The middle class has a moral obligation to help its poorest citizens

[Jaskalas]

How about big pharma gives up its benefit of not having to negotiate pricing with the government before seniors give up their health care?
Other develop countries cover everyone for less than what our government spends on seniors, the poor, and the disabled alone.

Congress should assign a committee to resolve the matter of whether there are better, adoptable, economic policies out there. If a policy is deemed successful then it should be studied, and copied where applicable.

 

[ivwshane]

Again, back it up with facts. Unless you think his "fuck the vast majority of the poor", was just venting and he was in no way implying that the vast majority of the poor are what he described, then he should be able to prove his claims.

Gut feelings and baseless opinions don't really mean much to me.

What is so unbelievable about his statement?

He said some get dealt a shitty hand: True, some are born in bad conditions, single moms, dads in prison, drug addicted parents, parents who died in their younger years. You think these don't happen?

He said some overcome and become something, My parents were both drug addicts and made no money, I bettered myself I'm nothing special millions have done that. On to next not stretched fact.

Many of them collect benefits now and don't come off cause they are being fed as it is, again this is true and happens all the time. The slang for POW in the ghetto isn't the same as you suburban white boys know it, it means Pussy on Welfare and they have a name like that cause it's all too common. I know I've lived next to many of them in my lifetime.

So again where is he so far fetched he needs help? Cause he says many of them don't help themselves? well they DON'T! You hear these sob stories about how they struggle but then you look at their life choices and they spend their money on JUNK. Happens every day.

 

[boomerang]

Most people who bash the poor honestly don't want them to do better - they want them poor so said poor can turn to crime and get busted/punished.

It's no different than these claims of freedom of speech against Islam - no one is really practicing freedom of speech; they just want to piss off Muslims, get them riled up and then say; "See, they are violent!!!shift+1!!!"

I think it's a mistake to project your thought processes on the rest of us.

 

[glenn1]

That's because it's all about him, about exploiting the system strictly for his own benefit. Having found a way to do that, criticism of that system makes him feel insecure, threatened.

He has to establish some sort of moral superiority to feel comfortable with that & avoid cognitive dissonance. In his own head, he can't maintain self esteem & justify doing better than most if he isn't really better than most.

Actually no. If it really was a moral obligation, then the people saying so would already be doing it instead of standing around doing nothing claiming it was a "collective action problem." Waiting for some rich person to do the job for you is akin to telling the woman in the act of being raped that's a collective action problem and you need to wait for someone stronger to be forced to help first before you will help her.

 

[TheSlamma]

Again, back it up with facts. Unless you think his "fuck the vast majority of the poor", was just venting and he was in no way implying that the vast majority of the poor are what he described, then he should be able to prove his claims.

Gut feelings and baseless opinions don't really mean much to me.

You are already converting facts into "opinions" so it's a fruitless argument.

The one that needs help here is actually you.

You are in flat out denial of some very common occurrences that happen in life every day.

 

[ivwshane]

Lol! So when I ask for facts to back up someone's opinion and I've stated no opinions of my own, I'm the one that needs help and I'm the one in denial?

That's a new one!

You are already converting facts into "opinions" so it's a fruitless argument.

The one that needs help here is actually you.

You are in flat out denial of some very common occurrences that happen in life every day.

 

[TheSlamma]

Lol! So when I ask for facts to back up someone's opinion and I've stated no opinions of my own, I'm the one that needs help and I'm the one in denial?

That's a new one!

Let's take this one at a time since that is the limit you can handle.

Are some people born poor and do they figure out a way to still be successful? (Howard Schultz, Oprah, Harold Simmons)

 

[Exterous]

Stupid middle class!

Along with their 36% drop in wealth they should have been investing with all that extra money they had laying around! It's not like their income wasn't raising at the same rate as the wealthy!

The phrase, "it takes money to make money" comes to mind.

Well first - they had before wages were being depressed to diversify (Most of that loss of wealth came in 2006 and later)

Even then I am not aware of anyone forcing them to invest that much of their money into a house 2x as large as a 1950s house yet have a smaller family. A small case can be made regarding the lack of options but the impetus to build large houses had to come from somewhere and it came from Little Jimmy just having to have his own bedroom.

Then we could look at the $300-600 a year spent on lotto tickets, the $2k spent eating out, the $350 on alcohol, the $350 on tobacco, $1200 on home furnishings (separate from supplies and operations). You could get $2500 a year out of those easily (Or a quarter of a mil in stocks after 30 years) and thats not even discussing grocery shopping habits, car buying habits cell phones etc etc

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf

 

[Jhhnn]

Lol! Did you seriously just link to anecdotal evidence as your proof for his claim?

Of course he did. All Righties harbor the illusion that just because a few people beat the system to become rich then obviously anybody & everybody can do the same. It's the infinite pie/ open frontier/ unlimited opportunity theory of economics.

Why, the only reason they're not already rich is because of the ebil gubmint taxing them to death & the Poors pulling them down. The only reason that the rest of us aren't rich just because we're too lazy to get that way.

Or, the self righteous stick up their ass is so long that it tickles their lizard brain in strange ways.

 

[ivwshane]

Let's take this one at a time since that is the limit you can handle.

Are some people born poor and do they figure out a way to still be successful? (Howard Schultz, Oprah, Harold Simmons)

You aren't too smart are you? How about you go back and read the post I was responding to , not the made up post you'd like me to respond to. I tried to explain this to you once already but your dumbass either purposely ignored it or you are too stupid to understand the question and it's context.

Let me break it down for you anyways because I like helping idiots. I'm not disputing that some people fall into his characterization of poor people, I'm disputing his claim that it's a majority of people.

Do you get it now or are you one of those idiots that don't understand things unless pictures are involved.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Of course he did. All Righties harbor the illusion that just because a few people beat the system to become rich then obviously anybody & everybody can do the same. It's the infinite pie/ open frontier/ unlimited opportunity theory of economics.

Why, the only reason they're not already rich is because of the ebil gubmint taxing them to death & the Poors pulling them down. The only reason that the rest of us aren't rich just because we're too lazy to get that way.

Or, the self righteous stick up their ass is so long that it tickles their lizard brain in strange ways.

It's worse than that...

Implicit in there argument is that if we all just tried we could be a billionaire, but we can't all be billionaires. There a a great many jobs that need to be done for the benefit of everyone -- jobs like nurses, firemen, soldiers, etc. These jobs need to be done and they don't pay billions. The idea that no one should do middle class jobs and should instead be hedge fund managers etc is utter nonsense.

Without people doing these middle class jobs the wealthy would be in a world of hurt for they would have no one to are for them if they got injured. And, more to the economic point, they would not have the trickle UP that is in fact the source of there wealth!


Brian

 

[blankslate]

You don't need a moral reason. Excessive economic inequality harms the society in which it exists... there are more instances of murder, incarceration, suicide, mental illness, unplanned pregnancies, health problems such as obesity and drug abuse; the more unequal a society is. There is an increased cost to tax payers because of some of those situations.

Some inequality is inevitable but the societies that enact policies to keep that from growing to the levels in the U.S. do better by the previous mentioned benchmarks than the U.S. does.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en


...

 

[ivwshane]

You don't need a moral reason. Excessive economic inequality harms the society in which it exists... there are more instances of murder, incarceration, suicide, mental illness, unplanned pregnancies, health problems such as obesity and drug abuse; the more unequal a society is. There is an increased cost to tax payers because of some of those situations.

Some inequality is inevitable but the societies that enact policies to keep that from growing to the levels in the U.S. do better by the previous mentioned benchmarks than the U.S. does.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en


...

/thread

 

[Jhhnn]

Well first - they had before wages were being depressed to diversify (Most of that loss of wealth came in 2006 and later)

Even then I am not aware of anyone forcing them to invest that much of their money into a house 2x as large as a 1950s house yet have a smaller family. A small case can be made regarding the lack of options but the impetus to build large houses had to come from somewhere and it came from Little Jimmy just having to have his own bedroom.

Then we could look at the $300-600 a year spent on lotto tickets, the $2k spent eating out, the $350 on alcohol, the $350 on tobacco, $1200 on home furnishings (separate from supplies and operations). You could get $2500 a year out of those easily (Or a quarter of a mil in stocks after 30 years) and thats not even discussing grocery shopping habits, car buying habits cell phones etc etc

http://www.bls.gov/cex/csxann13.pdf

Please. What you're saying is that a person might get rich by doing without all the things they want to be rich to have, right?

The rest is just twisted protestant work ethic judgmentalism as beggar thy neighbor, highly ingrained by decades of propaganda.

 

[who?]

When the retirement age was set at 65 most people didn't live that long.

 

[glenn1]

You don't need a moral reason. Excessive economic inequality harms the society in which it exists... there are more instances of murder, incarceration, suicide, mental illness, unplanned pregnancies, health problems such as obesity and drug abuse; the more unequal a society is. There is an increased cost to tax payers because of some of those situations.

Some inequality is inevitable but the societies that enact policies to keep that from growing to the levels in the U.S. do better by the previous mentioned benchmarks than the U.S. does.

http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson?language=en


...

List of the most "equal" countries by GINI include the following:

5. Ukraine
6. Belarus
8. Afghanistan
12. Albania
13. Kazakhstan
14. Iraq
15. Ethiopia
17. Pakistan
18. Romania

That would lead a self-critical person to conclude either inequality isn't the great driver you think it is, or that you're making shit up to justify your wishful thinking about why it's "bad" that the evil rich have more than they "need."

 

[Brian Stirling]

List of the most "equal" countries by GINI include the following:

5. Ukraine
6. Belarus
8. Afghanistan
12. Albania
13. Kazakhstan
14. Iraq
15. Ethiopia
17. Pakistan
18. Romania

That would lead a self-critical person to conclude either inequality isn't the great driver you think it is, or that you're making shit up to justify your wishful thinking about why it's "bad" that the evil rich have more than they "need."

OK, so these mostly former soviet republics are still poor and have a much lower income spread and this proves that having ridiculously high inequality is ... good?

You're a fucking tool!


Brian

 

[xaeniac]

The whole system is broken!

 

[OverVolt]

Lol! Did you seriously just link to anecdotal evidence as your proof for his claim?

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/11-ragstoriches-underdog-success-stories--xJJY99ASlg

I know playing the victim is your default stance in almost all situations so a couple of key points from that article are lost on you. I'm not anti-assistance. Many people on that list were at one point on assistance themselves.

Ursula Burns, the chairman and CEO of Xerox, was raised by her mother in a New York social housing project. Now she is the first African-American woman to head a Fortune 500 company and Forbes recently labelled her the 22nd most powerful woman in the world.

And

According to a biography, Shania Twain grew up in poverty and started singing in bars when she was just eight to try to help support her family. She is thought to have earned more than $350million since.

So you just see the article from a different perspective. I've seen enough of different walks of life to be able to discern between someone content to sit in poverty versus those trying to get out of it. There are legitimately people content to just never better themselves so long as they have a soda, bag of chips and an old xbox 360.

Odds are you've never had to actually struggle/fight for what you have, or else you'd be able to recognize the difference between struggle & misfortune versus wasted potential.

 

[Jhhnn]

Actually no. If it really was a moral obligation, then the people saying so would already be doing it instead of standing around doing nothing claiming it was a "collective action problem." Waiting for some rich person to do the job for you is akin to telling the woman in the act of being raped that's a collective action problem and you need to wait for someone stronger to be forced to help first before you will help her.

You seem to think that critics of the current system do not engage in charity themselves, despite having no evidence to back it up.

The issue is one of economic power. The middle class doesn't have enough of that to lift the poor out of their situation w/o impoverishing themselves. It's within the grasp of the uber wealthy, but that won't be realized w/o the govt taking it as taxes first.

If charity were what Righties hold it up to be, there would be no basis for this discussion.

 

[ivwshane]

Whoosh!!! I'd explain my point to you again but you appear to wallow in stupidity.

Your link, btw, in no shape or form supports the original post I responded to, infact it does just the opposite as it not only shows the poor to be hard working but it also shows that assistance works and...wait for it...that being poor is usually a temporary thing.

Fucking moron😉

http://i100.independent.co.uk/article/11-ragstoriches-underdog-success-stories--xJJY99ASlg

I know playing the victim is your default stance in almost all situations so a couple of key points from that article are lost on you. I'm not anti-assistance. Many people on that list were at one point on assistance themselves.



And



So you just see the article from a different perspective. I've seen enough of different walks of life to be able to discern between someone content to sit in poverty versus those trying to get out of it. There are legitimately people content to just never better themselves so long as they have a soda, bag of chips and an old xbox 360.

Odds are you've never had to actually struggle/fight for what you have, or else you'd be able to recognize the difference between struggle & misfortune versus wasted potential.

 

[theeedude]

Congress should assign a committee to resolve the matter of whether there are better, adoptable, economic policies out there. If a policy is deemed successful then it should be studied, and copied where applicable.

This Republican Congress studying what other countries do better? Yeah, that's going to happen 😀

 

[OverVolt]

Whoosh!!! I'd explain my point to you again but you appear to wallow in stupidity.

Your link, btw, in no shape or form supports the original post I responded to, infact it does just the opposite as it not only shows the poor to be hard working but it also shows that assistance works and...wait for it...that being poor is usually a temporary thing.

Fucking moron😉

Wat. The point is that there are people in poverty because they choose not to better themselves. Going by your post history you are the type of person who thinks such people literally do not exist.

 

[TheSlamma]

Wat. The point is that there are people in poverty because they choose not to better themselves. Going by your post history you are the type of person who thinks such people literally do not exist.

Don't invest too much, if you look at his post history there is a loooooooong trend there.

A: Ask people for proof that only he and no one else can deem acceptable which if it doesn't support his side will never pass no matter what.

B: Call everyone stupid/moron/tool/etc

C: put no skin in the game whatsoever, most likely cause he ain't got shit.

 

[ivwshane]

Wat. The point is that there are people in poverty because they choose not to better themselves. Going by your post history you are the type of person who thinks such people literally do not exist.

And there are people who fuck goats. Your point being what exactly? I assume you are a person, does that mean you fuck goats? If I said the vast majority of people fuck goats would you agree or would you want some sort of data to back up that statement?

Don't invest too much, if you look at his post history there is a loooooooong trend there.

A: Ask people for proof that only he and no one else can deem acceptable which if it doesn't support his side will never pass no matter what.

B: Call everyone stupid/moron/tool/etc

C: put no skin in the game whatsoever, most likely cause he ain't got shit.

My post history is mostly dealing with idiots like you and the previous poster who pull shit out of their ass and who bitch out when called out on it. It's the same reasons morons like you try and deflect and never answer the fucking question when asked to back up your claims, because your reality is so distorted that you are impervious to facts and reality. It's why, instead of answering the question you make up some shit about a position I've never stated.

Now put your tail between your legs and run away like the bitch you are because you ain't got shit😉