The Lazy Poor

[Foxfyre]

[

No. You agree to the wage before you go to work. Nobody can force you to work for anybody. And at the end of the day you will receive what you agreed to work for and you will have risked nothing and invested nothing other than your time. And you won't be poorer than you were when you started out your work day.

But if you do not produce enough to cover your wages plus a necessary profit for your employer, he is out your wages PLUS depreciation, utilities, insurance, inputs, taxes, etc. And he will be poorer than he was at the beginning of the day.

And that is the difference.

Again, why should we work that way? YOu seem fine if the economy works on the theory of "I got mine, fuck you", which is where the GOP seems to be at right now and wonders why it can't win elections even in bad times.

Again, this is when I stopped being a Republican.. when my Romney-loving boss announced that his bad behavior was totally acceptable because, "I don't have to deal with a union." like that was really an answer.

The problem with a society where the have-nots are totally at mercy of the haves is that eventually, you have a race to the bottom. Until the thing blows up in everyone's faces.

This country worked better when you had strong unions, the rich paid their fair share, and workers had strong rights.

No. My attitude is I worked for mine, and I am grateful for the opportunity to do so. And I'm grateful that I prospered sufficiently to give you an opportunity to work for yours.

Your attitude seems to be that you are entitled to mine because I have more than you do and/or because the government says you can have what is mine without working for it.

And that is sort of the concept of this thread isn't it? Those who want what others have without working for it fit somewhere in the category of 'lazy' and such people rarely prosper as much as those who measure self esteem in how much they accomplish, and not in what they can demand from others.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe if you explained the difference between social contract/public services and wealth to him?

Naw.

Carry on.

If you want to prove that taking money from higher income or higher wealth individuals, in the form of income tax, or property tax,

and using it to pay for a low income person's children's education is not redistribution of wealth,

by all means, do so.

Otherwise, shut up.

It is not redistribution of wealth because public education absorbs wealth, it does not distribute it. Yes people with a good education have a much better shot at acquiring wealth, but the average citizen does not receive monetary benefits or anything else of value in return for going to school.

But explaining the difference between redistribution of wealth and public services/social contract is probably wasted on those who obviously didn't benefit much from public education.

And I won't shut up lest people with as screwy ideas as you have been posting might provide the only information others will see.

They receive the cost of the education for free or less than its cost. That is redistribution of wealth.

Property taxes are a tax on wealth, not income. Property taxes are frequently school taxes. Property taxes are collected from people who aren't even using the schools, because they have no children, or have children in private school, etc. The WEALTH that is taken from them is redistributed to people who pay less in school taxes, or no school taxes.

Making public, government run education available to the poorest of the poor without demanding any payment from them is pure socialism,

period,

and you know it's a good idea, and you know it works, and you know that NO ONE on the anti-socialist Right has a better idea.

So stop pretending that you do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

To understand the concept of redistribution of wealth it is necessary - at the Federal level - to consider the import of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It defines the legitimate powers of Congress (the Federal Government), that is to say, those things which Congress may spend our money on. For a quick laugh, take a look at the 10th Amendment. Yuk it up.

You will notice that all of the powers of Congress pertain to the PUBLIC GOOD. Roads, post offices, national defense, a patent and copyright office, and so forth. But since the dawn of the New Deal, the Federal government has embarked on the Unconstitutional path of taking money from taxpayers and paying it out to other taxpayers. Tax revenues used for private (not public) gain. The most eggregious example of this "redistribution of wealth" is the so-called, "Earned Income Tax Credit," by which taxpayer money is given to people who worked but paid no FIT - rather a "negative tax," if you will.

The states are not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, and may spend money on whatever they like (within reason). The various states have uniformly decided that public education is a basic, state-provided, taxpayer funded benefit that ought to be available to all school-age persons within the confines of the state. This is not "redistribution of wealth" as nobody gets cash, but only gets the right to avail oneself of a service - just like a state maintained road.

To consider a state-provided education as 'redistribution of weath' makes the expression totally meaningless.

Like "marriage."

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Does anyone disagree with this definition of 'welfare'?


Government support for the poor and otherwise disadvantaged members of the society, usually through provision of free and/or subsidized goods and services.

Read more: What is welfare? definition and meaning

Question 1:

Is welfare a redistribution of wealth?

Question 2:

Does public education qualify as an example of the above definition?

 

[NYcarbineer]

[


I get the feeling that you resent any folks who have done better in life than you have.

Jealousy is debilitating to one's happiness.

Bulletin:
You never had to work for anyone else.

Never.

Check out the 13th amendment.


Good luck in your new endeavors.

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

 

[Truthmatters]

Oh, please, you're talking way over Politchic's head.

She has no concept of how we disenfranchise urban minorities, shoving them into the welfare system, severely limiting their opportunities, taking away the boots--straps and all.

Years of hunger and abject poverty have a profound effect on a child -- it's not about lazy, it's about having your spirit crushed.

We gutted U.S. manfactoring, destroying local economies. We continue to gut and limit family planning and access to abortions to the poor. What does she think is going to happen?

"Years of hunger and abject poverty have a profound effect on a child -"

Dunce.


"As a group, America's poor are far from being chronically undernourished. The average consumption of protein, vitamins, and minerals is virtually the same for poor and middle-class children and, in most cases, is well above recommended norms. Poor children actually consume more meat than do higher-income children and have average protein intakes 100 percent above recommended levels. Most poor children today are, in fact, supernourished and grow up to be, on average, one inch taller and 10 pounds heavier than the GIs who stormed the beaches of Normandy in World War II."
How Poor Are America's Poor? Examining the "Plague" of Poverty in America



Is it true, mind-readers only charge you half price?

Bwwwahahahahhaha....

Some serious English on that backhand.

I dont want everyone to vote - Bing




this is the founder of the heritage foundation.


They are a partisan hack lying sight willing to CHEAT Americans out of their vote to place their ideas in the power sectors.



They are traitors to the principles of Democracy

 

[PoliticalChic]

To understand the concept of redistribution of wealth it is necessary - at the Federal level - to consider the import of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It defines the legitimate powers of Congress (the Federal Government), that is to say, those things which Congress may spend our money on. For a quick laugh, take a look at the 10th Amendment. Yuk it up.

You will notice that all of the powers of Congress pertain to the PUBLIC GOOD. Roads, post offices, national defense, a patent and copyright office, and so forth. But since the dawn of the New Deal, the Federal government has embarked on the Unconstitutional path of taking money from taxpayers and paying it out to other taxpayers. Tax revenues used for private (not public) gain. The most eggregious example of this "redistribution of wealth" is the so-called, "Earned Income Tax Credit," by which taxpayer money is given to people who worked but paid no FIT - rather a "negative tax," if you will.

The states are not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, and may spend money on whatever they like (within reason). The various states have uniformly decided that public education is a basic, state-provided, taxpayer funded benefit that ought to be available to all school-age persons within the confines of the state. This is not "redistribution of wealth" as nobody gets cash, but only gets the right to avail oneself of a service - just like a state maintained road.

To consider a state-provided education as 'redistribution of weath' makes the expression totally meaningless.

Like "marriage."

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

 

[Truthmatters]

The Heritage Foundation IS NOT an acceptable source of ANYTHING but right wing propaganda

 

[Truthmatters]

To understand the concept of redistribution of wealth it is necessary - at the Federal level - to consider the import of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It defines the legitimate powers of Congress (the Federal Government), that is to say, those things which Congress may spend our money on. For a quick laugh, take a look at the 10th Amendment. Yuk it up.

You will notice that all of the powers of Congress pertain to the PUBLIC GOOD. Roads, post offices, national defense, a patent and copyright office, and so forth. But since the dawn of the New Deal, the Federal government has embarked on the Unconstitutional path of taking money from taxpayers and paying it out to other taxpayers. Tax revenues used for private (not public) gain. The most eggregious example of this "redistribution of wealth" is the so-called, "Earned Income Tax Credit," by which taxpayer money is given to people who worked but paid no FIT - rather a "negative tax," if you will.

The states are not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, and may spend money on whatever they like (within reason). The various states have uniformly decided that public education is a basic, state-provided, taxpayer funded benefit that ought to be available to all school-age persons within the confines of the state. This is not "redistribution of wealth" as nobody gets cash, but only gets the right to avail oneself of a service - just like a state maintained road.

To consider a state-provided education as 'redistribution of weath' makes the expression totally meaningless.

Like "marriage."

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

and your a proven LIAR


Ill go get the thread

 

[NYcarbineer]

Since it appears that the otherwise anti-welfare state anti-socialism conservatives in this thread have unanimously conceded that our socialist educational system is acceptable,

what about healthcare for Americans regardless of their ability to pay?

Can you also accept that a socialist healthcare system is acceptable?

Or would you rather argue that one's health is not as important as one's education, or that one's access to healthcare ought to be directly proportionate to one's income/wealth?

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/291099-people-good-damn-it.html


PC just made a complete fool out of herself here

Your lies will NEVER be forgotten PC

 

[Truthmatters]

YOU are the NOT GOOD you see in your fellow man

 

[NYcarbineer]

To understand the concept of redistribution of wealth it is necessary - at the Federal level - to consider the import of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution. It defines the legitimate powers of Congress (the Federal Government), that is to say, those things which Congress may spend our money on. For a quick laugh, take a look at the 10th Amendment. Yuk it up.

You will notice that all of the powers of Congress pertain to the PUBLIC GOOD. Roads, post offices, national defense, a patent and copyright office, and so forth. But since the dawn of the New Deal, the Federal government has embarked on the Unconstitutional path of taking money from taxpayers and paying it out to other taxpayers. Tax revenues used for private (not public) gain. The most eggregious example of this "redistribution of wealth" is the so-called, "Earned Income Tax Credit," by which taxpayer money is given to people who worked but paid no FIT - rather a "negative tax," if you will.

The states are not constrained by the U.S. Constitution, and may spend money on whatever they like (within reason). The various states have uniformly decided that public education is a basic, state-provided, taxpayer funded benefit that ought to be available to all school-age persons within the confines of the state. This is not "redistribution of wealth" as nobody gets cash, but only gets the right to avail oneself of a service - just like a state maintained road.

To consider a state-provided education as 'redistribution of weath' makes the expression totally meaningless.

Like "marriage."

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

I see you've chosen option #1 from my list,

to refresh your memory, that was the one involving your trademark sharp tongue and dull wit.

I would have won that bet.

 

[Truthmatters]

we are NOT all sociopaths like you PC

 

[Truthmatters]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

 

[Wyatt earp]

[

No. You agree to the wage before you go to work. Nobody can force you to work for anybody. And at the end of the day you will receive what you agreed to work for and you will have risked nothing and invested nothing other than your time. And you won't be poorer than you were when you started out your work day.

But if you do not produce enough to cover your wages plus a necessary profit for your employer, he is out your wages PLUS depreciation, utilities, insurance, inputs, taxes, etc. And he will be poorer than he was at the beginning of the day.

And that is the difference.

Again, why should we work that way? YOu seem fine if the economy works on the theory of "I got mine, fuck you", which is where the GOP seems to be at right now and wonders why it can't win elections even in bad times.

Again, this is when I stopped being a Republican.. when my Romney-loving boss announced that his bad behavior was totally acceptable because, "I don't have to deal with a union." like that was really an answer.

The problem with a society where the have-nots are totally at mercy of the haves is that eventually, you have a race to the bottom. Until the thing blows up in everyone's faces.

This country worked better when you had strong unions, the rich paid their fair share, and workers had strong rights.

lol, your at mercy of the rich? grow a set of balls dude, no one owns me.

 

[PoliticalChic]

[


I get the feeling that you resent any folks who have done better in life than you have.

Jealousy is debilitating to one's happiness.

Bulletin:
You never had to work for anyone else.

Never.

Check out the 13th amendment.


Good luck in your new endeavors.

As an either/or situation, I'd say that resenting the Rich is far less reprehensible than resenting the Poor.

Your resentment for the Poor is interesting. As an immigrant, is that something you acquired since you arrived here,

thinking it was part of how to be more 'American'?

1. Here comes another bursting of your imaginary bubbles!

Ready?

The is no perennial category known as 'the rich.'
It is a momentary snapshot in time.

It is a bête noire created to inflame covetous buffoons such as you.

a. "It’s a common misperception that earnings or wealth quintiles are static, closed, private clubs with very little turnover, so that once a household finds itself in an earnings quintile or living below the poverty line in a given year, it’s doomed to stay there for life. But the empirical evidence tells a much different story of dynamic change and turnover in the U.S. economy—people and households move up and down the earnings and wealth quintiles throughout their careers and lives. Many of today’s poor are tomorrow’s rich, and many of today’s rich are tomorrow’s middle class, reflecting the significant upward and downward mobility in the U.S. economy."
OneLife: Income Mobility in the Dynamic U.S. Economy


Feel like a fool?
Fitting.


2. "...resenting the Poor..."

As prevarication is your mode of operation, a definition will obviate the attempt.

Poor is defined as follows: no home, no heat, no food.

Can you find any who resent such?
No?

Good.



Putting you in your place has become, it seems, my hobby.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Pc is as dumb as a box of rocks but the box of rocks has better morals

if pc is dumb as a box of rocks why does she own you in every debate I read so far?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You obviously don't know what the term 'redistribution of wealth' means. I recommend you research it.

Do you at least recognize that providing government run education to all children regardless of the ability to pay is a perfect example of 'socialism'?

By your abstruse definition, the attendant who laces up your straight jacket represents some sort of 'redistribution of wealth.'


When, oh when, will you realize that you have zero cachet?

I see you've chosen option #1 from my list,

to refresh your memory, that was the one involving your trademark sharp tongue and dull wit.

I would have won that bet.

The only bet you'll ever win is with the multitudes wondering how you find your way home each day.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Heritage Foundation IS NOT an acceptable source of ANYTHING but right wing propaganda

And that is why you, and only you, represent the source of my information about the world.


Please continue.