Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I worked since I was 15 years old with no breaks for babies or college until I retired. I worked after high school and I worked full time while completing my degree and I paid for it myself by going to schools I could afford. I'm sick of these sorry-ass people who didn't complete high school, keep popping out babies out of wedlock, do drugs and booze and college graduates who majored in things like gender studies/peace studies or art appreciation, and who turn their noses up at jobs because they think they are too good for them, whining all the time. You know what? You made stupid choices now you deal with it. Get off your butts and go do the jobs "Americans won't do."
Ok then-- so what is your suggestion for the gentleman who can't get paid more at his current job and there is no upward mobility there?
My suggestion was to look for another job... What is yours?
(... I'm pretty sure my solution is the only solution in this case...)
Your suggestion to look for another job wasn't a solution. The poster told you that the payscale where he lives is just above minimum wage. If he looks for another job, he's only going to find one that pays at the SAME level. There are areas in this country that are like that. Since you are suggesting that he seek another job, a better-paying job, you are suggesting that he move from where he currently lives. And your suggestion ignores the reality of his situation. It takes money to move. He doesn't have any money. He doesn't have money to move to a higher-paying area, where living costs are going to be higher than he's used to, and pay first and last month's rent, he doesn't have money to rent a moving van and drive it across the country. Poor means you don't have these things.
The people protesting on Wall Street aren't asking for someone else's stuff, they aren't asking for handouts. They are pointing out that people who have, have good jobs, have money in the bank, have six-figure incomes, have resources, often seem unable to cognitively understand what it means to have none of those things. And their failure to understand the struggles of not just the impoverished, not just the unemployed, but of people in the middle class who are struggling, is part of a cultural disconnect. There is a banking and finance culture that sees the world and economy one way, and there is a middle class and lower culture that sees the world and economy in a different way. The problem is that the banking and finance culture have a profound effect on the world and economy of the middle class and lower, but the middle-class and lower culture has no impact on the banking and finance economy. And that's a problem because it insulates the banking and finance culture from reality, from the responsibility they have to be frugal and careful about risks. They risk other people's money, not their own. And they are not held accountable when those risks don't pan out.
The protesters aren't trying to be divisive, they are arguing for a cohesive perspective on the economy. But the people who are arguing that, "We are the 53%" are trying to be divisive. Because if you can put down the 47%, if you can demean them and marginalize them, it means you, one of the 53%, is a better person than the 47%. I'm saying that's wrong. There but for the grace of God, or the lucky break, or simply not having any bad luck, go any one of the 53%. Those 47% are not shiftless, or lazy, or irresponsible. Maybe some of them are. But some of the 53% are shiftless, lazy, or irresponsible as well. We need to work together, and we need to appreciate one another and the contributions everyone makes to the economy. Divisiveness is the enemy of a thriving economy. Divided we fall, remember? It's something that is inevitably true about human endeavor. Divided we fall. So 53% or whatever %. What we need is to find solutions to what troubles our economy, not to point fingers.
I've never heard anyone say they are all free-loaders.
Where did you hear that?
Read Post #1 again. And tell me that the entire point of "We are the 53%" isn't an assertion that 53% of the population are better than 47%, by virtue of being responsible and contributing members of society, which implies that the 47% are irresponsible, non-contributing whiners (aka, free-loaders).
Your suggestion to look for another job wasn't a solution. The poster told you that the payscale where he lives is just above minimum wage. If he looks for another job, he's only going to find one that pays at the SAME level. There are areas in this country that are like that. Since you are suggesting that he seek another job, a better-paying job, you are suggesting that he move from where he currently lives. And your suggestion ignores the reality of his situation. It takes money to move. He doesn't have any money. He doesn't have money to move to a higher-paying area, where living costs are going to be higher than he's used to, and pay first and last month's rent, he doesn't have money to rent a moving van and drive it across the country. Poor means you don't have these things.
The people protesting on Wall Street aren't asking for someone else's stuff, they aren't asking for handouts. They are pointing out that people who have, have good jobs, have money in the bank, have six-figure incomes, have resources, often seem unable to cognitively understand what it means to have none of those things. And their failure to understand the struggles of not just the impoverished, not just the unemployed, but of people in the middle class who are struggling, is part of a cultural disconnect. There is a banking and finance culture that sees the world and economy one way, and there is a middle class and lower culture that sees the world and economy in a different way. The problem is that the banking and finance culture have a profound effect on the world and economy of the middle class and lower, but the middle-class and lower culture has no impact on the banking and finance economy. And that's a problem because it insulates the banking and finance culture from reality, from the responsibility they have to be frugal and careful about risks. They risk other people's money, not their own. And they are not held accountable when those risks don't pan out.
The protesters aren't trying to be divisive, they are arguing for a cohesive perspective on the economy. But the people who are arguing that, "We are the 53%" are trying to be divisive. Because if you can put down the 47%, if you can demean them and marginalize them, it means you, one of the 53%, is a better person than the 47%. I'm saying that's wrong. There but for the grace of God, or the lucky break, or simply not having any bad luck, go any one of the 53%. Those 47% are not shiftless, or lazy, or irresponsible. Maybe some of them are. But some of the 53% are shiftless, lazy, or irresponsible as well. We need to work together, and we need to appreciate one another and the contributions everyone makes to the economy. Divisiveness is the enemy of a thriving economy. Divided we fall, remember? It's something that is inevitably true about human endeavor. Divided we fall. So 53% or whatever %. What we need is to find solutions to what troubles our economy, not to point fingers.
You just made that entire message up for the OWS'ers. I've heard them try to string sentences together and none of what you wrote is in any of what any of them have said.
Read Post #1 again. And tell me that the entire point of "We are the 53%" isn't an assertion that 53% of the population are better than 47%, by virtue of being responsible and contributing members of society, which implies that the 47% are irresponsible, non-contributing whiners (aka, free-loaders).
They have representation without taxation... I could be wrong but isn't that sort of Alfred Hitchcocking the Boston Tea Party (the O.G.).
They have representation without taxation... I could be wrong but isn't that sort of Alfred Hitchcocking the Boston Tea Party (the O.G.).
Since they pay numerous taxes, including federal income tax, the answer would be no. That their deductions, allowed by the government, equal or exceed their federal tax liability, does not void that they had tax liability to begin with, and paid taxes on the state and local levels.
This is complete BS. It is a lame attempt to divide the working people perpetrated by the 1%.
I have not seen the wealthy bastards flood the internet with so much propaganda since 2008.
They must really be sweating.
The system of wage slavery is being rejected. Working people are tired of living on the edge and watching the fruit of their labor go to fat assed suits.
When the lifestyle of unemployment, is the same as working, people will take the free money.
The 1% have screwed the pooch, and now they are going to pay the price.
Stay focused people; do not let the propaganda distract you from what is real. The working people deserve an economy where it is possible to get ahead. That has been robbed from them and only the willingness to fight will earn it back.
What color is the sky in your world?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
