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 trade my labor for payment, and that payment becomes my property.
We get back to the idea of punishing hard work, and rewarding those who do not contribute to society. If I sit on my ass and do nothing all day, you cheer the idea of the government giving me wealth and property. Is this the appropriate level in your view?
I think you have lost what the purpose of government is. Redistribution of wealth to provide one man wealth from the sweat off the brow of others, is not the purpose of government. Protecting the rights and freedoms of its citizens is the only purpose of government.
You are a Marxist, plain and simple.
You, just like many others on this board, have no idea of what Marxism, Socialism, Communism etc. mean, yet you keep throwing those words around like McCarthy...
Putting words in other people's mouths, a common game on this board, doesn't exactly indicate honor and/or reading comprehension...
Of course that's what they believe. The entire population of useful idiots have been programmed to think this way. Work hard and pay a heavy price. Be a lazy POS and get rewarded.
That explains this statistic, doesn't it :
Women receiving public assistance have 3 times the birth rate of everyone else.
Quote:
"The 1996 Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) gave states greater flexibility to formulate and implement initiatives to reduce welfare dependency and encourage employment for members of low-income families with children. For the nation, in 2006, 10 years after passage of the Act, the birth rate for women 15 to 50 years old receiving public assistance income in the last 12 months was 155 births per 1,000 women, about three times the rate for women not receiving public assistance (53 births per 1,000 women)."
When a family brings home money or property after taxes, it's private property. They should have a right to do as they please with that property even if it means giving it to someone that's completely undeserving. The recipient may not be deserving, but the person who earned it should get to make the decision.
You, just like many others on this board, have no idea of what Marxism, Socialism, Communism etc. mean, yet you keep throwing those words around like McCarthy...
Putting words in other people's mouths, a common game on this board, doesn't exactly indicate honor and/or reading comprehension...
Face it Neuling. Every one of your ideals and principles that you have stated here in this forum on any post that you dive into, shows that you are a Marxist and prefer that type of society where mediocre is the highest honors to achieve. If you were a successful person, you would NOT have these views, one could only conclude that you are having a tough time in life and want things to be easier for you. I think I remember reading a post of yours where you are proud to only work 2 days a week.
Well, I mean all those kids whose parents can hardly make ends meet. Even if inner-city kids in rough neighborhoods study hard, if their parents can't afford a decent school, they are still worse off than kids from wealthy families, even if those don't study hard at all.
I don't share your somewhat naive role of money. A lot of wealth is simply withdrawn from society, not doing anything meaningful.
Yes, kids in poor families are worse off than kids in wealthy families. While you see that as a somehow bad thing, unfair and needing change, I see it as the way things SHOULD be. It's called incentive. Parents try to provide for their kids, and those that are successful are able to provide more than those who are not. And if they are successful enough to provide really really well for their kids, and even for their grandkids, how is that a bad thing? Even if those kids are morons who don't work a day in their lives to "deserve" that money, at least they are living off their family's money, and not being a drain on society.
My view of money is naive? OK. So tell me then, since yours is so much more educated and thoughtful a perspective, where do all those millions of dollars go when they are "withdrawn from society"? You think there are millionaires with hordes of cash stored in their basement? That they became rich by stashing bills in their mattresses? Or is it more likely they put their money to work, investing in various financial instruments and buying hard assets? Tell us how they "witdraw if from society."
Face it Neuling. Every one of your ideals and principles that you have stated here in this forum on any post that you dive into, shows that you are a Marxist and prefer that type of society where mediocre is the highest honors to achieve. If you were a successful person, you would NOT have these views, one could only conclude that you are having a tough time in life and want things to be easier for you. I think I remember reading a post of yours where you are proud to only work 2 days a week.
Not abolish, but its importance would certainly be reduced to the appropriate level. Currently property is too important for most people in my view.
An average middle-class person who spends a lot of time with their family instead of colleagues is way more important to society than a wealthy person.
So their view that property is important doesn't match your view that it isn't. So what? Aren't we free to have our own views. You're free to pursue your life with whatever amount of property makes you happy, and they're free to do the same - that whole "pursuit of happiness" thing that is one of the foundations of this country.
You, just like many others on this board, have no idea of what Marxism, Socialism, Communism etc. mean, yet you keep throwing those words around like McCarthy...
Putting words in other people's mouths, a common game on this board, doesn't exactly indicate honor and/or reading comprehension...
You don't like private property, and you engage in class warfare. How about neo-Marxism then, or some mix of various other socialist and communist philosophy, call it what you like.
Theoretically yes, of course no child has deserved anything it did not work for. .
So, then by this logic, all means of state support should not be given to welfare children who didn't do a lick of work to earn it. Logic breakdown
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.
: 
