So your OP rant is only directed at the stereotypical homeless person that exists in your mind? Or do you claim to know the backstories of every homeless person in America? My point is that it is easy to look at these people like they are pieces of shit but we don't know what path has led them to where they are today and they are every bit as entitled to a vote as you are whether you like it or not.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmm, ya didn't balk at my solution for "Bob" so you must agree. Veterans that are suffering from PTSD or any other disability is a part of the criteria that I feel the tax payers should support AS I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED. Handicapped and taking care of those that are unable to help themselves. I already explained how "Bob" should be supported.Braddock wrote:
Well you don't necessarily need academic achievement to run a successful business, there are millionaire businessmen out there who can't read or write (I remember seeing a program on channel4 about the owner of a huge waste disposal company who never finished school and was pretty much illiterate).lowing wrote:
EASY:
He is a veteran who is both physically and mentally disabled so right there he is worthy of help and my sympathy. That should be enough to answer your post HOWEVER,
He does not have a history of social welfare.
He HAS a history of achievment in society, IE school, work, you say he owned a business.
But back to Bob, I outlined that scenario to give an idea of the kind of stories that lie behind these homeless people that we step over in the street every day. I find it strange that so many Americans are happier to let independent charities deal with these problems instead of dedicating a certain amount of tax money to the problem when so much tax money goes to the problems of Iraqis, Aghganis and Israelis.
Supposedly as many as 200'000 war veterans sleep homeless in America on any given night, perhaps Obama's "Communist" ideals might help these people who have given so much for a country that gives so often gives very little back.
they're all just untermensch to Lowing..
Don't put words in my mouth.lowing wrote:
No what I am saying is by forcing the rich to pay moretaxes than the rest, you are in fact punishing the rich for being rich by stealing their money.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you not think taxes need to be paid or something? If that's what you think...go somewhere else. If you think taxes should only serve to pay for government necessities like infrastructure and common defense, and not to support people that cannot support themselves by their own merit, then we agree here.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates has done everything he has done because of smart money handling. In the early days of his career what would have it been like if you had your way and he was fuckin ass rapped every April 15th and his accomplishments and efforts were distributed " to make it fair".
Also your verbage using the word "target" is apropos considering targeting the rich for punishment for achieving and being smart with THEIR money, is EXACTLY what you would have done to them.
You do realize it is THEIR money that you want. What is so fair about rapping and stealing from and PUNISHING a person who is smart enough to take care of themselves finacnially when others are not?
Paying taxes does not mean Bill Gates was "ass raped" by the IRS, and even paying taxes (or at least I assume so, maybe that's his secret) he has obviously become successful. I assume here that we are talking about how tax laws should be changed in the future, where a conservative would rather leave them the same or lower them, and a liberal would most likely raise them with an emphasis on the rich. That is why I said target, because liberals are not going to go for fair tax laws.
Everyone has to pay taxes. If there are to be any tax breaks however, they should be placed on the middle upper end of the spectrum, because that is where the most immediate economic benefit is seen. You're being extremely idealistic lowing, an especially liberal trait.
Why shoud a rich person pay more taxes,( which they already do anyway) than anyone else? Your reasoning is they should pay more because they were smarter than someone else, they made better decisions, and most of all, they have it where you don't and you want it.
I say if you want money so bad, go earn it yourself. I say this a a middle class citizen I am, contrary to popular belief, not rich.
I also admit and take responsisibility for everything I have and everything I do not have. I blame no one for my problems except me.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
No Braddock, my rant is focused on all Americans who blame everyone else for thewir short comings in life, all Americans who have nothing because they EARNED nothing, and EXPECT and demand everything. Have I not always maintained my belief in taking care of ALL Americans who are not able to take care of themselves? I simply distinguish between the "can nots" and the "will nots". This could be easily done by tax returns, education history, criminal history etc...Braddock wrote:
So your OP rant is only directed at the stereotypical homeless person that exists in your mind? Or do you claim to know the backstories of every homeless person in America? My point is that it is easy to look at these people like they are pieces of shit but we don't know what path has led them to where they are today and they are every bit as entitled to a vote as you are whether you like it or not.lowing wrote:
Hmmmmm, ya didn't balk at my solution for "Bob" so you must agree. Veterans that are suffering from PTSD or any other disability is a part of the criteria that I feel the tax payers should support AS I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED. Handicapped and taking care of those that are unable to help themselves. I already explained how "Bob" should be supported.Braddock wrote:
Well you don't necessarily need academic achievement to run a successful business, there are millionaire businessmen out there who can't read or write (I remember seeing a program on channel4 about the owner of a huge waste disposal company who never finished school and was pretty much illiterate).
But back to Bob, I outlined that scenario to give an idea of the kind of stories that lie behind these homeless people that we step over in the street every day. I find it strange that so many Americans are happier to let independent charities deal with these problems instead of dedicating a certain amount of tax money to the problem when so much tax money goes to the problems of Iraqis, Aghganis and Israelis.
Supposedly as many as 200'000 war veterans sleep homeless in America on any given night, perhaps Obama's "Communist" ideals might help these people who have given so much for a country that gives so often gives very little back.
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.lowing wrote:
No what I am saying is by forcing the rich to pay moretaxes than the rest, you are in fact punishing the rich for being rich by stealing their money.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Do you not think taxes need to be paid or something? If that's what you think...go somewhere else. If you think taxes should only serve to pay for government necessities like infrastructure and common defense, and not to support people that cannot support themselves by their own merit, then we agree here.
Paying taxes does not mean Bill Gates was "ass raped" by the IRS, and even paying taxes (or at least I assume so, maybe that's his secret) he has obviously become successful. I assume here that we are talking about how tax laws should be changed in the future, where a conservative would rather leave them the same or lower them, and a liberal would most likely raise them with an emphasis on the rich. That is why I said target, because liberals are not going to go for fair tax laws.
Everyone has to pay taxes. If there are to be any tax breaks however, they should be placed on the middle upper end of the spectrum, because that is where the most immediate economic benefit is seen. You're being extremely idealistic lowing, an especially liberal trait.
Why shoud a rich person pay more taxes,( which they already do anyway) than anyone else? Your reasoning is they should pay more because they were smarter than someone else, they made better decisions, and most of all, they have it where you don't and you want it.
I say if you want money so bad, go earn it yourself. I say this a a middle class citizen I am, contrary to popular belief, not rich.
I also admit and take responsisibility for everything I have and everything I do not have. I blame no one for my problems except me.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
actually I never said that or insinuate it. Only the ones that are able to work able to get educated and would rather depend on the govt. and vote for who ever will steal more money from everyone else to give to them.IG-Calibre wrote:
they're all just untermensch to Lowing..
I'm just wondering who you would consider an underachiever. Seeing as how Flaming Maniac was talking about "poor Pete's paycheck". Is it people with manual labour jobs that don't earn a lot that are the underachievers?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.lowing wrote:
No what I am saying is by forcing the rich to pay moretaxes than the rest, you are in fact punishing the rich for being rich by stealing their money.
Why shoud a rich person pay more taxes,( which they already do anyway) than anyone else? Your reasoning is they should pay more because they were smarter than someone else, they made better decisions, and most of all, they have it where you don't and you want it.
I say if you want money so bad, go earn it yourself. I say this a a middle class citizen I am, contrary to popular belief, not rich.
I also admit and take responsisibility for everything I have and everything I do not have. I blame no one for my problems except me.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
Again, you're living in Candy Land. Do you honestly think our society could go forward at all if we turned the tax brackets upside down?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.lowing wrote:
No what I am saying is by forcing the rich to pay moretaxes than the rest, you are in fact punishing the rich for being rich by stealing their money.
Why shoud a rich person pay more taxes,( which they already do anyway) than anyone else? Your reasoning is they should pay more because they were smarter than someone else, they made better decisions, and most of all, they have it where you don't and you want it.
I say if you want money so bad, go earn it yourself. I say this a a middle class citizen I am, contrary to popular belief, not rich.
I also admit and take responsisibility for everything I have and everything I do not have. I blame no one for my problems except me.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
The world is not fair lowing.
Hypothetical Scenario Number 2: meet Kevin...
Kevin grew up in rough neighbourhoods with parents who could at best be described as dysfunctional. Kevin's mum got pregnant young and his father never stuck around to face the responsibilities, as a result Kevin lived a life of moderate poverty with his Mum frequently moving between low paying jobs. Kevin's mum continued to live her life without much responsibility, she would drink and indulge in soft drugs - sometimes even when Kevin was around. She would also have relationships with questionable men who would have no qualms verbally abusing and sometimes even striking out at Kevin.
When Kevin was 15 his mum started going out with a very violent man that Kevin did not like at all, however, Kevin's mum was smitten with him and wouldn't hear a bad word against him. After a few months, much to the dismay of Kevin, his mum married her new man. It was then that Kevin's new stepfather began coming into his room at night. Kevin was angry, upset and embarrassed about what was going on and at first hoped it would all stop after a while. Kevin starts acting up at school and getting into trouble more and more often. Two years later and Kevin finally snaps, he tries to stand up to his stepfather but is beaten and threatened if he tries to say anything to his mother. Kevin decides to tell all to his mother who, to his horror, thinks it is just more of Kevin's troublemaking and accuses him of having it in for his stepfather from day one. She says Kevin has alway tried to stop her from finding happiness by continually finding fault in her partners. Kevin's stepfather denies everything. Kevin decides to pack his bag and leave his troubled home once and for all.
Now barely 18 Kevin sets out for the big city with no proper education, only a few dollars in his pocket and no family or friends that he can call on. Kevin can't afford an apartment and barely has enough to stay in a hostel for the night, he ends up resorting to 'hustling' on the street on the advice of another young runaway. Fast forward a few years and Kevin has found himself in trouble with the law on account of his many shady street 'transactions'. Now with a criminal record and not a true friend in the world Kevin accepts money on the street from anyone who will give it.
According to some people Kevin is only in the position he is in because he never applied himself in life and never stood up and took responsibility for himself. Some people also think Kevin doesn't deserve the right to vote.
Kevin grew up in rough neighbourhoods with parents who could at best be described as dysfunctional. Kevin's mum got pregnant young and his father never stuck around to face the responsibilities, as a result Kevin lived a life of moderate poverty with his Mum frequently moving between low paying jobs. Kevin's mum continued to live her life without much responsibility, she would drink and indulge in soft drugs - sometimes even when Kevin was around. She would also have relationships with questionable men who would have no qualms verbally abusing and sometimes even striking out at Kevin.
When Kevin was 15 his mum started going out with a very violent man that Kevin did not like at all, however, Kevin's mum was smitten with him and wouldn't hear a bad word against him. After a few months, much to the dismay of Kevin, his mum married her new man. It was then that Kevin's new stepfather began coming into his room at night. Kevin was angry, upset and embarrassed about what was going on and at first hoped it would all stop after a while. Kevin starts acting up at school and getting into trouble more and more often. Two years later and Kevin finally snaps, he tries to stand up to his stepfather but is beaten and threatened if he tries to say anything to his mother. Kevin decides to tell all to his mother who, to his horror, thinks it is just more of Kevin's troublemaking and accuses him of having it in for his stepfather from day one. She says Kevin has alway tried to stop her from finding happiness by continually finding fault in her partners. Kevin's stepfather denies everything. Kevin decides to pack his bag and leave his troubled home once and for all.
Now barely 18 Kevin sets out for the big city with no proper education, only a few dollars in his pocket and no family or friends that he can call on. Kevin can't afford an apartment and barely has enough to stay in a hostel for the night, he ends up resorting to 'hustling' on the street on the advice of another young runaway. Fast forward a few years and Kevin has found himself in trouble with the law on account of his many shady street 'transactions'. Now with a criminal record and not a true friend in the world Kevin accepts money on the street from anyone who will give it.
According to some people Kevin is only in the position he is in because he never applied himself in life and never stood up and took responsibility for himself. Some people also think Kevin doesn't deserve the right to vote.
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-21 09:21:39)
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
Huh? I always thought Bill Gates paid a computer nerd he knew $30,000 dollars for a program he made on his own time and sold it to IBM for millions(cutting the original programmer out of the deal, of course)?PureFodder wrote:
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
...seriously, Purefodder, if it was all left to the government, there would not have been the advances we have today. And what you propose is true communism. Everyone only getting enough left to subside on, with any excess belonging to the government for 'proper distribution.'
Last edited by imortal (2008-08-21 10:30:35)
HAHA.... Tell that to a crack or heroine addict.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Libertarians say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone...it's not self-centered, if they are truly libertarians and not hypocrites then they won't ask you for help when they need it.God Save the Queen wrote:
bullshit. human beings are self centered to a point. But Im not with that whole libertarian mindset. That shit disgusts me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Everyone is extremely self-centered. If you don't think you are you're selfishly lying to yourself.
Humans do always, 100% what is best for them. That defines what an animal is and how one acts.
Or tell that to the family of a MOH recipient.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2008-08-21 10:35:19)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
The drugs make them feel good, so they do it. Once the drug starts taking effect it is not the human making the decisions, it is the drugs.DBBrinson1 wrote:
HAHA.... Tell that to a crack or heroine addict.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Libertarians say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone...it's not self-centered, if they are truly libertarians and not hypocrites then they won't ask you for help when they need it.God Save the Queen wrote:
bullshit. human beings are self centered to a point. But Im not with that whole libertarian mindset. That shit disgusts me.
Humans do always, 100% what is best for them. That defines what an animal is and how one acts.
Or tell that to the family of a MOH recipient.
The soldier cares more about the life of his comrades than of his own, so he selfishly dives on the grenade.
The bloke he bought it off certainly didn't invent computer programs, someone else did, and developed them for decades before anyone in the private sector had any input. All that research that lead to the possibility of making the program that he sold to Bill Gates was funded by the public. Standing on the shoulders of giants and all that. The difference is that private industry pretends the giant doesn't exist. I'm not proposing anything, just explaining how western economies function.imortal wrote:
Huh? I always thought Bill Gates paid a computer nerd he knew $30,000 dollars for a program he made on his own time and sold it to IBM for millions(cutting the original programmer out of the deal, of course)?PureFodder wrote:
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
...seriously, Purefodder, if it was all left to the government, there would not have been the advances we have today. And what you propose is true communism. Everyone only getting enough left to subside on, with any excess belonging to the government for 'proper distribution.'
Universities and military R&D, the cuting edge of technological advancement are publicly funded. Private industry then sells it back to us at higher costs. Cutting edge research is simply far too expensive and way too risky for any sensible private investors to engage in it.
When you think of technological innovation in the US you think CalTech and MIT.
You are not supposed t olive yuor life as an underachiever, you are supposed to improve yourself through education and experience. If you are 40 years old and all you know how to do is dig a ditch, the nyou pretty much are worth not much more than a ditch digger makes.jord wrote:
I'm just wondering who you would consider an underachiever. Seeing as how Flaming Maniac was talking about "poor Pete's paycheck". Is it people with manual labour jobs that don't earn a lot that are the underachievers?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
Yer right, so tax people on what they spend, not what they make....Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, you're living in Candy Land. Do you honestly think our society could go forward at all if we turned the tax brackets upside down?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't put words in my mouth.
The rich have to pay more taxes because that is what realistically has to happen to make this country function. We're already in debt as it is because of poor spending habits, but that doesn't mean we can just stop paying for the national defense or the like. Sorry rich people, we have to take more money from you because you will still have more than enough left over, and even if we took 100% of poor pete's pay check it would only be 5% what we get from you.
If you're an anarchist, then the conversation is over.
The world is not fair lowing.
So who are you blaming Kevin's problems on? Kevin could have chosen any number of paths that lead to help instead he decided to the path that lead him to jail. The key point being. HE DECIDED.Braddock wrote:
Hypothetical Scenario Number 2: meet Kevin...
Kevin grew up in rough neighbourhoods with parents who could at best be described as dysfunctional. Kevin's mum got pregnant young and his father never stuck around to face the responsibilities, as a result Kevin lived a life of moderate poverty with his Mum frequently moving between low paying jobs. Kevin's mum continued to live her life without much responsibility, she would drink and indulge in soft drugs - sometimes even when Kevin was around. She would also have relationships with questionable men who would have no qualms verbally abusing and sometimes even striking out at Kevin.
When Kevin was 15 his mum started going out with a very violent man that Kevin did not like at all, however, Kevin's mum was smitten with him and wouldn't hear a bad word against him. After a few months, much to the dismay of Kevin, his mum married her new man. It was then that Kevin's new stepfather began coming into his room at night. Kevin was angry, upset and embarrassed about what was going on and at first hoped it would all stop after a while. Kevin starts acting up at school and getting into trouble more and more often. Two years later and Kevin finally snaps, he tries to stand up to his stepfather but is beaten and threatened if he tries to say anything to his mother. Kevin decides to tell all to his mother who, to his horror, thinks it is just more of Kevin's troublemaking and accuses him of having it in for his stepfather from day one. She says Kevin has alway tried to stop her from finding happiness by continually finding fault in her partners. Kevin's stepfather denies everything. Kevin decides to pack his bag and leave his troubled home once and for all.
Now barely 18 Kevin sets out for the big city with no proper education, only a few dollars in his pocket and no family or friends that he can call on. Kevin can't afford an apartment and barely has enough to stay in a hostel for the night, he ends up resorting to 'hustling' on the street on the advice of another young runaway. Fast forward a few years and Kevin has found himself in trouble with the law on account of his many shady street 'transactions'. Now with a criminal record and not a true friend in the world Kevin accepts money on the street from anyone who will give it.
According to some people Kevin is only in the position he is in because he never applied himself in life and never stood up and took responsibility for himself. Some people also think Kevin doesn't deserve the right to vote.
You can throw any hard luck story you want Braddock. even flaming-manica said "life isn't fair" or is that only supposed t oapply to rich peaople and the taking of it, while life is supposed to fair for everyone else at their expense.
Meet Joe, a guy who never knew his biological father and was born unto a teenage mother. Joes mother married a shithead for pretty much no other reason than to put a roof over her and her kids heads. this shithead was abusive physically and mentally s omuch so that Joes mother finally had to leave him. Alone again Joe found himself living in a run down trailerpark staying by himself while his mother worked to make ends meet at McDonalds and at a furniture store. Finally, Joes mother met and married another guy, who joined the military, Joe and his family still had nothing since 1n 1974 an enlisted man with a wife and 2 kids didn't make much, but at least Joe had a roof over his head. Joes new step dad was a strict disciplinarian with not much love or emotion for his adopted kids, Joe spent his life not really talking much with his adopted father and pretty much had to figure shit out for himself.
Finally, Joe graduated HS. Since Joes family was poor, he decided he could not afford college and did not want to go into debt with student loans, so he made the decision NOT to hit the streets and wander but to make a move that could and should better his situation. Jow joined the USAF and made damn sure he picked a job that offered training that he could use as a civilian in the future. Since Joe loved airplanes he chose aviation and went into the AF and learned to be an aircraft mechanic. It paid off. When Joe got out, he instantly went the airline industry where he did great. Even after a few lay-offs he always managed to find another job because JOE refused to be kept down and had made sure he was marketable.
Joes decisions with no money
1. Hit the streets or find a way to make a living
2. Make sure his chosen career would be valuable or don't give a shit hell he got a paycheck for now
3. Quit trying when he got laid off or go out and not come home until he has another job.
4. Take responsibility for his choices, or sit around and wait until a liberal is voted into office and hope that he will steal from someone else to give to him
I see, so the tax payers did get rewarded, you are typing on it right now. Or are you honestly suggesting that the payoff for all of Bill Gate risks and investment into Microsoft should have gone to you?? Get realPureFodder wrote:
Did Bill Gates develop the first program ever that ran on computers? The answer is no, the obvious question is who did? All that programming and decades of development that lead up to Bills first go was done at tax payer expense and was developed on a machine that was developed at tax payer expense. The tax payers should have been the ones recieving the profits on the research that they paid for, not Bill. He didn't pay for his own R&D. It's the basis of high tech industry. Government pays for the R&D, once it becomes a commercial viability it's given to the private sector or sold at massivley reduced cost. Great deal for rich people, crappy deal for everyone else.lowing wrote:
Bill Gates developed software that ran on computers, I guess Henry Ford deserves n ocredit or money for his advancements in cars because the wheel was already invented.
It's hard to think of any high tech industry that doesn't owe it's existance to socialized R&D.
I guess this is going to become another Lowing vs. Reality thread....
No, actually I don't. I think private businesses. Okay, I will grant you that DARPA hands out big money to places to develop some technologies, but innovation can come from anywhere. But you have some strange notions of intellectual property rights and profit distribution. By your logic, the heirs to the Wright brothers deserve the profit from any and all airplane sales and airlines.PureFodder wrote:
When you think of technological innovation in the US you think CalTech and MIT.
The problem is that the government does not have any ability to make use of all of this. Yes, the US military developed some of the very first computers, but they were not built by the US Army. The specifications were given to a private company to build. That company needs to stay in business. That means they have to charge the government for it. Are you suggesting that they make no profit from it? What you seem to really be suggesting is that the government be the only place where they can now sell that product. Are they just a subcontractor fort the government then? Should all computers be bought from the government, so they can reap the profits? That effectively makes the companies that make the computer governement employees. Especially since they are working for nothing but salery. Congratulations. In this world of yours, 2/3 of the population of the US will become governement employees. And let us not forget that since those companies cannot make money off those products anywhere but the government, ALL of their pay comes from the government. How high will our taxes become then?
Purefodder, what you are also overlooking is that private industry has the ability to take the technology the government developed, and find new uses for it that the government never thought of.
Lasers were developed by the government, but they did not develop CD or DVD players. That is private industry looking for new ways of applying recently developed technology.
Lasers were developed by the government, but they did not develop CD or DVD players. That is private industry looking for new ways of applying recently developed technology.
If you tax everything, you prevent people from being able to pull themselves up out of poverty. If you can barely pay for food, how can you expect to put money away as a successful person would? If you don't tax necessities, like food and certain medicine, then the only ones who will be taxed on the other items are the rich, so they are still paying more in taxes.lowing wrote:
Yer right, so tax people on what they spend, not what they make....Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, you're living in Candy Land. Do you honestly think our society could go forward at all if we turned the tax brackets upside down?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.
The world is not fair lowing.
Anything that has enough centralized services to be called a civilization will always be mostly paid for by the rich. There's just no getting around it.
Ha! You really think that?Flaming_Maniac wrote:
The drugs make them feel good, so they do it. Once the drug starts taking effect it is not the human making the decisions, it is the drugs.DBBrinson1 wrote:
HAHA.... Tell that to a crack or heroine addict.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Libertarians say leave me alone and I'll leave you alone...it's not self-centered, if they are truly libertarians and not hypocrites then they won't ask you for help when they need it.
Humans do always, 100% what is best for them. That defines what an animal is and how one acts.
Or tell that to the family of a MOH recipient.
The soldier cares more about the life of his comrades than of his own, so he selfishly dives on the grenade.
So then how is taking illicit harmful drugs 100% best for them?
The so by diving on the grenade to save OTHER PEOPLE, then the person is doing 100% what is best for HIM?
Please, you're wrong. Just admit it. I hear of dumbasses doing shit that isn't 100% best for themselves every day (I have inlaws).
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Not everyone has the intelligence and capacity to learn that you do. Some people don't have a great education and have to make do with hard work to pay their way. These are normal people that make up the majority...lowing wrote:
You are not supposed t olive yuor life as an underachiever, you are supposed to improve yourself through education and experience. If you are 40 years old and all you know how to do is dig a ditch, the nyou pretty much are worth not much more than a ditch digger makes.jord wrote:
I'm just wondering who you would consider an underachiever. Seeing as how Flaming Maniac was talking about "poor Pete's paycheck". Is it people with manual labour jobs that don't earn a lot that are the underachievers?lowing wrote:
So why do you see a need to punish them further by making them pay even more? I say instead of forcing achievers to pay more, force the underachievers to pull up their slack or get cut off.
They're not underachievers. If you ask me, someone who does hard graft from 9 to 5 deserves a lot more respect than someone who sits in an office bashing out emails.
Joe did well for himself against the odds. But getting back to Kevin for a while, do you seriously have no sympathy for someone who made bad decisions as an abused child? These kind of people exist and most people look at them in the street as though they are the scum of the earth. Life is not fair lowing, you are right...and some people never even a chance of succeeding.lowing wrote:
So who are you blaming Kevin's problems on? Kevin could have chosen any number of paths that lead to help instead he decided to the path that lead him to jail. The key point being. HE DECIDED.Braddock wrote:
Hypothetical Scenario Number 2: meet Kevin...
Kevin grew up in rough neighbourhoods with parents who could at best be described as dysfunctional. Kevin's mum got pregnant young and his father never stuck around to face the responsibilities, as a result Kevin lived a life of moderate poverty with his Mum frequently moving between low paying jobs. Kevin's mum continued to live her life without much responsibility, she would drink and indulge in soft drugs - sometimes even when Kevin was around. She would also have relationships with questionable men who would have no qualms verbally abusing and sometimes even striking out at Kevin.
When Kevin was 15 his mum started going out with a very violent man that Kevin did not like at all, however, Kevin's mum was smitten with him and wouldn't hear a bad word against him. After a few months, much to the dismay of Kevin, his mum married her new man. It was then that Kevin's new stepfather began coming into his room at night. Kevin was angry, upset and embarrassed about what was going on and at first hoped it would all stop after a while. Kevin starts acting up at school and getting into trouble more and more often. Two years later and Kevin finally snaps, he tries to stand up to his stepfather but is beaten and threatened if he tries to say anything to his mother. Kevin decides to tell all to his mother who, to his horror, thinks it is just more of Kevin's troublemaking and accuses him of having it in for his stepfather from day one. She says Kevin has alway tried to stop her from finding happiness by continually finding fault in her partners. Kevin's stepfather denies everything. Kevin decides to pack his bag and leave his troubled home once and for all.
Now barely 18 Kevin sets out for the big city with no proper education, only a few dollars in his pocket and no family or friends that he can call on. Kevin can't afford an apartment and barely has enough to stay in a hostel for the night, he ends up resorting to 'hustling' on the street on the advice of another young runaway. Fast forward a few years and Kevin has found himself in trouble with the law on account of his many shady street 'transactions'. Now with a criminal record and not a true friend in the world Kevin accepts money on the street from anyone who will give it.
According to some people Kevin is only in the position he is in because he never applied himself in life and never stood up and took responsibility for himself. Some people also think Kevin doesn't deserve the right to vote.
You can throw any hard luck story you want Braddock. even flaming-manica said "life isn't fair" or is that only supposed t oapply to rich peaople and the taking of it, while life is supposed to fair for everyone else at their expense.
Meet Joe, a guy who never knew his biological father and was born unto a teenage mother. Joes mother married a shithead for pretty much no other reason than to put a roof over her and her kids heads. this shithead was abusive physically and mentally s omuch so that Joes mother finally had to leave him. Alone again Joe found himself living in a run down trailerpark staying by himself while his mother worked to make ends meet at McDonalds and at a furniture store. Finally, Joes mother met and married another guy, who joined the military, Joe and his family still had nothing since 1n 1974 an enlisted man with a wife and 2 kids didn't make much, but at least Joe had a roof over his head. Joes new step dad was a strict disciplinarian with not much love or emotion for his adopted kids, Joe spent his life not really talking much with his adopted father and pretty much had to figure shit out for himself.
Finally, Joe graduated HS. Since Joes family was poor, he decided he could not afford college and did not want to go into debt with student loans, so he made the decision NOT to hit the streets and wander but to make a move that could and should better his situation. Jow joined the USAF and made damn sure he picked a job that offered training that he could use as a civilian in the future. Since Joe loved airplanes he chose aviation and went into the AF and learned to be an aircraft mechanic. It paid off. When Joe got out, he instantly went the airline industry where he did great. Even after a few lay-offs he always managed to find another job because JOE refused to be kept down and had made sure he was marketable.
Joes decisions with no money
1. Hit the streets or find a way to make a living
2. Make sure his chosen career would be valuable or don't give a shit hell he got a paycheck for now
3. Quit trying when he got laid off or go out and not come home until he has another job.
4. Take responsibility for his choices, or sit around and wait until a liberal is voted into office and hope that he will steal from someone else to give to him
Last edited by Braddock (2008-08-21 16:01:17)
food ia not taxed. As forthe rest, yer right as again, the rich will pay more taxes because the will spend more, but it will be their choice wouldn't it? They would not be held up at gun point.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
If you tax everything, you prevent people from being able to pull themselves up out of poverty. If you can barely pay for food, how can you expect to put money away as a successful person would? If you don't tax necessities, like food and certain medicine, then the only ones who will be taxed on the other items are the rich, so they are still paying more in taxes.lowing wrote:
Yer right, so tax people on what they spend, not what they make....Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Again, you're living in Candy Land. Do you honestly think our society could go forward at all if we turned the tax brackets upside down?
The world is not fair lowing.
Anything that has enough centralized services to be called a civilization will always be mostly paid for by the rich. There's just no getting around it.