By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - OMG... the Economist endorses Obama.

akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.



Around the Network
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

People who refuse to work.

People who abuse assistance programs.

People who ask for assistance for too long.

Sexual Predators.

People who ever said anything against putting those programs into place, they just get a copy of Atlus Shrugged. (Just kidding, you get an "I told you so" then the same help as everyone else.

People who don't work but have significant money in investments.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

The world is black and white people. You're either against the poor or you are for them, you're with RealMafoo or you're against him.

Please frame your arguments to his world view or he'll have trouble comprehending them. Remember, there are evil doers and good doers, Americans and foreigners, christians and muslims, liberals and conservatives. No in betweens please.

 

 



Paul said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

The world is black and white people. You're either against the poor or you are for them, you're with RealMafoo or you're against him.

Please frame your arguments to his world view or he'll have trouble comprehending them. Remember, there are evil doers and good doers, Americans and foreigners, christians and muslims, liberals and conservatives. No in betweens please.

 

 

We can only hope that there can be more deciders with such a depth of undrstanding.

 



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

People who refuse to work.

People who abuse assistance programs.

People who ask for assistance for too long.

Sexual Predators.

People who ever said anything against putting those programs into place, they just get a copy of Atlus Shrugged. (Just kidding, you get an "I told you so" then the same help as everyone else.

People who don't work but have significant money in investments.

This is a pretty good list. 

I'll go ahead and comment that typically women need/deserve more assistance because if they have kids and don't have a husband their lives can be extremely difficult, and their kids can suffer because of it.  Women are typically paid less than men too.  And yes, someone should stop having kids because they can't afford it, I agree.  But that doesn't make it fair to the kids to let them suffer for their parent's mistake. 

And believe me, the poorer people are, the more likely they are to become criminals.  Poverty and crime go hand and hand.  And nobody wins in society, rich or poor, the more criminals there are.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

Around the Network
akuma587 said:
steven787 said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

People who refuse to work.

People who abuse assistance programs.

People who ask for assistance for too long.

Sexual Predators.

People who ever said anything against putting those programs into place, they just get a copy of Atlus Shrugged. (Just kidding, you get an "I told you so" then the same help as everyone else.

People who don't work but have significant money in investments.

This is a pretty good list. 

I'll go ahead and comment that typically women need/deserve more assistance because if they have kids and don't have a husband their lives can be extremely difficult, and their kids can suffer because of it.  Women are typically paid less than men too.  And yes, someone should stop having kids because they can't afford it, I agree.  But that doesn't make it fair to the kids to let them suffer for their parent's mistake. 

And believe me, the poorer people are, the more likely they are to become criminals.  Poverty and crime go hand and hand.  And nobody wins in society, rich or poor, the more criminals there are.

 


That was just a list of people who shouldn't get assostance. 

Single people with kids getting more is a different story.  The wage disparity is real, but it's narrowed a lot.  My research in my first business class was about that, I tried so hard to find evidence of discrimination on a large scale.  What I ended up finding was a natural/voluntary disparity. America's largest employers as well as professional companies (law, accounting, medical firms) are very careful with base pay.  Base wage (time at job salary) is pretty close to 47/53 in non-contruction (I forgot the exact number, but I could dig it up if you want me to); of course it still has way to go (That number means are woman still only making 94 cents on the dollar in hourly/salaried wages).

Days missed from work for maternity or child ilness shouldn't affect whether or not you keep a job, but why should bonuses, commissions, and perfomance raises not affect it i.e.  John works 50 weeks does 500k in sales and Susan who took maternity leave work 40 weeks and did 380k (losing 20k off the ratio, because some her regular clients were moved to other agents).  John gets his bonus on 500k, Susan on 380k.  Should the company be forced to pay the difference?  Should they not pay the agents who picked up her clients while she was gone?  It's a difficult question, and nobody is really right or wrong; you have to make a value judgement.

If you mean income disparity among different positions it can get even more difficult to answer those questions (the modern day rendition of the glass ceiling).  Why should a company be forced to promote the single parent who needs off at x time when a person with out kids or a two-parent worker can work whenever?  Again, who should pay the tab?

I won't go into the more contraversial debates on risk taking or agressiveness because I don't have any empirical evidence handy (nor do I really buy into it), except an antecdote.  I got promoted mostly because I asked (my female boss).  Every raise I've gotten since I stopped working for big companies, I had to ask for.  My mother, single mother when I was a kid, didn't want to "stir the pot" if you will, so she barely got any raises in the 10 years she worked at her job while I was a teen.  Also, she would never think of quitting to find another job.  It's not because she was a woman, it was because she was a scared single parent.  No one is going to fire you for asking for a raise; and if they did, even in backwards Florida, you'd be eligible for unemployment.  Should the government really legislate for people with irrational fear?

Still even on the base question, how do you enforce it?

Life sucks sometimes but there are solutions.

Daycare for single parents, not necessarily free but better monitored and 24 hours - safe licensed daycare is expensive as hell.  Talking openly about the real reasons about the disparity might wake some people up, instead of the usual polarized discussion everyone in America loves to have on every issue. Better enforcement of child support.  Government assistance when one parent is dead.  These would help disparity by allowing women to work equally.

Now, before Mafoo says that this isn't society's problem, it is.  We as a society have made it okay for couples to have sex out of wedlock.  Society encourages children get out on their own as young as possible, breaking down the family to the nuclear family; this was done through government policy with lending and homeownership legislation back in the early 1900's. Easy credit was the pro business thing to do in 20061926. 

Lastly, we as a society need kids to turn out okay.  Whether or not the parents are right or wrong, it's not the child's fault.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.

steven787 said:

 

Lastly, we as a society need kids to turn out okay.  Whether or not the parents are right or wrong, it's not the child's fault.

This is really the key.  I agree that daycare shouldn't necessarily be free, but there should be some kind of cheap alternative available.  We are one of the only top industrialized nations that doesn't offer it.

 



We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, a whole galaxy of multi-colored uppers, downers, screamers, laughers…Also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of beer, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.  The only thing that really worried me was the ether.  There is nothing in the world more helpless and irresponsible and depraved than a man in the depths of an ether binge. –Raoul Duke

It is hard to shed anything but crocodile tears over White House speechwriter Patrick Buchanan's tragic analysis of the Nixon debacle. "It's like Sisyphus," he said. "We rolled the rock all the way up the mountain...and it rolled right back down on us...."  Neither Sisyphus nor the commander of the Light Brigade nor Pat Buchanan had the time or any real inclination to question what they were doing...a martyr, to the bitter end, to a "flawed" cause and a narrow, atavistic concept of conservative politics that has done more damage to itself and the country in less than six years than its liberal enemies could have done in two or three decades. -Hunter S. Thompson

TheRealMafoo said:
steven787 said:
TheRealMafoo said:

It's not about the money, it's about there liberties. Basically, you feel they don't need all that money, so it's OK to take it from them.

That should be illegal in this country.

Taxing the rich more to pay a larger percentage of the bills is ok, taxing then just because people think the poor should get some of it, isn't.

See that bolded part.  Ok...

Responding to your post:  Graduated taxes are not there because they can pay more.  Graduated taxes are there because wealthy people gain more from a stable government.  If you're poor, you'll be poor no matter what (even if the gov't pays for your healthcare or cuts a welfare check).  If you're rich then you have more to gain by keeping the gov't afloat and the masses pacified.

I really do not see what is so complicated.

 

Why do we care so much about the poor again?

We live in a country where anyone can go to school, get a job, and be successful. Some people took that road (and trust me, it's a lot harder then not), and we don't seem to give a shit about them. Others decided College was just to much work (and don't go with the "cant afford it" bullshit. In some states you can live off of grant money from going to school).

Why again are we so worried about how those that don't take care of themselves live, and so little about the ones that did all the right things in there lives?

I want someone on this site who is poor and lives in the US, to explain to me why they had no other option to improve there income.

I get tired of worrying about those that did not worry about themselves. You want more money, go fucking earn it like the rest of us.

For all your talk about the "real" world, you really are completely clueless.

 



Paul said:
TheRealMafoo said:
akuma587 said:
@ Paul: not to mention he acts like we are advocating giving a handout to every poor person in sight, which I don't think any of us are.

 

What poor people do you think don't deserve it? Please enlighten me.

 

The world is black and white people. You're either against the poor or you are for them, you're with RealMafoo or you're against him.

Please frame your arguments to his world view or he'll have trouble comprehending them. Remember, there are evil doers and good doers, Americans and foreigners, christians and muslims, liberals and conservatives. No in betweens please.

 

I am an atheist, and a Libertarian, but thanks for playing.

Look, no one is convincing anyone of anything in these forums, we just bitch at each other. Tell ya what, you keep thinking the world should be the way you think, and I will keep thinking the world should be the way I think.

I live in a world where I think it owes me nothing, and if I want anything, I have to go get it. It's worked out well for me so far, so I think I will continue to live by that philosophy.



LOL... Atheist and Religious then.

He was talking about your inability to comprehend complex ideas unless presented in terms of polar opposites. His mention of Christians v. Muslims wasn't guessing your religion, it was just an example of one of the common logical fallacies.



I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.