3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 yeah, "squandering" $1.25 per day is going to be a real problem. hell, some might even "squander" 10x's that. the shame.... Could it be possible that your problem here is reading comprehension? Read over what KD said and tell us what that has to do with $1.25 per day. Hint---it's like the old saying comparing giving someone a fish vs. teaching them how to fish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
meazza Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 yeah, "squandering" $1.25 per day is going to be a real problem. hell, some might even "squander" 10x's that. the shame.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 yeah, "squandering" $1.25 per day is going to be a real problem. hell, some might even "squander" 10x's that. the shame.... So wait....they'll still have $1.25 per day after your great wealth redistribution?? Perhaps you can clarify exactly what the $1.25/day crowd is going to get out of their check drawn against the evil rich people and how that will fundamentally change their lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 So wait....they'll still have $1.25 per day after your great wealth redistribution?? Perhaps you can clarify exactly what the $1.25/day crowd is going to get out of their check drawn against the evil rich people and how that will fundamentally change their lives. didn't you first link to the economist article? did you read it closely? "but poverty's scourge is fiercest below $1.25...people below that level live lives that are poor, nasty, brutish and short. they lack not just education, healthcare, proper clothes and shelter...but even enough food for physical and mental health". so $1.25 seems pretty pi$$ poor and truly is but its better than less and appears to be what is achievable in the short term, PROVIDED that wealth inequality gets no worse, among other necessary conditions. the more closely i read this piece, the more i like it. it says capitalism can grow the world out of this problem (albeit with the meager goals specified) but only if things become more equal. besides that, the prose is almost poetry. gotta love the brits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 didn't you first link to the economist article? did you read it closely? "but poverty's scourge is fiercest below $1.25...people below that level live lives that are poor, nasty, brutish and short. they lack not just education, healthcare, proper clothes and shelter...but even enough food for physical and mental health". so $1.25 seems pretty pi$$ poor and truly is but its better than less and appears to be what is achievable in the short term, PROVIDED that wealth inequality gets no worse, among other necessary conditions. the more closely i read this piece, the more i like it. it says capitalism can grow the world out of this problem (albeit with the meager goals specified) but only if things become more equal. besides that, the prose is almost poetry. gotta love the brits. How are you personally making sure that you are equal to everyone else in terms of wealth? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted June 7, 2013 Author Share Posted June 7, 2013 How are you personally making sure that you are equal to everyone else in terms of wealth? i feel i do my share but you still don't get it. i'm not proposing that everyone is entitled to the same level of wealth. in fact, i refused to say this despite repeated prodding to do so. but the current concentration seems excessive and is steadily worsening (maybe, if i typed this in some other language...?). i contend that is part of the problem and will hinder the solution (and it appears from the linked article that i'm not alone). in addition, i feel it's of high relative importance to support candidates and figures that champion these issues (and whose programs will likey be disadvantageous to me personally) since individuals won't solve these problems. it will need to be done collectively. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 i feel i do my share but you still don't get it. i'm not proposing that everyone is entitled to the same level of wealth. in fact, i refused to say this despite repeated prodding to do so. but the current concentration seems excessive and is steadily worsening (maybe, if i typed this in some other language...?). i contend that is part of the problem and will hinder the solution (and it appears from the linked article that i'm not alone). in addition, i feel it's of high relative importance to support candidates and figures that champion these issues (and whose programs will likey be disadvantageous to me personally) since individuals won't solve these problems. it will need to be done collectively. I read that we cut the poverty level in half. How is the current concentration, or steadily "worsening" concentration" that you say is excessive, adding to the problem? It would almost appear that there is a correlation between concentration of wealth and cuttting poverty. When are you going to admit that this about your ideology over everything else? Earlier in this thread I asked you a simple question; would you be willing to have this great disparity in wealth if the people on the bottom of the scale made the equivalent of 100k a year? You refused to answer, stating it was a hypothetical question, and since the premise was not possible, a waste of time. So, it would appear to me it's not the poverty that gets to you, it's the wealth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 (edited) i feel i do my share but you still don't get it. i'm not proposing that everyone is entitled to the same level of wealth. in fact, i refused to say this despite repeated prodding to do so. but the current concentration seems excessive and is steadily worsening (maybe, if i typed this in some other language...?). i contend that is part of the problem and will hinder the solution (and it appears from the linked article that i'm not alone). in addition, i feel it's of high relative importance to support candidates and figures that champion these issues (and whose programs will likey be disadvantageous to me personally) since individuals won't solve these problems. it will need to be done collectively. And as an alleged practitioner of medicine I'm still shocked at your inability to distinguish between the symptom and the disease. Or in this case, diseases. Edited June 7, 2013 by Jauronimo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 i feel i do my share but you still don't get it. i'm not proposing that everyone is entitled to the same level of wealth. in fact, i refused to say this despite repeated prodding to do so. but the current concentration seems excessive and is steadily worsening (maybe, if i typed this in some other language...?). i contend that is part of the problem and will hinder the solution (and it appears from the linked article that i'm not alone). in addition, i feel it's of high relative importance to support candidates and figures that champion these issues (and whose programs will likey be disadvantageous to me personally) since individuals won't solve these problems. it will need to be done collectively. So....given your huge concern over the $1.25/day crowd, you support candidates who propose drastically increasing the amount of money we give away to 3d world countries. Two follow up questions: 1)Which candidates are those, and 2)How does that impact the US's ability to continue generating wealth. Next, since you obviously support the standard tax-and-spend liberal drones, can you explain how the lives of the $1.25/day folks in the 3d world are going to be helped by putting Americans who earn $100/day onto food stamps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 how is poverty or hunger a 'failing' of our 'system'? don't we have public education paid for by our society? is it a failing of the 'system' that some people quit school or flunk out, resulting in those people's inability to qualify for employment above the pay grade of janitor or fry cook? how is it a failing of our 'system' that more and more children are born into one-parent homes? we already support those who have children and have had to struggle to get by as single parents. how is it that a measure of our compassion as a spciety is in how much we continue take from achievers to support an increasing number of un or underemployed? why is it so hard to see that as we move further and further from the principle of self-reliance we have more and more dependent on government assistance and inequity in incomes? and for me, the biggest question is why in hell would anyone turn to the government for even MORE control over our lives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 how is poverty or hunger a 'failing' of our 'system'? Simple. The left's goal is not for "equal" opportunity, but for "equal" outcomes. Thus...................as well as helping the unfortunate, they must "bring down" the successful. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 the biggest question is why in hell would anyone turn to the government for even MORE control over our lives? Takers take. Oddly enough, the takers don't understand why you don't want more government since everything it gives out is, y'know, free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 i feel i do my share but you still don't get it. i'm not proposing that everyone is entitled to the same level of wealth. in fact, i refused to say this despite repeated prodding to do so. but the current concentration seems excessive and is steadily worsening (maybe, if i typed this in some other language...?). i contend that is part of the problem and will hinder the solution (and it appears from the linked article that i'm not alone). in addition, i feel it's of high relative importance to support candidates and figures that champion these issues (and whose programs will likey be disadvantageous to me personally) since individuals won't solve these problems. it will need to be done collectively. Every post you make in this thread successively becomes the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 i feel i do my share Modern liberalism defined right here folks. "I'm doing MY part, but anyone making more than me isn't doing enough." Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 one of my points was meant to address...although I admit somewhat obliquely...is the use of the word 'system' in this thread. a failure of the system.....what system is that, exactly? our system of government? we are supposedly governed by ourselves, and represented by those that we elect to ensure that our interests as individual citizens are not compromised. it is the responsibility of a citizen living in a free state to pull their own weight and not be dependent on the rest of society for things like housing, food, medicine and access to medical care, etc. sure, the united states is an extremely wealthy country, and there is no reason any child should go hungry for lack of food, or any single mother should be denied help when she's been ditched by an irresponsible man. there's no reason why people with physical or mental deficiencies can't be cared for, or that our elderly should live out the last years of their lives without proper care. to provide assistance for our disadvantaged, maintain basic domestic regulation and policy, and have adequate national defense, we only need a fraction of what washington sucks out of the economy in the way of taxation every year. for anyone to say that the inequities and injustices of life in america are due to wealthy people hording cash is retarded.....I'm amazed at how many otherwise intelligent people buy into this concept.....that these people are poor because those other people are rich. then they blame it on a combination of greed and an inefficient, ineffective 'system' that is manipulated by those in power to keep everyone else poor. there's just so much wrong with that line of reasoning that I'm astounded that any educated people actually buy into it. like I mentioned above, the united states is an extremely wealthy country, and it wasn't washington that made us that way.....it was americans going out and doing what they both needed and wanted to do that did it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 Modern liberalism defined right here folks. "I'm doing MY part, but anyone making more than me isn't doing enough." Unbelievable. It's not so much about the poor bastards in Somalia as it is about the rich bastards in Bel Air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 It's not so much about the poor bastards in Somalia as it is about the rich bastards in Bel Air. you mean the Bel Arabs? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 7, 2013 Share Posted June 7, 2013 you mean the Bel Arabs? Not specifically the Bel Arabs obviously, but he wants the havenots to have a good share of the wealthy people's goodies, not because they should have them or really may not need them, but because the wealthy people don't deserve as much as they have. My guess is that he draws the "wealthy line" at just a little more than what he makes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 one of my points was meant to address...although I admit somewhat obliquely...is the use of the word 'system' in this thread. a failure of the system.....what system is that, exactly? our system of government? we are supposedly governed by ourselves, and represented by those that we elect to ensure that our interests as individual citizens are not compromised. it is the responsibility of a citizen living in a free state to pull their own weight and not be dependent on the rest of society for things like housing, food, medicine and access to medical care, etc. sure, the united states is an extremely wealthy country, and there is no reason any child should go hungry for lack of food, or any single mother should be denied help when she's been ditched by an irresponsible man. there's no reason why people with physical or mental deficiencies can't be cared for, or that our elderly should live out the last years of their lives without proper care. to provide assistance for our disadvantaged, maintain basic domestic regulation and policy, and have adequate national defense, we only need a fraction of what washington sucks out of the economy in the way of taxation every year. for anyone to say that the inequities and injustices of life in america are due to wealthy people hording cash is retarded.....I'm amazed at how many otherwise intelligent people buy into this concept.....that these people are poor because those other people are rich. then they blame it on a combination of greed and an inefficient, ineffective 'system' that is manipulated by those in power to keep everyone else poor. there's just so much wrong with that line of reasoning that I'm astounded that any educated people actually buy into it. like I mentioned above, the united states is an extremely wealthy country, and it wasn't washington that made us that way.....it was americans going out and doing what they both needed and wanted to do that did it. No, it wasn't. Somebody else made that happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted June 8, 2013 Share Posted June 8, 2013 Oh this is so simple. Cap US income at $10,000, send rest to the angels running Africa. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7Tns9QKFV8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts