Future problem in the country

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: sygyzy
With that said, I'd like to know how you plan to distinguish between different types of "poor/dumb" people in your master plan. Earlier in the thread you mentioned that you don't group them all together. For example, you would spare the ones who were poor/dumb but worked hard (and left the lower class?). Would there be some sort of test or exam?

Well, one thing is for certain. We can at least rule out the way that Hitler used to distinguish those who are to be considered valuable to our great society. That's one down. Only 395 gazillion ways to go! :laugh:

 

[Linflas]

Originally posted by: rhky1234

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rhky1234

Originally posted by: Wheezer
of course the poor are going to populate faster....wtf else are they gonna do?

when you can't afford to do anything else, lay around fvcking all day....it's FREE!


now why they are poor to begin with is another matter entirely.

OR they can work and make a better life for themselves. Like I said before, it's all about the civilized vs the uncivilized. Morality vs inmorality. Smart vs stupid. Non-violent vs violent. Long term survival vs short term procreation.

And of course there are always some exceptions to the rule... just to be politically correct!

So why not just say flat out who you think the "uncivilized" are since my guess is this is a throw away account you made just to post in this thread?

God forbid you or your relatives fall victim to double gang rape murder like what Channon Christianson went through, or what the victims in "Wichita horror", then you'll see the light.

If something that horrid were to happen to someone in my family I would hold the perpetrators of the crime responsible not an entire class of people. And I am not trying to silence you at all, quite the contrary, I am urging you to quit speaking in code and plainly say exactly who it is you are referring to.

 

[rhky1234]

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rhky1234

Originally posted by: Linflas

Originally posted by: rhky1234

Originally posted by: Wheezer
of course the poor are going to populate faster....wtf else are they gonna do?

when you can't afford to do anything else, lay around fvcking all day....it's FREE!


now why they are poor to begin with is another matter entirely.

OR they can work and make a better life for themselves. Like I said before, it's all about the civilized vs the uncivilized. Morality vs inmorality. Smart vs stupid. Non-violent vs violent. Long term survival vs short term procreation.

And of course there are always some exceptions to the rule... just to be politically correct!

So why not just say flat out who you think the "uncivilized" are since my guess is this is a throw away account you made just to post in this thread?

God forbid you or your relatives fall victim to double gang rape murder like what Channon Christianson went through, or what the victims in "Wichita horror", then you'll see the light.

If something that horrid were to happen to someone in my family I would hold the perpetrators of the crime responsible not an entire class of people. And I am not trying to silence you at all, quite the contrary, I am urging you to quit speaking in code and plainly say exactly who it is you are referring to.

It's never about class. In fact, the differences between the lower class and the upper class are probably education, money, and friends of influence. Contrary to common beliefs, poverty does NOT cause crime per se, nor does it cause poor people to leech off the government.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

While I realize that such an idea is unpopular, these people do have the right to be lazy and poor just as much as others have the right to be busy and rich.

I agree, they should have that right.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I do not feel that these people should be looked down upon for making that choice unless they are leeching off the govt. in the process. I realize many do leech that way but there are also a ton of people that don't.

This is where the problem begins in my opinion. They're using their right to be lazy, then they're expecting the government to pay for them to live.

Imagine if someone didn't feel like working and they wanted you to provide them with food, a place to live, and money to raise kids.

I have no problem with people who do not accept government aid.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Xavier434

While I realize that such an idea is unpopular, these people do have the right to be lazy and poor just as much as others have the right to be busy and rich.

I agree, they should have that right.

Originally posted by: Xavier434
I do not feel that these people should be looked down upon for making that choice unless they are leeching off the govt. in the process. I realize many do leech that way but there are also a ton of people that don't.

It is the people that do leech that I have a problem with. They're using their right to be lazy, then they're expecting the government to pay for them to live.

Imagine if someone didn't feel like working and they wanted you to provide them with food, a place to live, and money to raise kids.

*shrug* Most people have issues with that unless they are the ones who are both leeching and electing not to work. I don't think that disliking them is the issue at hand here. The issue is how one deals with that problem without being too inhumane. It's a very slippery slope.

 

[MagicSac]

Interesting topic of discussion, but unfortunately it would appear all the bleeding hearts have decided to hijack a perfectly logical question brought up by the OP and turn to emotional extremism and personal attacks (sounds like the P&N, eh?).

The OP isn't putting any person or race down... he is simply using statistics/probability to describe classes of people. It would appear though that the bleeding hearts have a hard time with this and will cite several specific examples that do not fit the "norm". The OP never said EVERYONE that is poor is bad/evil/stupid/unintelligent. Stating that you know some people (or even came from) that started off poor and became successful is a touching story but it doesn't hold water. Statistically speaking it is much more likely that an unintelligent person gravitates towards the poor end of the spectrum.

Now that that is out of the way.... how about solutions to the problem? I'm not a huge fan of government handouts or wealth distribution, which IMHO only adds fuel to the problem. I sure don't claim to have the answer to this one, but i'd love to see some logical/rational debate on this topic (note to the bleeding hearts... check your emotions at the door).

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: MagicSac
Interesting topic of discussion, but unfortunately it would appear all the bleeding hearts have decided to hijack a perfectly logical question brought up by the OP and turn to emotional extremism and personal attacks (sounds like the P&N, eh?).

The OP isn't putting any person or race down... he is simply using statistics/probability to describe classes of people. It would appear though that the bleeding hearts have a hard time with this and will cite several specific examples that do not fit the "norm". The OP never said EVERYONE that is poor is bad/evil/stupid/unintelligent. Stating that you know some people (or even came from) that started off poor and became successful is a touching story but it doesn't hold water. Statistically speaking it is much more likely that an unintelligent person gravitates towards the poor end of the spectrum.

Now that that is out of the way.... how about solutions to the problem? I'm not a huge fan of government handouts or wealth distribution, which IMHO only adds fuel to the problem. I sure don't claim to have the answer to this one, but i'd love to see some logical/rational debate on this topic (note to the bleeding hearts... check your emotions at the door).

Note - the OP hasn't provided a single statistic or fact. He is just making assumptions, a problem and no solutions.

And the OP's main argument was disproved already by one of his supporters.

 

[MagicSac]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

And the OP's main argument was disproved already by one of his supporters.

I might have missed it, but where has the solution been provided? The main problem was how to address the fact that the drags on society (lazy government leechers) are out-breeding the rest of us. Maybe i misunderstood?

 

[Capt Caveman]

Originally posted by: MagicSac

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

And the OP's main argument was disproved already by one of his supporters.

I might have missed it, but where has the solution been provided? The main problem was how to address the fact that the drags on society (lazy government leechers) are out-breeding the rest of us. Maybe i misunderstood?

That poor people breed more than others.

 

[sao123]

Originally posted by: CottonRabbit

Originally posted by: sao123

Originally posted by: SagaLore

Originally posted by: IGBT
..historically correct for a post depression manufacturing society. But manuf. in the US is rapidly becoming extinct. Present educational system has failed to turn out educated technically skilled employable workers. Employers are forced to import technically skilled workers or off shore their work. The US will be a service economy very soon. The only skill required will be to match the picture on the menu with the appropriate key on the cash register. The tax payer shouldn't be required to finance failed public school education.

Where is it you live that you think our public school system is that bad?

Around here, those people pushing register buttons are south american immigrants or high schools kids. College kids are busy doing internships in offices, schools, or labs.

The problem is...IGBT is right...
Therein Lies the problem... we are turning out too many college kids... in order to economically survive, we NEED some lesser or unschooled cheap labor to work in our factories... thats why our manufacturing industries keep going overseas... american labor is too expensive right now... the entire workforce cant be upper class...

Soon we will be a service / information only economy which will collapse under its own weight.

Then would you volunteer your kids to forgoe a college education and work at a clothing factory? Do you actually advocate that the US should try lower its standard of living? Forcing a large portion of the population into manufacturing isn't going to make us a more prosperous nation. How exactly are you going to forbid certain people from getting a higher education when they want to improve themselves? Sure, it's easy to say there are too many college educated kids competing for your job after you yourself have received a white collared job due to your education.

I hope you're not someone who is complaining about the current weakness of the dollar. The USD to RMB exchange rate is now at 1:6.94 down from around 1:8. Let's hope it hits 1:1 so we can take all those enviable manufacturing jobs back from China. I would love to work 12 hours a day on minimum wage.

What you fail to understand is the following: Economics is a zero sum game...
when you remove all of those manufacturing jobs, then all you have left is the middle and upper class... and guess what? Your middle class becomes your low class again... and now they are unemployed because they have priced themselves out of the workforce. Afterrall SOMEONE has to be at the bottom!... It isnt how much you make that defines your wealth status... its [how many people that you make more than] that defines it.

so would you rather a)have college educated people who cant get a paying job, living off government subsidies...

or would you rather have low wage manufactuing jobs available to those people so they can actually supoprt themselves.

 

[CottonRabbit]

Originally posted by: sao123

What you fail to understand is the following: Economics is a zero sum game...
when you remove all of those manufacturing jobs, then all you have left is the middle and upper class... and guess what? Your middle class becomes your low class again... and now they are unemployed because they have priced themselves out of the workforce. Afterrall SOMEONE has to be at the bottom!... It isnt how much you make that defines your wealth status... its [how many people that you make more than] that defines it.

so would you rather a)have college educated people who cant get a paying job, living off government subsidies...

or would you rather have low wage manufactuing jobs available to those people so they can actually supoprt themselves.

Economics is not a zero sum game. The very fact that the lower class in the US is far better off than the lower class in a third world country or the fact that we are living better than Americans in 1908 should make this obvious. Providing intangible services or entrepreneurial ability adds to a nation's wealth just as making a t-shirt or car does.

 

[Geekbabe]

"The poor will always be with us"

Since the day when we began assembling in groups there have always been people with higher and lesser degree's of ability. What sets us apart from animals is compassion, the understanding that the way we treat those less well equipped than ourselves says more about as people than anything we could ever build or invent.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

reproductive freedom is a fundamental human right
obligatory financial support to people that make poor decisions is unjust

problem fixes itself if the second part is corrected

 

[MagicSac]

Originally posted by: Geekbabe
"The poor will always be with us"

Since the day when we began assembling in groups there have always been people with higher and lesser degree's of ability. What sets us apart from animals is compassion, the understanding that the way we treat those less well equipped than ourselves says more about as people than anything we could ever build or invent.

True, but how do you regulate compassion? Having the government do this is hardly the answer. I agree that there should be a basic framework of support for people if they come upon hard times, but i'm very much against the idea that many in the less fortunate communities believe it's their right to have other people supporting them and their children.

Personally, i much prefer people helping the poor through charities or churches of THEIR choice rather than letting the government take money via taxes and redistribute it as it sees fit. But if you trust the government, then by all means go ahead and pay more taxes (nothing is stopping you from sending in more money come tax time)... just don't force the rest of us to.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: MagicSac

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

And the OP's main argument was disproved already by one of his supporters.

I might have missed it, but where has the solution been provided? The main problem was how to address the fact that the drags on society (lazy government leechers) are out-breeding the rest of us. Maybe i misunderstood?

That poor people breed more than others.

That was never disproven. A link was shown that poor household have less people in them, but that's not taking into account the fact that poorer families are more fragmented and dispersed between households.

 

[bobsmith1492]

It's because elitist people like the OP consider children a hassle and, instead of having kids of their own, they gripe about how everyone else should have fewer.

Kids are a gift; the happiest people (long-run) tend to be those with kids provided they can. If that doesn't work, there are plenty who need parents or who need adults involved in their life.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
That was never disproven. A link was shown that poor household have less people in them, but that's not taking into account the fact that poorer families are more fragmented and dispersed between households.

Where's the proof for this statement?

 

[MagicSac]

Originally posted by: bobsmith1492
It's because elitist people like the OP consider children a hassle and, instead of having kids of their own, they gripe about how everyone else should have fewer.

Kids are a gift; the happiest people (long-run) tend to be those with kids provided they can. If that doesn't work, there are plenty who need parents or who need adults involved in their life.

Please provide quotes and/or proof that the OP feels this way.... wow, what a stretch to make such a comment. The OP has concerns about the people that CAN'T AFFORD TO HAVE CHILDREN that are having too many.... nowhere did i see anything about his hatred for kids. Sheesh.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: 91TTZ
That was never disproven. A link was shown that poor household have less people in them, but that's not taking into account the fact that poorer families are more fragmented and dispersed between households.

Where's the proof for this statement?

Here's an example:

http://www.rikidscount.org/mat...ok%20Indicator%202.pdf

It's specifically about Rhode Island but with such a lopsided figure it's extremely unlikely that the opposite would be true in any state.

"In 2006 in Rhode Island, 82% of children living in poverty were living in single-parent families. Children in single-parent families in Rhode Island were almost nine times more likely to be living in poverty than those in married-couple families. In 2006, 35% of children in single-parent households lived in poverty, compared to 4% of children in married-couple households"

We've established that:

Poorer families are more likely to be single-parent- In 2006 in Rhode Island, 82% of children living in poverty were living in single-parent families

 

[meltdown75]

"bleeding heart" and "emotional" are the only things more overused on the internet than the Nazi thing.

people have feelings. deal with it.

 

[Capt Caveman]

The OP needs to work on his communication skills. It's terrible.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: cubeless


i question who b the fool... that's nazi think on your part, methinks... we best start gassin' them poor folk...

FYI: it makes one sound like a high school kid when they bring up Nazi's every time they hear something that's not politically correct. It seems to be the extreme that they can't help but to bring up.

It is now ineffective as an argument tool since it's so incredibly overused.

Originally posted by: cubeless

i grew up 'poor'... my mom worked like a mule for low wages to raise 4 kids... i ain't poor now, and neither is she... you can overcome circumstances if you don't blame others for them and bust your ass... too bad it's a lot easier to be a lazy dumbass than a hard working dumbass...

If your family worked hard for what you had then I wouldn't group you in with the subject of this post. I'm referring to the drags on society which are people who are poor, require government subsidies to live, and do nothing to improve their situation.

shit, sorry, misunderstood the intent... gas them fuckers...

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: sandorski
The OP is fail, lacks Intelligence, is clearly Inferior, and must be Poor. He'll likely deny all these points, but only because the Inferior Poor like to Lie about these things.

Another emotional ad hominem attack. Please attack the argument, not the person.

He's paranoid too. Classic Inferior Poor response.

I see that you've given up addressing my argument and are instead going after me. That's not a smart or mature thing to do.

Attack my ideas all you want, but please keep it in the scope of the debate.

Delusional. Classic.

 

[cubeless]

Originally posted by: HardcoreRobot
reproductive freedom is a fundamental human right
obligatory financial support to people that make poor decisions is unjust

problem fixes itself if the second part is corrected

ain't heard about that china place, have ya... "fundamental human rights" are a political abstraction granted by whomever is in power...

 

[irishScott]

As I stated earlier, poor people die more often than rich people. It evens out. :evil:

Seriously though, they do. Just read the news about the latest shooting/murder, and investigate the socio-economic class of the victim. Chances are they're lower middle class if not lower.