure I've already thrown them at you before. Even the poor in America have a car, a color television and a decent house.



So what? Cashiers live a decent life. Stockbrokers sometimes live a better one. The Stockbroker lives a better one because he worked harder earlier in life and probably works harder in his career than a cashier.



Problem is, those below "me" on the ladder are living nicely. Very very few people aren't. Help them out sure. But as it stands most of the cases of poverty are not caused by "falling through the cracks" but by a lack of effort.

Being a cashier doesn't usually give you a pension. And you are still frequently one or two paychecks from homelessness. I suppose you think a life of digging ditches is easier work?
My father went into a technical field specifically because he's lazy. He'd done manual labor before and wanted to do something easier. Not every laborer has the brains to do that. My father bluffed his way into getting a job doing something he had no experience in. He's a brilliant man, but not everybody is.

I consider myself poor. I do have a color TV. It was given to me by a friend, he didn't want it because it takes 5-10 minutes after turning it on for the picture to appear. My apartment has no A/C. The place has such a bad draft that the insides of the windows are coated with ice in the winter. The vertical blinds rattle and shift when the wind blows.I have a car. It's 15 years old, I bought it cash 10 years ago. I bought my computer ten years ago too. A car is a neccesity, since there is no public transit here. It's certainly cheaper than taking a cab to all my doctors appointments, grocery shopping and the like. I'm also responsible for driving five other people around, since none of them have cars.

But the main point I was trying to make is that logically, there have to be more people on the bottom than on the top. If everybody in the US had an IQ of 150 and a college degree, we'd still need the majority of them in non professional jobs. Minimum wage is not enough to support more than one person on anything but the most basic level.

ok, then, now we see that 'anyone' :rolleyes: can get better and climb the social ladder.

[QUOTE=]except the disabled, of course.
Charity, and some government aid is tolerable for this group.

and the ones who live in places with no opportunities for rising above gas station attendant.
Move.

and the ones who did not get the education to rise above cashier.
Their fault. I feel no pity.

and the ones who went to prison and will never get hired again.
Their fault. I feel no pity.

and the ones who are sick, and cannot afford food and shelter on top of their medicines.
This is such a small group that it is ridiculous. There are very very very few people who have to choose between food and medicine.

ok, then, now we see that 'anyone' :rolleyes: can get better and climb the social ladder.

except the disabled, of course.

and the ones who live in places with no opportunities for rising above gas station attendant.

and the ones who did not get the education to rise above cashier.

and the ones who went to prison and will never get hired again.

and the ones who are sick, and cannot afford food and shelter on top of their medicines.

The disabled are, oftentimes, very capable of work, and more willing to work than many others. Only the most seriously disabled can't work - or maybe none can, and the British government is insisting that all workplaces be wheelchair friendly just for fun.

What makes you think any other system will offer a person greater oppurtunities than gas station attendant? Hell, I'd take that job right now if it was offered to me, and be happy, too. It's easy money, I mean, I handle a cash register. BIG freaking effort right there.

You can get an education - in fact one of my main objectives in life is for people to realise that you can be smart without a bunch of letters after your name, but that's unlikely to happen. At any rate, your job as a cashier can finance your nightclasses to get a qualification in other things, which can then finance your next level of education, etc. etc.. I don't resent not being able to afford going to college, I'm just going to save up and go later in life.

Whether or not a convicted criminal is to be hired is a matter for the employer. I think it's fairly reasonable for a child molester/rapist/murderer to have trouble getting a job, because they're not exactly the paradigm of society, now are they? What would they do in socialism, whatever shitfarm job nobody else wanted to do?

Because as we all know, a three hour wait for three stitches is a shining example of socialized healthcare. And people lying on hospital trolleys in hallways for 15 hours, then dying without anyone so much as glancing at them, and half the essential departments of the main hospital in Leicester being 9-5 5 days a week are all the right way to run things.

Everything in the Rio Grande Valley is corrupt to the point of being ridiculous. It's like Mexico, only cleaner (much cleaner). You'd be surprised at how widely-available Marijuana is. Not that it's a bad thing, though :D. Fuck, my cousin smokes the stuff, and he's got no problems.

My Dad grew up in the Valley, my grandparents had a farm there. He grew up in the Elsa/Edcouch area. Used to ride his bicycle to Mexico and get drunk when he was 14. :eek:

My Dad grew up in the Valley, my grandparents had a farm there. He grew up in the Elsa/Edcouch area. Used to ride his bicycle to Mexico and get drunk when he was 14. :eek:

14? Fucking priceless.

I think you'd like the Rio Grande Valley. Most of the (white) people there aren't even from Texas (varey rarely will you come across somebody who sounds like a cotton picking idiot), and the Mexican population happens to be very nice. It's a very corrupt region, but overall, it's pretty good.
It's probably warm too! God, I'd love some warm...

ok, then, now we see that 'anyone' :rolleyes: can get better and climb the social ladder.

except the disabled, of course.

Disabled means you can't answer phones at a telemarketing company? Complie reports? Etc...? huh?

and the ones who live in places with no opportunities for rising above gas station attendant.

Move

and the ones who did not get the education to rise above cashier.

Their fault. Especially seing as places like walmart actively promote people who start off as cashiers whether they have an education or not.

and the ones who went to prison and will never get hired again.

Their fault.

and the ones who are sick, and cannot afford food and shelter on top of their medicines.

On the rare case that happens, they deserve aid. Depending on just what their disease is.

Well, class tomorrow morning for me kiddies, I'm off!

It's probably warm too! God, I'd love some warm...

It's very warm in the Summer, and very, very dry. South Padre Island is the place to be during Spring Break and Summer, man. The beach has some really good bars (used to go to one called Boomerang Billy's with my dad), and... On one street, forgot the name, there's a Reggae club. You can hear the music for like three blocks. It's great.

"and the ones who did not get an education"

"their fault. i get no pity"

may i point to that statement as why i hate the system we have in america today.


"The disabled are, oftentimes, very capable of work"

do we have the same definition for 'disabled'?

Because as we all know, a three hour wait for three stitches is a shining example of socialized healthcare. And people lying on hospital trolleys in hallways for 15 hours, then dying without anyone so much as glancing at them, and half the essential departments of the main hospital in Leicester being 9-5 5 days a week are all the right way to run things.

underfunded and understaffed.

build a new hospital and hire more doctors.

besides, that happens in any system, not just socialism.

My dad busted his ass eight hours a day for twenty years, and where are we now? In a 1,250 square foot house, on welfare. My sister has to pay for a lot of our things (TV, electricity, internet access, etc.). And you know what? $275 worth of food stamps don't last even a month with three people under one roof.



You, your brother and your father live in a 1,250 sq foot house. You have a computer and internet access. I am assuming you have a color television and maybe cable. Since you are in Texas, I am guessing that you also have a car. From another post of yours, I know that you and your family are not emaciated.

Only in America could this be calledd poverty. Where I am now, your life would be paradise for the majority of the population(more so if you also have air conditioning).

Now, you are probably going to say something along the lines of different countries = different definitions of poverty. This is true. But what is also true is that people are people and there are some common basics regardless of country/nationality. Basics like food, water shelter ect.

When the govt FORCIBLY takes from someone(taxes) and redtributes to someone in need, that need should be defined as the basics for SURVIVAL. There should be no obligation to provide more than that. Anything more should come from that persons effort and private charity.

While I would not want to live with $275 grocery budget for three people in the USA, it is certainly much more than is needed for survival. Things like meat are LUXURIES, not basics. I am not saying your life is comfortable(by American standards), but it is far better than what billions of people in world survive on.

To add to this, there are two young healthy people in your household. There is no reason at least one of you shouldnt be working.

Being a cashier doesn't usually give you a pension. And you are still frequently one or two paychecks from homelessness. I suppose you think a life of digging ditches is easier work?

Easier than being a chemist? Defintely. As for the cashier. Save their money. Besides one needs to figure out just why they never managed to rise above cashier.

My father went into a technical field specifically because he's lazy. He'd done manual labor before and wanted to do something easier. Not every laborer has the brains to do that. My father bluffed his way into getting a job doing something he had no experience in. He's a brilliant man, but not everybody is.

Thats kind of the point. Not everyone is the same. Thusly not everyone will have the same standard of living, or the same luxuries or the same job. PS. Manual labor and Mental labor are both labor. I know enough people in construction who went into it because they couldn't/didn't want to do mental labor.

I consider myself poor. I do have a color TV. It was given to me by a friend, he didn't want it because it takes 5-10 minutes after turning it on for the picture to appear. My apartment has no A/C. The place has such a bad draft that the insides of the windows are coated with ice in the winter. The vertical blinds rattle and shift when the wind blows.I have a car. It's 15 years old, I bought it cash 10 years ago. I bought my computer ten years ago too. A car is a neccesity, since there is no public transit here. It's certainly cheaper than taking a cab to all my doctors appointments, grocery shopping and the like. I'm also responsible for driving five other people around, since none of them have cars.

How old, living by yourself or with your family? Etc... Whatever your personal condition is does not negate the realities of the world at large.

But the main point I was trying to make is that logically, there have to be more people on the bottom than on the top. If everybody in the US had an IQ of 150 and a college degree, we'd still need the majority of them in non professional jobs. Minimum wage is not enough to support more than one person on anything but the most basic level.

Virtually no one is living off minimum wage. Much less supporting a family. If you're living on minimum wage you don't deserve much about the most basic level and you certainly aren't entitled to being able to support a family.

Virtually no one is living off minimum wage.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*whoooooo.....*


no seriously, have you ever been outside your neighborhood?

may i point to that statement as why i hate the system we have in america today.


""

do we have the same definition for 'disabled'?



underfunded and understaffed.

build a new hospital and hire more doctors.

besides, that happens in any system, not just socialism.

Disabled tends to mean people who are, for instance, lacking a limb due to an industrial accident, or people who are confined to a wheelchair. Disabled is used to mean impaired more often than it is used to mean incapacitated. And there's a chap named 'Stephen Hawking' you might have heard of - the greatest scientific mind since Einstein by many accounts, who I don't think can do much more than blink and move one finger. I have no problem helping people who are truly unable to work, but a physical or even mental disbaility does not necessarily mean that a person is unable to work.

And that's the socialist answer to everything; more money. *Rolls eyes* If more money worked, how come the more we get taxes in Britain, the worse our services get?

Disabled means you can't answer phones at a telemarketing company? Complie reports? Etc...? huh?

Afraid so. Even though I took my medication several hours ago, I'm having trouble using the keyboard. Plus employers tend to get annoyed when you take a few weeks off 4 or 5 times a year with no warning.
For short times I'm just as capable as you. But employers want you to be available certain hours on a regular basis. At one time I held management positions where I worked 55 hours a week. I made decent money. I didn't just decide that being poor was more fun. I think your view of the world comes from- hell I don't know- I can't even imagine. But it seems to have nothing to do with reality.

. Minimum wage is not enough to support more than one person on anything but the most basic level.

You are not supposed to support a family on minimum wage. Those types of jobs should be used to develop marketable skills, and subsist. Nothing more. You start at a minimum wage job, and as your skills increase you get paid better.

Virtually anyone who is considered poor is eligible for low interest loans. Virtually everyone with decent grades is eligible for a plethora of scholarships.
That's entirely unrealistic. What do consider to be "poor"?

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/minimum%20wage%20current.pdf

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


*whoooooo.....*


no seriously, have you ever been outside your neighborhood?

I can rattle off a list of states and countries if you'd like...

In any case however the number of people living on minimum wage is ~4.754 million. Trouble is the population of the United States is ~300 million. 1.58% of people in the united states earning minimum wage is, to me, virtually no one. 3% of people who are in the workforce earning minimum wage is, to me, virtually no one.

Care to provide a list on any state that doesn't provide you with free books in k-12? I live in California and it is so. I know that in Ohio, Virginia and Hawaii it is also so.
I have searched the Internet in vain for such a list, but that speaks more to my searching skills than the availability of information. I would point to Potaria's post as a good example: any books are not good enough.

That's entirely unrealistic. What do consider to be "poor"?

Yale considers it anyone who comes from a family that earned less than 40k or so, at which point they’ll cover your education for you. Its not unrealistic at all. The average at most private universities, per student, are some 10k per year IIRC. At Public universities the availability of low interest loans, or out right free money, is very easy to get simply by filling out a FAFSA.

How old, living by yourself or with your family? Etc... Whatever your personal condition is does not negate the realities of the world at large.



Virtually no one is living off minimum wage. Much less supporting a family. If you're living on minimum wage you don't deserve much about the most basic level and you certainly aren't entitled to being able to support a family.

I concede the one point, since the salutorian(sp?) at my high school ignored his many scholarships and became a mechanic. He caught a lot of flak for it, but it was what gave him pleasure. Plus my ex rejected his grandmothers offer to pay for his college and completely support him because he liked being a contractor.

And lots of people are living on minimum wage or barely above. Where the hell are you from? :confused:

If compassion won't enter into your decisions, how about enlightened self-interest? Life isn't going to be very nice for the upper class if the lower classes feel oppressed, regardless of whether or not you think they are.

Afraid so. Even though I took my medication several hours ago, I'm having trouble using the keyboard. Plus employers tend to get annoyed when you take a few weeks off 4 or 5 times a year with no warning.
For short times I'm just as capable as you.

Those "short times" must come pretty often, looking at the number of posts you have in just a few short months...

You are doing better than 1 every hour for the months you have been here.

I wonder how much work you could have done in that time?

And not every employer requires "certain hours", especially if you have certain PC skills... I should know.

Regards,
Gaar

I concede the one point, since the salutorian(sp?) at my high school ignored his many scholarships and became a mechanic. He caught a lot of flak for it, but it was what gave him pleasure. Plus my ex rejected his grandmothers offer to pay for his college and completely support him because he liked being a contractor.

Valedictorian?

And lots of people are living on minimum wage or barely above. Where the hell are you from? :confused:

Many millions indeed. A small number compared to the workforce.

If compassion won't enter into your decisions, how about enlightened self-interest? Life isn't going to be very nice for the upper class if the lower classes fell oppressed, regardless of whether or not you think they are.

Guns, bulletproof V12 BMWs, walls and a private police force? :shrug: :p

Those "short times" must come pretty often, looking at the number of posts you have in just a few short months...

You are doing better than 1 every hour for the months you have been here.

I wonder how much work you could have done in that time?

And not every employer requires "certain hours", especially if you have certain PC skills... I should know.

Regards,
Gaar

Excuse me, but just where are you trying to go with this?

http://dll.umaine.edu/ble/minimum%20wage%20current.pdf



I can rattle off a list of states and countries if you'd like...

In any case however the number of people living on minimum wage is ~4.754 million. Trouble is the population of the United States is ~300 million. 1.58% of people in the united states earning minimum wage is, to me, virtually no one. 3% of people who are in the workforce earning minimum wage is, to me, virtually no one.

Also, just because they are on it today doesnt they wont be earning more tomorrow.

Excuse me, but just where are you trying to go with this?

I was just pointing out that someone who claims to not be able to perform, as others are here, has a pretty prolific posting History for having those sorts of problems...

Wouldn't you say?

Regards,
Gaar

just as a small point of interest, what do you planning on saying to the people who had perfectly stable jobs, good money, fine lives and all that, but got fired when their job got sent to india or china?

let me guess:

"their fault. i have no pity"

:rolleyes:

just as a small point of interest, what do you planning on saying to the people who had perfectly stable jobs, good money, fine lives and all that, but got fired when their job got sent to india or china?

let me guess:

"their fault. i have no pity"

:rolleyes:

Re training.

Find a different job.

Perfect opportunity to start your own business.

just as a small point of interest, what do you planning on saying to the people who had perfectly stable jobs, good money, fine lives and all that, but got fired when their job got sent to india or china?

let me guess:

"their fault. i have no pity"

:rolleyes:

Yep, when you price yourself out of the Market you better plan on finding new work.

Employers are not required to provide you with work simply because you want to do it.

U.S. citizens have been "taking" jobs from other Nations for decades. Why is it we only don't like such practices when it affects us in a negative manner and we didn't say anything when it was helping us?

We're just a bunch of Hypocrites I guess.

Regards,
Gaar

Valedictorian? No, the second guy. Valedictorian is the best, Salutetorian? is the second one.


[/QUOTE]
Many millions indeed. A small number compared to the workforce.[/QUOTE] Does this count the huge number of people who make 5.25 or 6.00 an hour? When my illnesses started really kicking in I couldn't get a job at more than 6.00 an hour. I lived for six years on part time jobs like that. Only because I have some very good friends did I make it.


[/QUOTE]
Guns, bulletproof V12 BMWs, walls and a private police force? :shrug: :p[/QUOTE]

LOL
I guess that's why the right seems so paranoid sometimes. :D

Does this count the huge number of people who make 5.25 or 6.00 an hour? When my illnesses started really kicking in I couldn't get a job at more than 6.00 an hour. I lived for six years on part time jobs like that. Only because I have some very good friends did I make it.

Like he said, move...

I'm pretty sure the minimum wage here in Washington State is just better than $7/hour.

Regards,
Gaar

Those "short times" must come pretty often, looking at the number of posts you have in just a few short months...

You are doing better than 1 every hour for the months you have been here.

I wonder how much work you could have done in that time?

And not every employer requires "certain hours", especially if you have certain PC skills... I should know.

Regards,
Gaar

LOL
I'm surprised at that seeing my lack of a decent computer and poor typing skills.
I'd love to be able to work from home. If I had some skills in that area and a decent computer it would be feasible. Thanks for the idea. Voc Rehab will pay for school, and I might even be able to get them to help me buy a decent computer.
The whole idea really scares me. The last time I went to school I started out working 32 hours a week and taking 16 hours. I made the Deans list. After 3 semesters (I also went in summer) I crashed. I filed for disability 6 months later. I was so discouraged. It was my 4th major crash and each one was worse than the last. I'll admit I'm terrified of having it happen again. I crashed again this summer and I didn't even have the stress of working. I tend to avoid things I think might cause another crash. You'd have to experience it to know how scary it is to lose your mind, even just for a little while.

Here in Texas, Education is some 34 percent of the State budget, second only to Health and Human Services... $20.7 Billion of $60.7 Billion total. Doesn't sound like a Underfunding problem to me... It does mostly come down to how much the students care. I watched my high school go for one of the best ad brightest in the area to one of the worst simply because of a change in the STUDENTS...

Texas Comptroller's Report on Expenditures (http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/expend.html)

Like he said, move...

I'm pretty sure the minimum wage here in Washington State is just better than $7/hour.

Regards,
Gaar

But it also costs more to live there.
Besides, I have several people here that depend on me.

Here in Texas, Education is some 34 percent of the State budget, second only to Health and Human Services... $20.7 Billion of $60.7 Billion total. Doesn't sound like a Underfunding problem to me... It does mostly come down to how much the students care. I watched my high school go for one of the best ad brightest in the area to one of the worst simply because of a change in the STUDENTS...

Texas Comptroller's Report on Expenditures (http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxbud/expend.html)

Texas also ranks 49th in per citizen spending. Texas has one of the largest percentages of children living in poverty. Texas is extremely stingy when it comes to funding its CHIP program, and is still cutting the program.

just as a small point of interest, what do you planning on saying to the people who had perfectly stable jobs, good money, fine lives and all that, but got fired when their job got sent to india or china?

let me guess:

"their fault. i have no pity"

:rolleyes:

Not their fault, but just tough luck. *Shrugs* Find a new job.

Edit: Not to mention, of course, that only a small number of jobs get outsourced. Outsourcing is a greatly overhyped fear.

You'd have to experience it to know how scary it is to lose your mind, even just for a little while.

Well, I have to admit that I have never "lost my mind" but I have other things which keep me from being able to participate in the normal way of working...

And hence the reason I have learned to work and make a living from Home.

What interests me is why you would assume that someone you don't know has no problems even similar to those you experience?

I may not look at them in the same manner as you, but I have my own things I have had to learn to deal with and have found a way to remain productive and be able to keep my health and sanity in check.

Regards,
Gaar

Not their fault, but just tough luck. *Shrugs* Find a new job.

Edit: Not to mention, of course, that only a small number of jobs get outsourced. Outsourcing is a greatly overhyped fear.


it happened to my mother.

it's a damn good thing my dad is a self-employed carpenter( www.mitchellandrus.com ) because my mom spent a year trying to start up a catering business with a freind of hers.

they recently hired her back, when they realized that she was pretty much the only one there who knew what was going on.

unfortunately, she never went to college, so the lack of a degree put a cap on how high up the company ladder she is allowed to go.

just as a small point of interest, what do you planning on saying to the people who had perfectly stable jobs, good money, fine lives and all that, but got fired when their job got sent to india or china?

let me guess:

"their fault. i have no pity"

:rolleyes:

Get another job. Since when did loosing your job to overseas competition mean you can't find another job?

To those who say they should move, my question is:
How is a person on minimum wage supposed to find a new house in a new area, with no real guarantee that a job will be available?
It might be feasable for a single person making minimum wage to do this, but not one supporting a family.

it happened to my mother.

they recently hired her back, when they realized that she was pretty much the only one there who knew what was going on.

How would they "hire her back" if the job was "outsourced"?

You do realize what the term "outsourced" means in this respect, don't you?

Regards,
Gaar

it happened to my mother.

it's a damn good thing my dad is a self-employed carpenter( www.mitchellandrus.com ) because my mom spent a year trying to start up a catering business with a freind of hers.

they recently hired her back, when they realized that she was pretty much the only one there who knew what was going on.

So where exactly was the problem? She lost her job. Tried to start a business and her previous employer hired her back.

unfortunately, she never went to college, so the lack of a degree put a cap on how high up the company ladder she is allowed to go.

Bollocks. It is difficult, but not impossible, to climb the corporate ladder without a degree. And what exactly is stopping her from taking nightclasses and getting a degree?

To those who say they should move, my question is:
How is a person on minimum wage supposed to find a new house in a new area, with no real guarantee that a job will be available?
It might be feasable for a single person making minimum wage to do this, but not one supporting a family.

I am left to wonder why someone who didn't have stable employment would feel they were able to "start a family"?

And why does it become my problem simply because they choose to do such a thing before they are financially able to do it?

Regards,
Gaar

To those who say they should move, my question is:
How is a person on minimum wage supposed to find a new house in a new area, with no real guarantee that a job will be available?
It might be feasable for a single person making minimum wage to do this, but not one supporting a family.

As has been said, minimum wage is not designed to be supporting a family. You're not meant to be having a family if you're on minimum wage, you're meant to be gathering skills or working up the ladder.

unfortunately, she never went to college, so the lack of a degree put a cap on how high up the company ladder she is allowed to go.

Seeing as she was so valuable as to be hired back, I doubt she's on a subsistence wage. Plus, your father is employed as well - there is little conceivable way that you don't have the monies for her to take night classes.

To those who say they should move, my question is:
How is a person on minimum wage supposed to find a new house in a new area, with no real guarantee that a job will be available?
It might be feasable for a single person making minimum wage to do this, but not one supporting a family.

If you're earning minimum wage and supporting a family, tough shit. You created your situation by having a family when you couldn't afford to support it. It is not ever going to be easy, but that is the point. The people who stay in poverty are the ones who take the easy way out.

How would they "hire her back" if the job was "outsourced"?

You do realize what the term "outsourced" means in this respect, don't you?

Regards,
Gaar

here's what happened:

1) the fired her, and hired someone from india

2) they found out that they were screwed, because nobody in india knew what the hell any of the projects are supposed to do.

3) they re-hired her, and she now works with the people in india, getting them some idea of what the hell was going on.

Well, I have to admit that I have never "lost my mind" but I have other things which keep me from being able to participate in the normal way of working...

And hence the reason I have learned to work and make a living from Home.

What interests me is why you would assume that someone you don't know has no problems even similar to those you experience?

I may not look at them in the same manner as you, but I have my own things I have had to learn to deal with and have found a way to remain productive and be able to keep my health and sanity in check.

Regards,
Gaar

I never said you didn't, but since those with severe mental illness is in the minority, most people haven't. And by a little while I mean from several weeks to several months.
I'd love a job that allowed my to work during my productive periods, but I'm afraid of losing my medical benefits.

here's what happened:

1) the fired her, and hired someone from india

2) they found out that they were screwed, because nobody in india knew what the hell any of the projects are supposed to do.

3) they re-hired her, and she now works with the people in india, getting them some idea of what the hell was going on.

So she has gone from doing some sort of work to managing people who now do whatever work it was.

Sounds like a promotion to managment to me. And all of that is possible through the wonders of outsourcing.

If you're earning minimum wage and supporting a family, tough shit.

any thought of the people who got a family, then went back to minimum wage?

jesus christ, and you guys wonder why the hell we can't fucking put up with you.

don't have an education? it's your fault. tough shit.

don't have a job? it's your fault. tough shit.

can't find work? it's your fault. tough shit.


who fucking cares if it's their fault? give them a hand and help them out a bit.

or is the slightest bit of sympathy for the people who get steamrolled by the system you fucktards put in place just too fucking much to ask?

any thought of the people who got a family, then went back to minimum wage?

jesus christ, and you guys wonder why the hell we can't fucking put up with you.

don't have an education? it's your fault. tough shit.

don't have a job? it's your fault. tough shit.

can't find work? it's your fault. tough shit.


who fucking cares if it's their fault? give them a hand and help them out a bit.

or is the slightest bit of sympathy for the people who get steamrolled by the system you fucktards put in place just too fucking much to ask?

I'm beginning to like you more and more every minute!

I'm not saying that people supporting a family on minmum wage didn't make some sort of mistake, Im saying that one of your solutions doesn't seem like it will work. If you can prove otherwise, I would like to see it.

I think compassion is just as much a dirty word to some people as socialism or liberal.
I guess that I'll never get someone to empathize with another human anymore than they'll ever get me to think social darwinism is a good life philosophy.

I think compassion is just as much a dirty word to some people as socialism or liberal.
I guess that I'll never get someone to empathize with another human anymore than they'll ever get me to think social darwinism is a good life philosophy.

Probably not. But then, would you really like to have one of these people as a friend? I know I wouldn't.

any thought of the people who got a family, then went back to minimum wage?

Number of people that happens? On the low end of 0-1, in millions.

jesus christ, and you guys wonder why the hell we can't fucking put up with you.

I believe you mean "Jesus Christ." It is proper name, captialze it. Did you go to 1st grade?

don't have an education? it's your fault. tough shit.

And its not their fault? Whose fault is it that they didn't do the work neccasary to go to college? Whats their excuse for not going to community college and then transfering to a 4 year?

don't have a job? it's your fault. tough shit.

Whose fault is it then?

can't find work? it's your fault. tough shit.

And whose would it be?

who fucking cares if it's their fault? give them a hand and help them out a bit.

or is the slightest bit of sympathy for the people who get steamrolled by the system you fucktards put in place just too fucking much to ask?

I've probably done quite a bit more to help those people out than you have. Maybe you've done more, :shrug:. Doesn't matter really. I've personaly spent decent amounts of my time helping others and donating money to help those in troubled times. Doesn't mean I'm going to force anyone else to.

So, Kindly, fuck off with the attacks on character.

Probably not. But then, would you really like to have one of these people as a friend? I know I wouldn't.

I have a lot of friends with what I consider some pretty wanky ideas, but the one thing I can't tolerate is cruelty.

I'm not saying that people supporting a family on minmum wage didn't make some sort of mistake, Im saying that one of your solutions doesn't seem like it will work. If you can prove otherwise, I would like to see it.

They made a mistake that they're going to have a very hard time solving. They've vastly limited their options and probably made relocation damn near impossible. Sucks for them.

I'm not saying that people supporting a family on minmum wage didn't make some sort of mistake, Im saying that one of your solutions doesn't seem like it will work. If you can prove otherwise, I would like to see it.


in a hypothetical situation: your neighbor goes out of business.

let's say... his TV shop burns down and the insurance didn't cover the case.

there's not enough in the bank to rebuild the shop, and he goes to work at 7-11, where there are no higher level positions available.

you say: it's your fault. tough shit.

i say: if everyone in the nation chipped in fifty cents, this guy would have more than enough to make a new business. i lose 50 cents, but who cares? i lost that much in pocket change yesterday.


situation number 2: your freind works at exxon, and met the perfect woman and wants to get married. the problem is, they both work twenty cents above minimum wage, and cannot raise a family. neither has gone to college, so cannot get a promotion

you say: it's your fault. tough shit.

i say: if everyone in the nation chipped in fifty cents, the couple can live long enough on his paycheck for her to go to night school.


viola! two more contributing members of society, for no more than a dollar from everyone in the nation.

hell of a lot better than a simple "your fault. too bad"

I think compassion is just as much a dirty word to some people as socialism or liberal.
I guess that I'll never get someone to empathize with another human anymore than they'll ever get me to think social darwinism is a good life philosophy.
The truth in that statement actually hurt to read... i'm not sure why, but it appears that alot of people have lost the ability to empathize. Apathy has replaced compassion.

Salvondia, if you consider almost everything their own fault, why do you help them out?

Probably not. But then, would you really like to have one of these people as a friend? I know I wouldn't.

Yes, because our political views dictates our compassion towards man kind. :rolleyes:

Sucks for them.

'sucks for them'

and

'tough shit'

are why this country is in such bad shape.

Salvondia, if you consider almost everything their own fault, why do you help them out?

That dirty little word compassion?

That dirty little word compassion?

You're looking like one hell of a hypocrite.

I think compassion is just as much a dirty word to some people as socialism or liberal.
I guess that I'll never get someone to empathize with another human anymore than they'll ever get me to think social darwinism is a good life philosophy.

There's a difference between compassion and being an enabler...

No one "owes" anyone anything.

That we have a System to help those less fortunate points to the compassion in our Society...

But when you look at the people receiving these "benefits" and see that they are living better than those who try to make it on their own without the assistance of the Government, then something is wrong.

When it benefits people more to not work than to try and find work, we have failed. There are many examples of people abusing the System, which makes it even that much worse for those who legitimately need it. When people begin to believe they are owed a living at a certain standard without any effort on their part, then we have created a Welfare State for people to take advantage of those who truly want to help the real needy people in their Society.

I would suggest that, the Government should try to give the people on the welfare programs some type of work to do during their stay on welfare. That way they are learning a trade as well as earning the money they are making.

I also know that there are some people out there that truly cannot do anything and need public assistance desperately. Those are the people who should be getting it first and foremost and we should look at the others as temporary beneficiaries that should someday be able to wean themselves off of the System.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Regards,
Gaar

I guess I'd just rather be the person who accepts an inconvenience to help someone out than the person that walks on by to make a pocket full of cash. Maybe I'll never have much money, but I'll have people who I'm important to.

Salvondia, if you consider almost everything their own fault, why do you help them out?


sorry, but if his attitude towards anyone who simply cannot climb the ladder is "tough shit" i find it hard to believe that he actually helps anyone out.

sorry, but if his attitude towards anyone who simply cannot climb the ladder is "tough shit" i find it hard to believe that he actually helps anyone out.

I doubt he's done so much as given a nickel to a homeless street musician.

in a hypothetical situation: your neighbor goes out of business.

let's say... his TV shop burns down and the insurance didn't cover the case.

there's not enough in the bank to rebuild the shop, and he goes to work at 7-11, where there are no higher level positions available.

you say: it's your fault. tough shit.

Yeah, bad insurance. What caused the fire... why wasn't his inventory insured. Did he own the property or not? Why can't he sell it? Why doesn't he have adequate savings? Why wasn't he able to get a loan to rebuild his business if it was profitable before?

i say: if everyone in the nation chipped in fifty cents, this guy would have more than enough to make a new business. i lose 50 cents, but who cares? i lost that much in pocket change yesterday.

You need to keep better track of your pocket change. If it was just one person. Cheers. What if it is 2 people? 1$? How about 100 people? $50? What if it were all ~4 million people on minimum wage? $2,000,000 from each person? I don't think so.

PS, 50 cents is far more than it would take from every person. It would be more around 1 to 3 cents from each person...

situation number 2: your freind works at exxon, and met the perfect woman and wants to get married. the problem is, they both work twenty cents above minimum wage, and cannot raise a family. neither has gone to college, so cannot get a promotion

Get married. Hold off on the children until they can support it. The idea that they "cannot" get a promotion is ludicrous. Experience and time allows many many people to get promotions who lack a college education.

That dirty little word compassion?

It sounds like you're doing to make yourself feel better not because you want to. If you did want to you wouldn't refer to compassion as a "dirty little word". Don't tell me you were being sarcastic or making a point about people. Those who do it because they truly want to aside from their own self image, would not refer to comapssion as a "dirty little word".

You're looking like one hell of a hypocrite.

:rolleyes: What believing in personal responsibility prevents me from being compassionate or volunteering to help others?

Might want to tell all those CEOs that when they donate millions of dollars to charity.

You're looking like one hell of a hypocrite.

How so?

He is making the distinction between public social responsibility and private choice.

By this I mean the public at large should not be forced to compensate people for their bad choices. Sometimes bad things happen and people need a hand or a safety net and that is all that PUBLIC social responsibility should cover.

Individuals on the other hand can feel compassion and VOLUNTARILY choose to help others even if they are in a bad position due to their poor choices.

Huge differance between the lifestyle types we are FORCED to support as a society and those that we CHOOSE to support as individuals.

'sucks for them'

and

'tough shit'

are why this country is in such bad shape.

No, it is those who believe they are "owed" a standard of living, simply because they were born here.

They believe that others, who have made a bunch of money through hard work, should have to support them because they have so much money...

They shouldn't have to work for it, someone else already has and they should be forced to bring my standard of living up to something near theirs, after all, what are they going to do with all that money?

It's just a bunch of crap from people who just don't want to have to work hard and earn their OWN living...

Regards,
Gaar

:rolleyes: What believing in personal responsibility prevents me from being compassionate or volunteering to help others?

Might want to tell all those CEOs that when they donate millions of dollars to charity.

Yeah, and I'll be sure to ask them how their two Jaguars and three Mansions are doing.

And yes, believing that it's "personal responsibility" prevents you from being compassionate, simply because the two are not connected. If you were truly compassionate, you wouldn't say that it's "their own fault".

Might want to tell all those CEOs that when they donate millions of dollars to charity.


those are the ones i have no problem with.

but you cannot say that that is the majority of them.

There's a difference between compassion and being an enabler...

No one "owes" anyone anything.

That we have a System to help those less fortunate points to the compassion in our Society...

But when you look at the people receiving these "benefits" and see that they are living better than those who try to make it on their own without the assistance of the Government, then something is wrong.

When it benefits people more to not work than to try and find work, we have failed. There are many examples of people abusing the System, which makes it even that much worse for those who legitimately need it. When people begin to believe they are owed a living at a certain standard without any effort on their part, then we have created a Welfare State for people to take advantage of those who truly want to help the real needy people in their Society.

I would suggest that, the Government should try to give the people on the welfare programs some type of work to do during their stay on welfare. That way they are learning a trade as well as earning the money they are making.

I also know that there are some people out there that truly cannot do anything and need public assistance desperately. Those are the people who should be getting it first and foremost and we should look at the others as temporary beneficiaries that should someday be able to wean themselves off of the System.

All in my humble opinion, of course.

Regards,
Gaar

All the welfare programs I'm aware of require those able to work. But these have a lot of flaws. If you are a single mother and go to work, you lose the childcare you got while looking for a job. If your first job doesn't have health insurance, your children have lost medicaid. Very bad if you have a sick child. I can understand someone not working. If I start work now, I lose my medical benefits. If I weren't on medication, I would certainly require hospitalization. If I could keep the medical benefits until I could afford my medication I'd certainly be less terrified about the whole thing.

those are the ones i have no problem with.

but you cannot say that that is the majority of them.

Er uh. I'm fairly sure it is the majority of them infact.

Yeah, and I'll be sure to ask them how their two Jaguars and three Mansions are doing.

And yes, believing that it's "personal responsibility" prevents you from being compassionate, simply because the two are not connected. If you were truly compassionate, you wouldn't say that it's "their own fault".

That's very true. Perhaps you should meet real people who need help. Instead of bashing hypothetical situations people throw at you. If you actually personally knew people who need help, then you wouldn't feel soquickto argue those hypothetica situations.

No, it is those who believe they are "owed" a standard of living, simply because they were born here.

So, people who can't make a living should just be left for dead? Brilliant way of thinking.

They believe that others, who have made a bunch of money through hard work, should have to support them because they have so much money...

They should. It's called caring for others.

They shouldn't have to work for it, someone else already has and they should be forced to bring my standard of living up to something near theirs, after all, what are they going to do with all that money?

It's not like that. It's the fact that a lot of these people can't work. And yeah, what exactly are they going to do with that money? Oh yeah, buy a couple of pools, a new house (in addition to their 7,500 square foot monstrosity), and a few new cars.

It's just a bunch of crap from people who just don't want to have to work hard and earn their OWN living...

See kids, this is why capitalism is a bad thing. It brings up delusional people who have no idea of what things are like outside their pristine paradise, and they're completely safe in their fields of green.

Yeah, and I'll be sure to ask them how their two Jaguars and three Mansions are doing.

Who in God's name would have 2 jags, and 3 mansions? Jaguars are on the cheap end of expensive cars...

And yes, believing that it's "personal responsibility" prevents you from being compassionate, simply because the two are not connected. If you were truly compassionate, you wouldn't say that it's "their own fault".

ah, so now I have to be "truly compassionate"? :rolleyes:. Ascribing the fault to those it belongs to does not prevent compassion.

That's very true. Perhaps you should meet real people who need help. Instead of bashing hypothetical situations people throw at you. If you actually personally knew people who need help, then you wouldn't feel soquickto argue those hypothetica situations.

Exactly. There's an extremely poor neighborhood about fifteen miles from my house known as "Huffsmith". It's a predominantly black area, and you've not seen such horrible conditions. These are very good people who never had a chance to better themselves, because they got fucked over by the system.

to simplify this:

there are two kinds of people here:

1) the ones who want everything, and have it in their means to get it.

2) the ones who need some things and do not have the means to get it.


there are also two philosophies here:

A) screw the people in 2, let the people in 1 have whatever they want

B) help out the people in 2, and make the people in 1 give up a bit, for the greater good.



on that note, i'm going to bed.

it's 2 in the morning here. (EST)

That dirty little word compassion?

I'm afraid I need a clearer explanation. If it's all their fault, the views you seem to espouse would point to just telling them "tough shit." Am I just rambling or suffering from terminal brain fog? I'm not trying to be difficult, it just really doesn't make sense to me.

Who in God's name would have 2 jags, and 3 mansions? Jaguars are on the cheap end of expensive cars...

Have you been to a European Auto Parts store? Jaguars use very expensive parts. Even moreso than Rolls-Royces.

ah, so now I have to be "truly compassionate"? :rolleyes:. Ascribing the fault to those it belongs to does not prevent compassion.

What you are is anything but compassionate. A lot of Americans are the same way, and it's sickening. They think that it's just their "duty" to give to charities. They don't give because they think it's a good cause. I live around people who are that way, and it really pisses me off.

So, people who can't make a living should just be left for dead? Brilliant way of thinking.

Perhaps you need to read what he said again. Because right now your reply is worthless trash.

They should. It's called caring for others.

Personal choice, not societal law.

It's not like that. It's the fact that a lot of these people can't work. And yeah, what exactly are they going to do with that money? Oh yeah, buy a couple of pools, a new house (in addition to their 7,500 square foot monstrosity), and a few new cars.

Hey, you've got internet access. We should take that money from you and spend it on someone else! Hey, the people who are helping you out clearly have to much money, we should take theirs and spread it amongst everyone else!

See kids, this is why capitalism is a bad thing. It brings up delusional people who have no idea of what things are like outside their pristine paradise, and they're completely safe in their fields of green.

:rolleyes: See kids, this why being a liberal is a bad thing. It brings up the delusional people, though they've never left their community think that they know how the rest of the world is.

Have you been to a European Auto Parts store? Jaguars use very expensive parts. Even moreso than Rolls-Royces.

Some parts are expensive, some parts are cheap. Varies on the part. Especially now that Jags share parts from the trash pile, er, Ford Corporate Parts Bin. Anyway, price of parts does not an expensive car make.

Now a Jaguar E Type... :D

What you are is anything but compassionate. A lot of Americans are the same way, and it's sickening. They think that it's just their "duty" to give to charities. They don't give because they think it's a good cause. I live around people who are that way, and it really pisses me off.

:rolleyes: Why thank you for assuming so much about me, I'll just have to assume you know how my brain works and that you clearly know more about my motivations to give to charity than I do.

Have you been to a European Auto Parts store? Jaguars use very expensive parts. Even moreso than Rolls-Royces.



What you are is anything but compassionate. A lot of Americans are the same way, and it's sickening. They think that it's just their "duty" to give to charities. They don't give because they think it's a good cause. I live around people who are that way, and it really pisses me off.

LOL
My dad was constantly fixing his. Fortunately he did his own repairs, but they're not exactly reliable.

When the brain is working better I'll try to find a site, but poorer people give much higher percentages of their income to charity than those better off.

So, people who can't make a living should just be left for dead? Brilliant way of thinking.

No, but you aren't owed a car, color tv, computer, Internet and all the McDonalds they want to eat either...

They should. It's called caring for others.

They do, or are you not aware that U.S. citizens are the most Charitable People on the face of the Earth?

It's not like that. It's the fact that a lot of these people can't work. And yeah, what exactly are they going to do with that money? Oh yeah, buy a couple of pools, a new house (in addition to their 7,500 square foot monstrosity), and a few new cars.

yeah, like "you" can't work because it takes two of you to care for your Father full time...

Like I said, some people are enabled by it.

Perhaps these people would like to use their money to help those people "they feel" deserve it and not just any person who can get on the welfare roles?

Or don't you believe that they should be able to choose who it is they help?

See kids, this is why capitalism is a bad thing. It brings up delusional people who have no idea of what things are like outside their pristine paradise, and they're completely safe in their fields of green.

You may be correct there, but I am pretty sure you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

And to say that the System that has built the most Wealth in the World and has made its citizens the most giving people the World has ever known, says quite a bit about "Capitalism" I believe and it isn't saying what "you" would like it to...

Regards,
Gaar

Some parts are expensive, some parts are cheap. Varies on the part. Especially now that Jags share parts from the trash pile, er, Ford Corporate Parts Bin. Anyway, price of parts does not an expensive car make.

Now a Jaguar E Type... :D



:rolleyes: Why thank you for assuming so much about me, I'll just have to assume you know how my brain works and that you clearly know more about my motivations to give to charity than I do.

Don't roll your eyes at him. You have control over how people percieve you. If you communicate a certain way and this how percieves in result, it is no ones fault but your own. Perhaps you should try to more clearly communicate your motives if you seem to think people don't really know what they are.

No, but you aren't owed a car, color tv, computer, Internet and all the McDonalds they want to eat either...



They do, or are you not aware that U.S. citizens are the most Charitable People on the face of the Earth?



yeah, like "you" can't work because it takes two of you to care for your Father full time...

Like I said, some people are enabled by it.

Perhaps these people would like to use their money to help those people "they feel" deserve it and not just any person who can get on the welfare roles?

Or don't you believe that they should be able to choose who it is they help?



You may be correct there, but I am pretty sure you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

And to say that the System that has built the most Wealth in the World and has made its citizens the most giving people the World has ever known, says quite a bit about "Capitalism" I believe and it isn't saying what "you" would like it to...

Regards,
Gaar

Where in the hell do people say that charity involves these kinds of things? I think he's trying to say that people should care. You don't have to give anyone a luxury. You have the ability to decide where your charity goes.

Don't roll your eyes at him. You have control over how people percieve you.

Not when it comes to people making unfounded assumptions based upon their self-created sterotypes. Nor do I particualary feel any need to explain or "justify" myself on an internet message board. Thusly

:rolleyes:

No, but you aren't owed a car, color tv, computer, Internet and all the McDonalds they want to eat either...

I agree, but it should go towards making the lives of these people better, not completely equal to those of others.

They do, or are you not aware that U.S. citizens are the most Charitable People on the face of the Earth?

Just because they give to charity doesn't make them compassionate. A lot of them are, but just as many do it because they think it's their personal "duty".

yeah, like "you" can't work because it takes two of you to care for your Father full time...

Oh, so you think that's bullshit? You've got another thing coming if you do.

Like I said, some people are enabled by it.

Perhaps these people would like to use their money to help those people "they feel" deserve it and not just any person who can get on the welfare roles?

Or don't you believe that they should be able to choose who it is they help?

No, they shouldn't be able to choose, because they'd be leaving even smaller minorities in the dust. It should be distributed even based on the poverty levels of the recipients.

You may be correct there, but I am pretty sure you are pointing the finger in the wrong direction.

I may be, but I'm still generalizing.

And to say that the System that has built the most Wealth in the World and has made its citizens the most giving people the World has ever known, says quite a bit about "Capitalism" I believe and it isn't saying what "you" would like it to...

Once again, refer to my comment a few lines up on the "generosity" factor. The world would be a lot better off if things changed, and I believe you know of what I'm referring to.

Aha! I found one in spite of brain fog. :D

The first twenty I came across were about estate planning.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/38/cpid/200.htm

Have you been to a European Auto Parts store? Jaguars use very expensive parts. Even moreso than Rolls-Royces.

Jaguar is an American car now. Think it was Ford that bought them. Maybe they will get them to finally work properly.



What you are is anything but compassionate. A lot of Americans are the same way, and it's sickening. They think that it's just their "duty" to give to charities. They don't give because they think it's a good cause. I live around people who are that way, and it really pisses me off.

So now it isnt even good enough to freely give money to charity, they have to also meet some arbritrary level of sympathy for those less well off?

Aha! I found one in spite of brain fog. :D

The first twenty I came across were about estate planning.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/38/cpid/200.htm

Very nice find, indeed. How's that for "compassion"?

Where in the hell do people say that charity involves these kinds of things? I think he's trying to say that people should care. You don't have to give anyone a luxury. You have the ability to decide where your charity goes.

Perhaps you should study the ranks of those who are considered "poor" in this Country...

They live better than an "average" European.

Yes, "average" not a "poor" European an AVERAGE European.

Shall we talk about truly needy?

Regards,
Gaar