Zone1 Kamala Harris wants to prioritize black/brown people over whites for Hurricane relief...

[JoeB131]

Pretty much all people who educate themselves, develop skills/a marketable trade, establish a work ethic, references, credentials, regardless of skin color or ethnicity, 'get to' live in durable structures and buy insurance.

Why should shelter be a commodity? It should be a right. The crazy idea of the right wing. You don't have a right to house or food, but you do have a right to a gun!!!! And then they wonder why we have crime.

In the 18th century Ben Franklin wrote (paraphrased) that in his world travels he observed that the more provisions were made for the poor the less the poor did for themselves and became poorer. The less provisions were made for the poor, the more the poor did for themselves and became richer. He was not saying no provisions should be made for the poor, but that we do the poor a great disservice when we make them more comfortable in poverty and create a disincentive to do for themselves. The same applies to paying people not to work (extended unemployment insurance) or paying people not to produce (farmers). That was true then, and that is true now.

Well, yeah, Ben Franklin was one of the Founding Slave Rapists, so I don't take much of what he says seriously. OF course, the rich love wealth inequality.

 

[JoeB131]

Why can't you? Are you telling me a dirt poor white guy has it better than Lebron James? By your standards, you'd say yes, and I think all would rather have Lebron's situation than the dirt poor white guy.

Uh, guy, most of us don't have it as good as Lebron james... what a moronic comparison. The question is, what would have Lebron James' life been like if he blew out his knee in high school and couldn't play hoops?

So you're a glass half empty kinda guy... welp, your type doesn't seem to inspire much.

I'm a realist. Your employer will try to screw you if they can. I found this out 14 years ago when I busted up my knee and despite six years of exemplary service, they screwed me over because my medical bills were too high.

You remind me of a woman who says "ALL MEN ARE PIGS", simply because they dated multiple bad men.

If so many bosses are idiots, how do so many businesses prosper? How are so many new inventions happening?

Again, because the employees make it happen, despite the bosses. The bosses aren't the ones making the inventions. They aren't the ones doing the hard work. The capitalist is a parasite that has convinced people it's a vital organ.

You absolutely can, can you explain why you can't?

Because we have had 400 years of slavery and Jim Crow and institutionalized racism in our media, that's why.

There are more poor white people in Florida than black poor people. Poor people aren’t as likely to have good insurance as well off people.

Yes, there are more poor white people in Florida, and it is reliably a red state... that pretty much says it all.

The GOP only survives because it convinces poor white people that they are better off if they have slightly more than black people.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Why should shelter be a commodity? It should be a right. The crazy idea of the right wing.

It takes resources and labor to create that shelter. People have to work to produce it.

Your idea of treating it as a “right” implies, if not states, that one who is unwilling to do anything to bear the burden of creating a resource, is entitled to the fruits of what others have worked to produce. That is stealing from those who did the actual work.

You don't have a right to house or food, but you do have a right to a gun!!!!

Nobody is claiming that we have a “right” to a gun, at someone else's expense. If you want a gun, work to earn the money to buy it; the same as with a house or food.

 

[JoeB131]

This reflects more on your attitude than on the bosses. Of all the jobs I have had, across three major professions and lots of bit work in between, I have had only one boss who was a fucking idiot. Everyone else thought so, too, so it wasn't just me. Other than the one fucking idiot, all my bosses have been good men (and a few women.

You are a brainless cultist working in an industry that requires no brain power... and if unions didn't keep wages up in your industry, you'd be worse off.

On a few occasions, I've had the misfortune of having to work with creatures who have the same attitude that you've repeatedly expressed. At best, they are the slackers, who make me work harder to make up for them. Often, they're the ones who fuck things up, so that I have to do more work to fix what they've fucked up instead of doing the productive work of my own that I otherwise would have been doing.

I could put my resume up against yours any day of the week and do pretty well...

Two of the last three jobs I've gotten I got because people at those companies that I worked with before recommended me. I usually have to turn down one recruiter a week trying to lure me over to another company (Even though I haven't put my resume out there in three years.) Three companies I've worked for in the past have tried to lure me back with more money.

And frankly, if you come off as half as psychotic at work that you come off here, I suspect all your coworkers give you a wide berth to not be part of your inevitable shooting rampage. Hey, do you share your wank fantasies at work about wanting to murder women who get abortions?

Inevitably, those like you, who always think the bosses are fucking idiots, are the fucking idiots themselves, with the bad attitudes that drag the whole project down.

Actually, I think the bosses are idiots because they are often idiots.

First company I worked for out of the army was the worst. A couple kids inherited their company from their parents and ran it into the ground in four years. My mistake was staying until they closed the doors.

 

[JoeB131]

It takes resources and labor to create that shelter. People have to work to produce it.

Your idea of treating it as a “right” implies, if not states, that one who is unwilling to do anything to bear the burden of creating a resource, is entitled to the fruits of what others have worked to produce. That is stealing from those who did the actual work.

Uh, guy, let's get real here. 43% of the wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Meanwhile, 40% of the population controls less than 1% of the wealth. The problem isn't who is doing the labor to create shelter, it's how that wealth and resources are distributed.

Or are you going to seriously argue the 1% are doing 43% of the labor.

Or as this wise man said...

Nobody is claiming that we have a “right” to a gun, at someone else's expense. If you want a gun, work to earn the money to buy it; the same as with a house or food.

So because it's cheaper to get a gun than a house, you wonder why you have crime. Brilliant.

Here's a crazy idea. Let's make it hard to get gun and easy to get a house.

 

[sparky]

Except you can't separate race and class in this country, and it's foolish to pretend you can.

i'll pretend then

classism is the underlying motivation for racism

~S~

 

[sparky]

Man, you folks are dense.

well yes, that's why we're so hurricane resistant you see.....

~S~

 

[Bob Blaylock]

You are a brainless cultist working in an industry that requires no brain power...

I very much doubt if you have anywhere near the intelligence or the physical capability to do the job that I do.

So because it's cheaper to get a gun than a house, you wonder why you have crime. Brilliant.

Here's a crazy idea. Let's make it hard to get gun and easy to get a house.

And this is what happens when people refuse to learn even the most basic principles of economics.

Do you have any clue what it takes to build a house? The land on which to build it, the materials, the skilled labor in a dozen different, specialized, highly-trained trades? The overall cost of building a house is several orders of magnitude more than what it takes to make a gun.

Only a brain-dead cretin such as yourself would even think of suggesting that a house should be more affordable than a gun.

This isn't any normal level of stupidity that you're demonstrating here; this is an extreme, almost-unattainable Incel Joe-level stupidity.

 

[Resnic]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

White people usually got to live in the more durable structures, are more likely to have good insurance. So of course, most of the checks are going to go to poor people and people of color.

Man, you folks are dense.

So you're saying non whites are poor, unable to have a decent house, afford good insurance and such? Isn't that a racist assumption to make?

And what about that island that was almost all white people that was decimated, you're saying a black neighborhood that was just mildly damaged should get preferential treatment because they are black? Isn't that racist?

You're more worried about skin color than anything else, which is racist. The people hit the hardest need the attention first despite their skin color or insurance premiums.

 

[Moonglow]

“And so we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity, understanding not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work. And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work.”

Kamala Harris Blasted Over Biden Admin Policy Toward Distribution Of ‘Climate Resilience’ Resources | The Daily Wire

www.dailywire.com

Wow... what do you think she means here? Anything to do with skin color? (as she always seems to insinuate, so why should this be any different)

Meanwhile:

Political commentator Ken Gardner tweeted: “This has to violate at least a dozen federal and state anti-discrimination laws. Not to mention the 14th Amendment.”

White is a color.

 

[Foxfyre]

Why should shelter be a commodity? It should be a right. The crazy idea of the right wing. You don't have a right to house or food, but you do have a right to a gun!!!! And then they wonder why we have crime.



Well, yeah, Ben Franklin was one of the Founding Slave Rapists, so I don't take much of what he says seriously. OF course, the rich love wealth inequality.

So everything is a right that people can demand? There is nothing people should have to do for themselves? Nothing comes from nothing. People should be encouraged and provided incentive to do for themselves because when nobody is required to do anything for themselves because it is their right to have, there is nobody left to provide it.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

White is a color.

Technically it’s not, it’s a shade. You won’t find it on the color wheel

 

[Moonglow]

Technically it’s not, it’s a shade. You won’t find it on the color wheel

Same with black.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

Same with black.

Yep

 

[JoeB131]

I very much doubt if you have anywhere near the intelligence or the physical capability to do the job that I do.

I doubt you could do my job, which involves negotiating complex contracts with companies in other countries where they don't even speak the same language you do.

As far as physical capabilities, back in my 20's, I did a complete rehab of a fixer-upper from the 1910's, including rerunning all the wire and conduit. I come from a long line of trades people. I just chose to get an education and do an administrative job... that was AFTER paying for that education by joining the military.

And this is what happens when people refuse to learn even the most basic principles of economics.

Do you have any clue what it takes to build a house? The land on which to build it, the materials, the skilled labor in a dozen different, specialized, highly-trained trades? The overall cost of building a house is several orders of magnitude more than what it takes to make a gun.

So what's your solution, Mormon Bob, having armies of homeless people living in tents because we don't provide affordable housing? Then living in mortal fear that one of them might attack you? That's Mormon Bob level of stupidity.

Here's the thing, Mormon Bob. I just moved from one suburb to another. (The main thing that prompted my move was a Condo Deconversion, where I decided to move rather than pay rent.)

Yet the value of a two bedroom Condo at my new place is 37% more than the old one.

Why? Because the cost of materials is kind of irrelevant... it's the fungible nature of property values which is based on speculation and markets.

We could easily build enough affordable housing to house everyone... we just refuse to do it. So instead we have poor people living in tents.

 

[JoeB131]

So everything is a right that people can demand? There is nothing people should have to do for themselves? Nothing comes from nothing. People should be encouraged and provided incentive to do for themselves because when nobody is required to do anything for themselves because it is their right to have, there is nobody left to provide it.

I'm all for people working for themselves.

But most people who work can barely make ends meet while the rich are out buying dressage horses and mansions.

Here's the big problem... it's not that the level of labor isn't sufficient to provide for everyone's needs... it's that the distribution of capital is unequal.

Now, check out this chart. The top line is what wealth distribution is, where the top 20% control 83% of the wealth and the bottom 40 % control less than 1% of the wealth.

The second line is what people think it is... where they think the bottom 40% have at least 10% of the wealth.

The third line is what most people WOULD actually consider reasonable and fair. Not really EEEK Socialism, but a more equitable trade.

You complain that government benefits don't give people incentives, but it's exactly the opposite.

We spend four times as much on "Middle Class entitlements" than we do on poverty relief.. because if we didn't, people would be quickly driven into poverty when they get hit by a major illness or old age or unemployment.

Meanwhile, most of the "Poor" actually do have jobs... which don't pay enough, so they have to rely on Section 8 to put a roof over their heads and SNAP to put food on the table. And companies like Walmart and McDonalds who fight tooth and nail against raising the minimum wage tell their employees how to apply for these benefits.

So it isn't that you are subsidizing sloth, you are subsidizing greed. You are paying the way of those Walmart and McDonalds workers and the people who run those companies live in big mansions.

We don't try to end poverty, just make it tolerable enough where people don't demand change.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm all for people working for themselves.

But most people who work can barely make ends meet while the rich are out buying dressage horses and mansions.

Here's the big problem... it's not that the level of labor isn't sufficient to provide for everyone's needs... it's that the distribution of capital is unequal.

Now, check out this chart. The top line is what wealth distribution is, where the top 20% control 83% of the wealth and the bottom 40 % control less than 1% of the wealth.

The second line is what people think it is... where they think the bottom 40% have at least 10% of the wealth.

The third line is what most people WOULD actually consider reasonable and fair. Not really EEEK Socialism, but a more equitable trade.

View attachment 706803

You complain that government benefits don't give people incentives, but it's exactly the opposite.

We spend four times as much on "Middle Class entitlements" than we do on poverty relief.. because if we didn't, people would be quickly driven into poverty when they get hit by a major illness or old age or unemployment.

Meanwhile, most of the "Poor" actually do have jobs... which don't pay enough, so they have to rely on Section 8 to put a roof over their heads and SNAP to put food on the table. And companies like Walmart and McDonalds who fight tooth and nail against raising the minimum wage tell their employees how to apply for these benefits.

So it isn't that you are subsidizing sloth, you are subsidizing greed. You are paying the way of those Walmart and McDonalds workers and the people who run those companies live in big mansions.

We don't try to end poverty, just make it tolerable enough where people don't demand change.

So were does most of the money you earn go? To support yourself and your family and make life a little better for them? Or to help the poor?

And again, I know you despise Ben Franklin, a person of his own culture, but was he right? The more the poor are made comfortable in poverty, the less incentive there is for them to do anything about their poverty.

Have you ever been poor? Dirt poor? Not knowing how you would afford your next meal? I have. But because it was in a time that the government didn't come rushing to my aid, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and we did it by taking jobs that didn't pay all that much. And are now not rich by any means but we are quite comfortable mostly due to our own efforts.

The best way to life people out of poverty is a job and a societal expectation that the person take advantage of it to help himself/herself.

 

[JoeB131]

Ah, got to take this one apart.

So were does most of the money you earn go? To support yourself and your family and make life a little better for them? Or to help the poor?

That's not the point, is it? If I were a one percenter controlling 43% of the wealth, you might have a point here. I already pay 30% of my income in taxes, and that goes to help the poor. The rich need to pay their fair share, and given their contribution to poverty, that would mean taking everything they have and harvesting them for transplant organs.

And again, I know you despise Ben Franklin, a person of his own culture, but was he right? The more the poor are made comfortable in poverty, the less incentive there is for them to do anything about their poverty.

Ben Franklin was a guy who talked about "Freedom", but still signed off on keeping slavery as an institution. Therefore anything else he had to say can be taken with a grain of salt.

Have you ever been poor? Dirt poor? Not knowing how you would afford your next meal? I have. But because it was in a time that the government didn't come rushing to my aid, my husband and I worked our way out of poverty and we did it by taking jobs that didn't pay all that much. And are now not rich by any means but we are quite comfortable mostly due to our own efforts.

Um, okay, what time was this, exactly, because we've had pretty extensive poverty relief programs for my entire lifetime, and I'm old.

But to take your logic, it's like saying "I was able to beat cancer, so no one better go out and find a cure for cancer!!!"

The best way to life people out of poverty is a job and a societal expectation that the person take advantage of it to help himself/herself.

I agree... did you just skip over that part where I pointed out that most people on assistance have jobs?

 

[themirrorthief]

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

White people usually got to live in the more durable structures, are more likely to have good insurance. So of course, most of the checks are going to go to poor people and people of color.

Man, you folks are dense.

Kamala is so racist...black people live where they want to live I worked with a black man who bragged to me that he had six kids by five different women. When I asked him if he supported those six kids he said hell yeah. then one day another pal who lived next to one of this guys kids asked the kid how his dad was doing and the kid said he had never heard of his dad

 

[Foxfyre]

Ah, got to take this one apart.



That's not the point, is it? If I were a one percenter controlling 43% of the wealth, you might have a point here. I already pay 30% of my income in taxes, and that goes to help the poor. The rich need to pay their fair share, and given their contribution to poverty, that would mean taking everything they have and harvesting them for transplant organs.



Ben Franklin was a guy who talked about "Freedom", but still signed off on keeping slavery as an institution. Therefore anything else he had to say can be taken with a grain of salt.



Um, okay, what time was this, exactly, because we've had pretty extensive poverty relief programs for my entire lifetime, and I'm old.

But to take your logic, it's like saying "I was able to beat cancer, so no one better go out and find a cure for cancer!!!"



I agree... did you just skip over that part where I pointed out that most people on assistance have jobs?

The point is that a teensy TEENSY fraction of people with jobs stay below the poverty level for long. Most are part timers by choice--students and such--but almost all of those who need to earn a living to support themselves and their families manage to do so in modern day America. The ones who can't almost always have serious disabilities, addictions, or other factors that hinder their progress.

Despite me getting pregnant almost immediately after the wedding, we did what we had to do to work our way out of serious financial disadvantage. Then my husband was transferred a lot and he and I decided my first responsibility was to the home and kids and he would be the major breadwinner, so each new town I had to start over. And often that was at minimum wage so that I could have opportunity to demonstrate the value I would have for an employer. I never stayed at minimum wage for long. Sometimes it would take 2 or 3 job changes to get to a career level position but I always managed to do that. I left every job with the good will of my employers and with good references.

The idea that it is the government's job to make people prosperous or not is exactly what the Founders intended to get us away from. A government powerful enough to make us prosperous is a government powerful enough to make us poor.

And a person's skin color should NEVER be a factor in any government policy other than removing any barriers that might be associated with a skin color whether that be white, black, brown or whatever.