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.
No, you don't know that I give donations. But I am conservative, and it's proven that conservatives give more than liberals. So there's that.
You're very confused about this whole "selfish" thing. I don't want more. I want to keep what I earn. But the lazy poor want more. They have nothing, but want to take mine. Do you even understand that?
You're also very confused about economics. If everyone improved themselves, there would be more jobs, more opportunity, more spending, more jobs, rinse and repeat. I understand that there are folks that don't have the brain power to get a high paying corporate job. But that's the minority. And killing off brain cells makes sure they don't have the IQ.
And yes, it is an excuse. It's the only thing I respond with because it's the only thing that's the truth.
No I am not confused you continue to prove how selfish you are. Everyone is selfish to some extent. Not wanting to give away is selfish you can twist words to try to prove your point but it does not make it true. Really where are these jobs gonna come from if everyone improves themselves? We already have many college graduates who can not find jobs in their fields sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
It never ceases to amaze me that those whose philosophy requires each person to be of service or value or use to the rest of mankind in order to prosper are castigated as "selfish," while those who advocate that just being an oxygen consumer should entitle a person to a nice life somehow see themselves as morally superior.
A very large fraction of people in the top 20% or top 10% or top 1% income-wise started out at the minimum wage (or even below.) They evidently got the memo: they progressed. The more we shell out for mere existence, or for performing very low-value labor, the poorer we all will be.
So you would be okay if people were dying on the street because they were not worth enough to live? Many of the top percent actually were born in wealthy families who provided a good foundation like Donald Trump. It amazes that people have a view that people who do not a certain skill should just be left to a life a poverty like skills are more important then a persons life. This ideas are most seen when we had slaves and in Third World Countries where people care more about what people can do then who they are as a person.
The Pilgrims tried that when they first came here, and it was such a dismal failure they starved, some to death.
After a while of everyone waiting for someone else to grow some food for everyone else to enjoy, they gave the idea up as the stupidity it is (they realized it was stupid, you and people of your ilk, have yet to make that simple realization), and changed their agreement to each to his own account.
Upon that change, with prosperity in abundance, and nobody waiting for someone else to grow the food they want to eat, they celebrated with a feast that was the origin of what we now call Thanksgiving.
Someone needs to actually study history. The Pilgrims had many deaths because they carried disease from England, the winters were really col and killed many and they were being attacked by the natives it had nothing to do with them helping each other. If they had been all for themselves do you really think they would survive? I highly doubt it.
Someone needs to actually study history. The Pilgrims had many deaths because they carried disease from England, the winters were really col and killed many and they were being attacked by the natives it had nothing to do with them helping each other. If they had been all for themselves do you really think they would survive? I highly doubt it.
The facts are that when their ECONOMIC model was socialistic, they starved. When they abandoned that ECONOMIC model, and adopted capitalism, they thrived.
I have heard of people talking Apples and Oranges, but you're so far off-base you talking Apples and Piles of Steaming BS. Hint: We are NOT talking about defense, but, rather ECONOMICS.
Quit re-writing history, and start learning the lessons of it.
Remember, it is not New, it is just new to you. Those same economic ideas of socialism etc., have been tried and have failed every time. Read and learn from history, and stop repeating the same mistakes History tells you most assuredly are mistakes (like socialism).
So you would be okay if people were dying on the street because they were not worth enough to live? Many of the top percent actually were born in wealthy families who provided a good foundation like Donald Trump. It amazes that people have a view that people who do not a certain skill should just be left to a life a poverty like skills are more important then a persons life. This ideas are most seen when we had slaves and in Third World Countries where people care more about what people can do then who they are as a person.
You are free to adopt them, but unless I miss my guess, you're only free and easy with OPM, i.e. Other People's MONEY
No I am not confused you continue to prove how selfish you are. Everyone is selfish to some extent. Not wanting to give away is selfish you can twist words to try to prove your point but it does not make it true. Really where are these jobs gonna come from if everyone improves themselves? We already have many college graduates who can not find jobs in their fields sounds like you do not know what you are talking about.
I don't see anyone talking about "not wanting to give away". In fact, the poster you responded to clearly stated that they donate to charity. You are indulging in what is referred to as a strawman argument. Stop twisting people's words in order to give yourself an opening for an argument. If you can't argue with the actual statement that was made, accept your loss of the argument and move on.
So you would be okay if people were dying on the street because they were not worth enough to live? Many of the top percent actually were born in wealthy families who provided a good foundation like Donald Trump. It amazes that people have a view that people who do not a certain skill should just be left to a life a poverty like skills are more important then a persons life. This ideas are most seen when we had slaves and in Third World Countries where people care more about what people can do then who they are as a person.
86% of millionaires did not come from wealthy families and are self-made.
The "poor" in America live better than the wealthy do in some of those third world countries you are referring to. When the "poor" stop getting free cable, free phones, housing assistance, free food, a monthly spending allowance, and refunds of other people's money, come back and tell us how they are starving. Until then all you're doing is trying to substitute emotion for an intelligent argument and hope that nobody notices. Our "societal obligation" has been met and exceeded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Storm Eagle
Someone needs to actually study history. The Pilgrims had many deaths because they carried disease from England, the winters were really col and killed many and they were being attacked by the natives it had nothing to do with them helping each other. If they had been all for themselves do you really think they would survive? I highly doubt it.
Yes, you do need to study history. This topic was covered in my 8th grade social studies class, and the only thing in your statement that is remotely accurate is that the winters were cold. The pilgrims didn't die due to the diseases that they carried, they died because they were utterly unprepared for their new environment and ended up living in squalor and filth aboard their ship. The hostilities between the pilgrims and the local natives were sporadic and inconsequential. There were actually very few Indians in the area because the local tribe had been decimated by a plague (brought by Europeans) shortly before the landing. And yes, the pilgrims' original charter was based on collectivism and failed miserably.
I don't see anyone talking about "not wanting to give away". In fact, the poster you responded to clearly stated that they donate to charity. You are indulging in what is referred to as a strawman argument. Stop twisting people's words in order to give yourself an opening for an argument. If you can't argue with the actual statement that was made, accept your loss of the argument and move on.
Anyone can say they give to charity like they can say they are millionaires does not make it true. Charity is based on how people feel like giving so it is not a good way to alleviate poverty. Tell me how good charity has been helping. The only one making a straw man was the person I was talking to.
86% of millionaires did not come from wealthy families and are self-made.
The "poor" in America live better than the wealthy do in some of those third world countries you are referring to. When the "poor" stop getting free cable, free phones, housing assistance, free food, a monthly spending allowance, and refunds of other people's money, come back and tell us how they are starving. Until then all you're doing is trying to substitute emotion for an intelligent argument and hope that nobody notices. Our "societal obligation" has been met and exceeded.
Yes, you do need to study history. This topic was covered in my 8th grade social studies class, and the only thing in your statement that is remotely accurate is that the winters were cold. The pilgrims didn't die due to the diseases that they carried, they died because they were utterly unprepared for their new environment and ended up living in squalor and filth aboard their ship. The hostilities between the pilgrims and the local natives were sporadic and inconsequential. There were actually very few Indians in the area because the local tribe had been decimated by a plague (brought by Europeans) shortly before the landing. And yes, the pilgrims' original charter was based on collectivism and failed miserably.
Give me evidence most rich people did not come from wealthy families anyone can just state facts. So because are poor are not living in huts they have a great life? Read this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilgrims_(Plymouth_Colony) Pilgrims did die from disease and also because they were not prepared but what does that have to do with what we are talking about Pilgrims did not die because they stuck together and helped each other. The Wampanoag tribe was the first Indians that the Pilgrims meet.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
Helping people is one thing. Taking away other peoples money to give it to others is theft. There have always been and will always be people that fail to make a good living, that can't buy everything they want, live in a less desirable area, or are homeless. I'm happy to pay more taxes for better access to training,
better education, mentoring, and for creation of jobs for people to qualify for when they have the skills to justify $15/hour or more. Paying someone close to double what their value is to the business is theft, stealing from the business owners ad giving it to the workers that don't do the work that justifies it.
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.
