Makers vs Takers? Nope. How about "Contributors" vs "Non-Contributors"

[bucs90]

I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.

A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.

You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.

You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.



So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.

 

[bucs90]

And before the RW'ers jump on it, yes, the lifelong welfare queens and trailor park leaches are in fact non-contributors, unless they are doing something productive in their life that outweighs the drag on the government they are providing.

Just like the extremely wealthy tobacco company owners surely create jobs.......but they also directly contribute to millions who have died early deaths from their product. Or guys like Joe Douchebag who created the video line "Girls Gone Wild"- He is a "maker", creating jobs and making shitloads of money (just went bankrupt however). He is a "maker", but NOT a contributor.

Companies like McDonalds? Contributors. Yep. Sure, they sell shitty, very unhealthy cheap food. BUT, I remember in college and the few years afterwards struggling bad financially until I landed a solid job. Lots of nights I got by on a couple cheap burgers from McD's. I would never make a life out of eating that crap. BUT, I was and still am grateful that they provided that avenue for people struggling with money.

 

[Harry Dresden]

your shit is starting to get as fucking old as Dean and Dudley's shit is........and just as repetitive....

 

[bucs90]

your shit is starting to get as fucking old as Dean and Dudley's shit is........and just as repetitive....

A) If you dont like it, dont click on my threads.
B) Since you did, let me compliment your awesome, well thought out counter-argument that you posted.

 

[Agit8r]

just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.

 

[S.J.]

How about producers vs parasites?

 

[bripat9643]

just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.

Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.

Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.

"Only government can take?" The Newtown shooter took lives. Bonnie and Clyde took money from banks. The examples are endless, and none of them worked for the government.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.

A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.

You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.

You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.



So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.

Pretty good. I always enjoy reading someone who POSTS instead of reading off a cue card or pasting links and pictures all over the place, although there's nothing wrong with that so long as one is trying to inform. I am in basic agreement.

 

[bripat9643]

just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.

Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.

"Only government can take?" The Newtown shooter took lives. Bonnie and Clyde took money from banks. The examples are endless, and none of them worked for the government.

The later two examples broke the law. "Only government can take legally" is what I should have said.

 

[The Rabbi]

Wow another hate thread from the new idiot du jour.

Under Democratic thinking (and I use the term broadly) people on food stamps are helping the economy but people putting together a bond issue so a company can expand are merely taking.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

An easy way to understand real world or productive economic value is to separate fee takers and profiteers from producers. Fee takers add no value; fee takers are essentially parasites on cultures. Profiteers are subject to proportional realities. Producers always suck hind tit because they are disorganized; still, producers create 100% of value, while profiteers organize distributions and fee takers are a drag on the entire systems.

The second tier of understanding is proportion in history. No nation's greatness has survived a pay gap between takers - the wealthy and bourgoisie (people in government and minor professionals holding government licenses [think teachers, accountants, doctors, lawyers - the nonscientific professions] working to keep the rabble in line). Government workers are a sort of hybrid, they produce nothing yet some of them like teachers can add marginal value.

 

[bripat9643]

An easy way to understand real world or productive economic value is to separate fee takers and profiteers from producers. Fee takers add no value; fee takers are essentially parasites on cultures. Profiteers are subject to proportional realities. Producers always suck hind tit because they are disorganized; still, producers create 100% of value, while profiteers organize distributions and fee takers are a drag on the entire systems.

There are no "fee takers" who haven't produced something that they charge a fee for. "Profiteer" is just a pejorative for a producer who is making more money than you think he should.

The second tier of understanding is proportion in history. No nation's greatness has survived a pay gap between takers - the wealthy and bourgoisie (people in government and minor professionals holding government licenses [think teachers, accountants, doctors, lawyers - the nonscientific professions] working to keep the rabble in line).

More left-wing horseshit. In the first place, being wealthy doesn't make you a "taker. Anyone who uses terms like "bourgeoisie" is probably a communist, so their claims are likely to be idiotic from the get-go.

 

[The Rabbi]

An easy way to understand real world or productive economic value is to separate fee takers and profiteers from producers. Fee takers add no value; fee takers are essentially parasites on cultures. Profiteers are subject to proportional realities. Producers always suck hind tit because they are disorganized; still, producers create 100% of value, while profiteers organize distributions and fee takers are a drag on the entire systems.

The second tier of understanding is proportion in history. No nation's greatness has survived a pay gap between takers - the wealthy and bourgoisie (people in government and minor professionals holding government licenses [think teachers, accountants, doctors, lawyers - the nonscientific professions] working to keep the rabble in line). Government workers are a sort of hybrid, they produce nothing yet some of them like teachers can add marginal value.

If they added no value no one would pay them willingly.
Gee, I guess you didnt consider that. Duh.

 

[Stephanie]

your shit is starting to get as fucking old as dean and dudley's shit is........and just as repetitive....

yep
Who sits around and thinks up all this crap

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

An easy way to understand real world or productive economic value is to separate fee takers and profiteers from producers. Fee takers add no value; fee takers are essentially parasites on cultures. Profiteers are subject to proportional realities. Producers always suck hind tit because they are disorganized; still, producers create 100% of value, while profiteers organize distributions and fee takers are a drag on the entire systems.

There are no "fee takers" who haven't produced something that they charge a fee for. "Profiteer" is just a pejorative for a producer who is making more money than you think he should.

The second tier of understanding is proportion in history. No nation's greatness has survived a pay gap between takers - the wealthy and bourgoisie (people in government and minor professionals holding government licenses [think teachers, accountants, doctors, lawyers - the nonscientific professions] working to keep the rabble in line).

More left-wing horseshit. In the first place, being wealthy doesn't make you a "taker. Anyone who uses terms like "bourgeoisie" is probably a communist, so their claims are likely to be idiotic from the get-go.

The question here is "Whose misunderstanding?"

I am laughing out loud that you and the rabbit have no understanding of either fee taking or proportion. [We need to avoid the concept "momentum" at all costs; your brain would cook itself into an acorn size turd.]

In an aside, why not take my post apart on a granular level? Supposing in a moment of wild-eyed fantasy that you are on to something, why not prove it to the legions of halfwits aping you on this forum? Take me down with facts, sport.

Emotion isn't going to get it, really. Because in nutballs braggadocio is a nanosecond from cutting and running. I've seen it.

 

[PredFan]

I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.

A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.

You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.

You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.



So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.

I stopped reading at the term "Negative Contributer". It doesn't get dumber than that.

 

[Harry Dresden]

your shit is starting to get as fucking old as Dean and Dudley's shit is........and just as repetitive....

A) If you dont like it, dont click on my threads.
B) Since you did, let me compliment your awesome, well thought out counter-argument that you posted.

its the same old shit that you have posted before......you want well thought out answers....read your fucking other threads on this.....and something else you are getting good at.....everyone who disagrees with you now is a "Right Winger"....do you go to classes given by Dudley?....yea you used to be a Conservative.....

 

[bucs90]

just so we're clear on this, day-traders are parasitically skimming off our retirement savings, so they would literally be takers.

Bullshit. "Taking" requires the use of force. Day traders don't force anyone to sell them stocks or buy stocks from them. Taking by one private citizen from another is against the law. We call it theft, robbery or fraud. Only the government can take, so the only takers are people who use the government to do their bidding.

Under your logic.....

A Navy SEAL is a "taker", since he creates 0 jobs, and lives off government pay.

A strip club owner is a "maker", since he creates jobs and doesnt live off government pay.

So, Navy SEAL's are less valuable to society than strip club owners under your makers vs takers ideal. Right?

 

[bucs90]

I've was reading about yet another "takers" comment some idiot right winger made. And I thought about that jackass Romney and his 47% comment that so many right wingers agreed with. And I came to a conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Makers vs Takers". Just positive contributors vs negative contributors. You are either adding something positive to society, or, adding something negative. There really isn't much in between. For example:

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a Navy SEAL would be a taker. He makes a modest salary, probably under 40K. He lives off a government paycheck. He creates ZERO jobs. Thats right. A SEAL would be a taker. So would a teacher. She doesnt create one single job, and also lives off government checks. But they contribute a lot of positive to our society. They are Contributors.

Under the Republican "maker vs taker" argument, a strip club owner is a "maker". He opens a business. Creates dozens of jobs. He doesnt make his money off govt checks. But, he is a negative contributor to society. Filth, drugs, violence, morals. But in the right wing's definition of worth, he is worth more than a SEAL or teacher.

A trust fund baby who grows up pampered in life, then gets a job as, say, well, trading stocks and living off that is a "maker" to Republicans. He doesnt really create jobs, he indirectly does by buying stocks maybe. But he earns incredible wealth by, well, being born wealthy and owning stock. And he pays high taxes and doesnt get govt checks. But does he make a positive contribution to society? Maybe. Depends what he does with his free time.

You may have uber wealthy "makers" who poach smaller companies, and end up slashing more jobs than they actually create. A net negative due to their harm to so many people's lives out of greed.

You may have someone like, say, University of Alabama football coach Nick Saban. A millionaire coach, who has lived almost his entire life off government checks at public universities (Mich. State, LSU, Alabama), and he creates 0 jobs. BUT...look at how many young mens lives he has touched, by instilling discipline, work ethic, a structured environment, a drive to succeed. Those lessons are worth more than money can define. A net positive.



So, Im personally redefining the "makers vs takers" nonsense. Its Contributor vs Non-Contributor. Someone is either adding something good to America, or they are not. Thats what really matters.........not just the number that is on your tax filing.

I stopped reading at the term "Negative Contributer". It doesn't get dumber than that.

No you didnt. You read it all, you just didnt have a good argument to come back with.

But yes, everyone contributes something to society. Those contributions are either positive or negative. Its quite an easy concept.