California Budget : Same tune .. Different year (Arnold: most dangerous, suburban, educational)
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.
There certainly are many ways to be successful. Especially with one's individual health of mind, body, and soul ... none of which require hardly any money at all -- and certainly do not require what is commonly thought of as "wealth". So too are there many ways to "succeed" as a member of one's social species -- specifically in service of others, as well as maintaining one's self responsibly and joyfully.
The ability to provide for one's self and family follows the same lines as I describe above ... financial wealth is not required in the slightest. The worst examples of lack of service and citizenship can be found in members of the wealthiest classes, who obsessively pursue wealth and power by treating others, individually and collectively as a species, with utter disdain and disregard.[/quote]
The best examples are in that same wealthiest class who share their earned income with those in need. What is even more impressive is to see them give of their time and knowledge to others that want to provide for themselves. It is great to see hands reaching out to others. I would like to see more hands reaching out to help rather than reaching out to grab.
I don't disagree at all that there are many fine examples of philanthropy of genuine motivation from many wealthy. But I don't consider those broad acts any greater than any individual kindness from any one person to another. Each individual can serve in his own manner within his/her own opportunity and limitations.
I don't disagree at all that there are many fine examples of philanthropy of genuine motivation from many wealthy. But I don't consider those broad acts any greater than any individual kindness from any one person to another. Each individual can serve in his own manner within his/her own opportunity and limitations.
Interesting statement compared to your thoughts on how the wealthiest can be the worst examples.
I suggest that you rethink your position without the bias of financial class. Great acts are great acts, poor acts are poor acts.
It is refreshing to see people as people and not as what they do for a living or what wealth they have.
Interesting statement compared to your thoughts on how the wealthiest can be the worst examples.
I suggest that you rethink your position without the bias of financial class. Great acts are great acts, poor acts are poor acts.
It is refreshing to see people as people and not as what they do for a living or what wealth they have.
No. My position is very well formed. There are great differences in the deeds of the wealthy and the poor.
Much ado is made of the costs of the poor on society. Their typically low formal educational achievements are often cited as part of the reason for their purported suckling behaviors. Laziness. Low morals. And more. Truth is that the negative behaviors of the poor are pretty much limited to destructive acts damaging to themselves and their immediate venue of other impoverished. Their unfortunate behaviors do not threaten large populations nor manipulate markets or endanger national or international balance.
While there are a great many responsible wealthy, the worst behaviors in the world, by far, come from wealthy sociopaths. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of very well off, highly educated individuals play amorally and immorally with the welfare of the entirety of society and the world in their self-absorbed obsession with acquiring wealth and power. They perpetrate crimes of fraud and toxic exploitations and waging wars, etc., that reach to national and world proportions. Huge populations are very negatively affected by the wanton disregard of this educated, sophisticated, wealthy sub-culture.
The greater a person's awareness, the greater are responsible actions incumbent upon him / her.
And when considering the charitable acts of the rich one can't miss the ease with which these acts can be undertaken -- compared to the acts of kindness from one who has little to another in need.
No. My position is very well formed. There are great differences in the deeds of the wealthy and the poor.
Much ado is made of the costs of the poor on society. Their typically low formal educational achievements are often cited as part of the reason for their purported suckling behaviors. Laziness. Low morals. And more. Truth is that the negative behaviors of the poor are pretty much limited to destructive acts damaging to themselves and their immediate venue of other impoverished. Their unfortunate behaviors do not threaten large populations nor manipulate markets or endanger national or international balance.
While there are a great many responsible wealthy, the worst behaviors in the world, by far, come from wealthy sociopaths. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of very well off, highly educated individuals play amorally and immorally with the welfare of the entirety of society and the world in their self-absorbed obsession with acquiring wealth and power. They perpetrate crimes of fraud and toxic exploitations and waging wars, etc., that reach to national and world proportions. Huge populations are very negatively affected by the wanton disregard of this educated, sophisticated, wealthy sub-culture.
The greater a person's awareness, the greater are responsible actions incumbent upon him / her.
And when considering the charitable acts of the rich one can't miss the ease with which these acts can be undertaken -- compared to the acts of kindness from one who has little to another in need.
You are saying some very unfavorable things about those with less wealth. I don't think you can group people together and assume things about their morals. I hope you can get past that.
I see you are very absorbed about getting wealth, as you accuse the wealthy of doing, however you wish to take it from others.
Your hate is becoming very obvious and it saddens me as it must others who read your posts.
A flat tax allows everyone to contribute equally proportional to their income. It does so without hate and judgement.
You are saying some very unfavorable things about those with less wealth. I don't think you can group people together and assume things about their morals. I hope you can get past that.
I see you are very absorbed about getting wealth, as you accuse the wealthy of doing, however you wish to take it from others.
Your hate is becoming very obvious and it saddens me as it must others who read your posts.
A flat tax allows everyone to contribute equally proportional to their income. It does so without hate and judgement.
I hope peace for you.
I may soon be forced to acknowledge that you deliberately misrepresent what I write -- as it is hard to imagine you so consistently incapable of understanding what is clearly stated.
I haven't said anything unfavorable about those with "less wealth".
I wrote that they are stereotyped as uneducated, sucking on the public teat, lazy, and of low morality. None of which stereotyping I agree with -- and anyone who has read any of my posts will know that I defend the poor constantly against such stereotyping. I also wrote that negative behaviors exhibited by the poor do not have far-reaching effects, as do the negative behaviors of sociopathic wealthy who play with the public's very lives. Absolutely true.
I haven't discussed "getting wealth" in general terms.
Wealth is acquired in many ways. Some of it I have identified as toxic to humanity -- which is absolutely true.
I haven't advocated "taking wealth away from others".
I do advocate that wealth be taxed progressively -- which taxation nevertheless always leaves the wealthy with vastly more than the middle and lower working classes. I don't consider that "taking" wealth away. I consider it an appropriate tax on value received.
And the only thing I have written approximating "hate" is identifying dangerously sociopathic behaviors on the part of some wealthy as being extremely destructive -- which it is as I have identified it ... I challenge anyone to deny the validity of the problem as I identify it.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are a major threat to be on guard against at all times. While this sub-group of humanity comprises only about 1 - 3% of general population by various definitions and professional estimations, it is curious that their behaviors have always greatly influenced politics, religion, business, and social trends.
Aside from the fact that you continue to be disingenuous with these little offerings of yours -- no worry about me and my peace ... or whether I have a good day ... etc. Having served intensely in war, having nursed and held the dying over many years, having served the interests of the disabled community, raised a large family, fostering kids, and more -- I know a very great deal about peace, finding fulfillment, and how to have a great day.
You don't like smiley face icons? I don't much care for meaningless and disingenuous homilies and platitudes.
Aside from the fact that you continue to be disingenuous with these little offerings of yours -- no worry about me and my peace ... or whether I have a good day ... etc. Having served intensely in war, having nursed and held the dying over many years, having served the interests of the disabled community, raised a large family, fostering kids, and more -- I know a very great deal about peace, finding fulfillment, and how to have a great day.
You don't like smiley face icons? I don't much care for meaningless and disingenuous homilies and platitudes.
Again, your inferences are incorrect but I do appreciate your service.
I hope you can accept kind jestures at some point.
I may soon be forced to acknowledge that you deliberately misrepresent what I write -- as it is hard to imagine you so consistently incapable of understanding what is clearly stated.
I haven't said anything unfavorable about those with "less wealth".
I wrote that they are stereotyped as uneducated, sucking on the public teat, lazy, and of low morality. None of which stereotyping I agree with -- and anyone who has read any of my posts will know that I defend the poor constantly against such stereotyping. I also wrote that negative behaviors exhibited by the poor do not have far-reaching effects, as do the negative behaviors of sociopathic wealthy who play with the public's very lives. Absolutely true.
I haven't discussed "getting wealth" in general terms.
Wealth is acquired in many ways. Some of it I have identified as toxic to humanity -- which is absolutely true.
I haven't advocated "taking wealth away from others".
I do advocate that wealth be taxed progressively -- which taxation nevertheless always leaves the wealthy with vastly more than the middle and lower working classes. I don't consider that "taking" wealth away. I consider it an appropriate tax on value received.
And the only thing I have written approximating "hate" is identifying dangerously sociopathic behaviors on the part of some wealthy as being extremely destructive -- which it is as I have identified it ... I challenge anyone to deny the validity of the problem as I identify it.
Sociopaths and psychopaths are a major threat to be on guard against at all times. While this sub-group of humanity comprises only about 1 - 3% of general population by various definitions and professional estimations, it is curious that their behaviors have always greatly influenced politics, religion, business, and social trends.
It is sad to see your shallow ramblings that prevent any discussion. Your denial is alarming.
It is sad to see your shallow ramblings that prevent any discussion. Your denial is alarming.
Right. As if you wanted to "discuss" issues ... between your insincere platitudes and alternating insults, perhaps?
These latest "shallow ramblings" are point by point direct response to your last round of misrepresentations -- a habit of yours since your first post on CD ...
Right. As if you wanted to "discuss" issues ... between your insincere platitudes and alternating insults, perhaps?
These latest "shallow ramblings" are point by point direct response to your last round of misrepresentations -- a habit of yours since your first post on CD ...
Unfortunately for you, you have continued to provide only attacks on others.
Peace to you.
I wish you well.
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.
