What started out as a grammar nazi comment on a facebook status, turned into a lengthy political "debate." I generally refrain from these sorts of discussions because I get too fired up; however, I made an exception because I was in some kind of vicious mood yesterday. The names of the liberals have been changed to protect their identities. Grab some popcorn and enjoy!
——————————————————————————————————————————————-
Status Message Poster: Cutting spending alone without any sort of revenue generation will not fix the hole this country is in. Why does the President keep going along with the crazy people??? You can't negotiate with people who's number one goal is for you to fail, no matter the cost. Why give the terrorists what they want, if they are just going to shoot the hostages anyway?
Random Person: my sentiments exactly, Ed! My only solace is that I'm hoping President Obama has a secret weapon to unleash on 'em and that his "caving" is part of his strategy. He's playing chess …
Princess MoMo: whose*
Random Person2: taxes doesn't 'raise revenues'. Lowering unemployment and increasing productivity and focusing on exports does. I hear Obama say "jobs jobs jobs" but have only seen a burdensome healthcare bill and more financial regulations…Maybe his next term? :|
Liberal2daMax: The only jods created by the rich are illegal migrant house maids and grass cutters, Yacht crews, country/yacht clup employees, casino workers in Monoco and any other min wage meneal task they can find to bolster their ego. If I'm wrong, tell me what jobs the Waltons provid that pay a living wage. The only exception I see to this rule is Jobs, Gates and those who came up poor.
Princess MoMo: Why is it the rich's duty to create jobs? Why don't the poor step up their game and control their own destiny/fate? And if they can't, why don't they stop procreating? Less spawn = less need for jobs.
Princess MoMo: Also, no one forces people to work minimum wage jobs. That's a choice. And that choice is better than the alternative of not working at all.
Princess MoMo: Finally, there are reasons people choose to work minimum wage jobs: lack of skill, intelligence and/or ability to qualify for anything better and/or unavailability of anything better. If the reason is lack of intelligence/ability, what is the President or anyone else supposed to do about that?
Liberal2daMax: When you're poor, that's the only fun you can have. No education (thanks to the rich) no job. Have you ever tried to feed, clothe yourself, pay utilities and rent on min wages? You get more on welfare. In 1965 when I lived in Cali, a college education was almost a right. Thanks to Regan, most Cal students can't afford it. The rich get to keep their money they made off the backs of the poor. That's what the Repuks and Tslags want. That's where they get their election funds from. THERE IS NO JOB CREATION from the rich so stop saying it!!!
Princess MoMo: Did you know that Bill Gates dropped out of college?
Princess MoMo: So did Steve Jobs.
JB: I agree. How we go about doing that is where we differ…
Princess MoMo: A college education shouldn't be a right. Entitlement bullshit is what causes all of these problems.
Princess MoMo: If someone wants a free college education, s/he can get straight A's in high school and earn a high score on whatever standardized tests to gain scholarships.
JB: MoMo is unplugged vis-a-vis on point.
Princess MoMo: And p.s., while college educations may make people more knowledgeable and slightly more marketable job-wise, they don't make people smarter.
Princess MoMo: Rebuttal Mr. Liberal2daMax?
Princess MoMo: Actually, I have another point. You said, "[The poor] get more on welfare." You also said, "The rich get to keep their money they made off the backs of the poor." Whose funding welfare? The people who earn money, presumably by working in some capacity. So it is the welfare-collectors who make their money off the backs of others.
JB: And welfare keeps the poor right where the government wants and needs them…
Princess MoMo: It infuriates me that burdens on society feel that the government and the tax payers are obligated to support them.
Princess MoMo: That's not true JB.
JB: Generational welfare, 1st and 15th mentality…please explain your position MoMo?
Princess MoMo: Look at immigrants who come to this country with nothing. Not even a mastery of the native tongue. Many of them BUST their asses and either become successful and "rich" themselves or ensure that their kids have an exponentially better future. They don't get stuck in a perpetual, government-fund reliant rut. Compare those people to the "generational welfare" people you refer to.
Princess MoMo: Take a trip to whatever office disseminates welfare checks on the first of the month. Let me know if most of those people appear to be capable of being productive members of society if given the opportunity.
Princess MoMo: People have choices. They make wrong ones and then want to pass off the accountability onto others.
JB: I amend the aforementioned per your comments
Liberal2daMaxYes, but Jobs & Gates were poor so they know what it's like. That's why they provide jobs with a living wage and provide a lot ot their money to the disadvantage. You don't see the Waltons doing that 'cause they grew up rich. One year Bill Gates gave $10 Billion to charity. That same year, the entire Walton Family gave $6,000.00. And 80% of the people that work for the Walton at Wal-Mart don't make enugh to take care of them self much less a family. We won't even talk adout their overseas ventures. OBTW when Cal students were being college educated, Cal was the richest, most productive state in the Union. That pissed off the Rich. Now we are where the want us, the lowest ed standards in the country and bankrupt. The Repukes and Tslags are happy. They are trying to get the whole country that way.
Princess MoMo: Have you ever been to Walmart Mr. Liberal2daMax? A majority of the employees and shoppers therein look like genetic atrocities. They function at a less than optimal level. Why should they earn more? (The operative word being earn.)
JB: Hahahaha
Princess MoMo: The "rich" do not have an obligation to fund or donate to these people. If they choose to be charitable, good for them. But the poor should not expect or feel entitled to it.
JB: But yet they do feel entitled because that's how the government teaches people to think VIA public education, for starters
Liberal2daMaxI don't go to Wal-Mart for the reasons stated. Wal-Mart wont't allow unions because they would have to pay a living wage and thye couldn't keep their billions. I shop at Target. The values are the same if not better and the employees get a living wage. I see you like a class society. This is no 1492, this is 2011. Get a clue.
Princess MoMo: Lest anyone form the belief that I'm completely devoid of any sort of compassion, I would like to distinguish between people who make efforts to better themselves and people that are just useless leeches. Some people are poor due to unfortunate circumstances, yet they strive for more. They are motivated and driven. With some assistance, they can make a difference. Others are just scum. They're dumb, lazy and worthless. The latter category is the one that pisses me off. If people want to sit at home smoking blunts and making 2304923 more worthless babies, they deserve nothing from the government/taxpayers.
Princess MoMo: Liberal2daMax – Is there a government hand-out program that can provide me with a clue? I don't want to have to earn it on my own. Who is going to create it for me?
Princess MoMo: I don't like a class society. I like survival of the fittest and personal accountability.
Liberal2daMax: Finally we agree. I grew up on government cheese, but I also owned a multi-million dollar company with no college education. So I know what can happen. Yea, try a student loan. Oh, I'm sorry, the Repukes want that shut down too.
Liberal2daMax: And I did provide a living wage to my employees to the tune of $45,000 to $90,000. That's why I'm no millionare!!!
Princess MoMo: What were your employees doing?
Princess MoMo: Stocking shelves and scanning things?
Status Message Poster: Ok, I am eating amazing asian food with a friend and drinking beer when I look at my phone and see this conversation blowing up. I have a ton of shit to say…but later. Carry on.
Princess MoMo: Presumably, not.
Princess MoMo: Minimal skill sets and elemental job functions do not warrant salaries of $90k.
Princess MoMo: And again, no one forces anyone to work at Walmart. People work there because they want to or because they are unable to work elsewhere for reasons I mentioned above.
Liberal2daMax:Rote skills become menial when repeated over avd over again. I paid in accordance to what the company earned. Yes, I could have kept 60% of what I paid out. But why. So I could join some large yacht club. I kept the same employees for over 16 years. They sent their kids to college, bought cars and homes and took paid vacations. I could get any employee from Wal-Mart and have them do the same job with minamal training. Oh yes, I did keep $260,000 for my self plus other perks like cars, motor homes and month long vacations. I know, that's not the new Repuk American way of life. I still shop at Target!!!
Liberal2daMax: Watching the local news about Cosco vs Wal-Mart and local business. There is no problem with the rest of the news, but when they say anything negative about Wal-Mart the signal goes to shit and this is satellite. Can I get a witness :O) Before I found out about Wal-Mart, I went to a store in Pokomoke, MD. I lifted the tag on 'rool backs'. On 39 out of the 40 items I checked it was the same. Don't you just love the USA?
Princess MoMo: It's 2011, not 1984.
Liberal2daMax1984 was a lot better year. We sure messed things up. Give us 30 more years and we will be third world status.
Princess MoMo: It was a reference to the book.
So glad I wasn’t part of this mindless drivel
haha Why do you refer to it as mindless drivel?
its so stupid
why are people so addicted to a broken government?
Not nearly as entertaining as a dating post, but acceptable. ;-)
I have to switch it up sometimes.
Mainly, to demonstrate that I think about things other than specimens.
Gates had money btw… I think that it should have gone into marginal tax rates (1918 highest tax rate in the USA was 200% of what it is today).
Elaborate.
(I’m about to go to bed though, so I’ll read what you write in the a.m.)
Rich people need to pay higher taxes. Rich people like the Rockefellers paid tax rates MUCH higher than they do today. You could fix a lot of the fiscal imbalance by splitting the distance. Someone who earns in the xMillions can afford to peel off a couple if extra greenbacks so we don’t go insolvent. If the poor have to lose critical programs, the rich should kick in too. It’s about striking a balance.
aren’t the taxes that everyone pays supposed to cover basics covered by the government – police, fire prorection, social security, etc.
If I have a house just like yours, and have one car just like you, and have the same number of kids as you, and therefore require no more “support” from government utilities than you, but i make more money, why should i pay more? My house is no more likely to burn down, I am no more likely to require police assistance, my kid goes to the same school as yours. Why should I subsidize ten of my neighbors simply because I worked harder in school, got a better job, and now make more money?
Or major public works… the US has aging infrastructure that could be rebuilt and expanded which would create hundreds of thousands of jobs. I’m not talking about a bailout, but instead making solid investments that are needed to keep the industrial edge and modernize America into the 21st century. Electric cars need filling stations – why aren’t we building them? We need to expand public transit, etc. etc. These are major capital projects that give value to generations – and a way to America back on top. Income taxes were originally brought in to fight WWI.
So the Rockefellers were poor? I don’t understand how in two generations the idea of Noblesse Oblige got lost on conservatives.
This made me smile. It gives me hope to know that there are still people that get it – people that don’t have their heads stuck up their asses. Bravo, Wahba.
I completely agree with improving infrastructure – a high-speed rail system would be wonderful in the short and long term … What I have a problem with is the mentality of singling out the rich as the only ones who should foot the bill.
I’m sorry, but the the logic of “you can afford it, so you should pay instead of us” sounds JUST like Russia did not-so-long ago, where the wealthy were simply sent to Siberia and all their assets were appropriated simply because they were rich (that’s a part of my family history that I have to live with).
Why not cut military spending? How about cutting back on all the security theater spending at airports, everyone knows the TSA has not prevented a single act of terrorism since it’s inception. Also, do you think the past 10 years of warrant-less wiretaps have all been done for free? (thanks patriot act!) That money can be better used elsewhere.
There are plenty of places where the government can trim corners without affecting (and actually improving) the lives of the ordinary citizen. The problem is that all of these measures reduce the power of the government over the people, and that is not in the best interest of the government.
Yes, except cutting the military budget hurts 4 of 5 biggest companies in the USA. Not to mention sub contractors. I’m all for clipping there too. For many generation it was OK for high taxes on the rich – when did that change? Why can’t we go back to Clinton era taxation (the economy worked pretty well there). I’m not suggesting hyperbolic concepts like stripping people of their wealth entirely – I am suggesting a modest increase to fit the current economic climate. Not to mention I believe there is a fundamental debt to be paid by all citizens to their country – the ONLY reason they got life liberty and the pursuit is because the government sponsored such a way of life. Time to pay the piper.
I agree with paying the piper, expect my opinion diverges when it comes to deciding how much to pay – I believe everyone should be paying an equal share because everyone benefits equally from the existence and structure of the government (except those on welfare, they benefit more).
I do not believe that someone who worked their ass of their whole life and is now making lots of money should be paying any more more than a slacker art history major who can’t find a job outside of a McDonald’s. Yes, I am biased in favor of “successful” people, this is because I worked my butt off my whole life: I learned English when I was 10, and started working in a food truck alongside my dad when I was 14 because we had no money. My mom waitressed during the day and pored over medical books at night, we were destitute, we had no help. Fast forward 15 years. My mom is now a specialized MD, and I have a great paying job and post-graduate education. We succeed based solely on our efforts despite having nothing, and not even knowing the language, we weren’t even citizens back then so we didn’t qualify for any sort of support. If we could do it despite all of the obstacles, then anyone native can do it too. Barring a debilitating medical condition, there are No excuses.
Thanks for handling this D and nice profile picture!
Joseph Hopkinson – Let’s say work really hard. You use your money to buy a cow. None of your neighbors work. Are you now obligated to share the cow’s milk and meat with them? You may really like your neighbors, in which case you may want to share it with them. But would be it reasonable for a homeowner’s association (which wouldn’t exist in this hypothetical unless you as the “rich” neighbor funded it) to force you to share your cow?
The problem Princess MoMo is that I’m not talking about ONE cow. I am talking about the people who have 1,000-1,000,000 cows. The land has a few people (mostly white, mostly male) who have more cows then they could ever need in a lifetime, ever. And they could give their neighbours (yes, I spelled that correctly) some of the milk, and other benefits, and yes, they may occasionally have to give their neighbour a cow so the neighbour doesn’t die.
As I’ve explained to a few of my Republican friends, being Canadian means I will sacrifice a bit of opportunity in order to be secure. We have socialized medicine (one of the main reasons Canadians live 5 years longer on average). I don’t have to worry about health insurance (which I finally understand how worrying that can be since moving here). The wealthy in the US need to step up just as much as the poor and give some things up (pay more taxes) in order to help stimulate the economy through needed public works and economic modernization. I don’t think the wealthy will stay wealthy if the economy continues on its charted course. For example, the absurdity witnessed over the last few weeks regarding the debt ceiling was ridiculous. I’ve never heard of a country that needed to manually authorize spending beyond a credit cap – everywhere else people just do it, because they know their economy will implode if they don’t. I grow sick and tired of turning on FOX or CNN and having a national economy compared to a household economy (very different).
Comic relief: http://digg.com/news/offbeat/the_economy_of_the_world_pic
This is the fundamental point on which we differ: You are positing that social responsibility differs depending on the number of cows one owns. I disagree. Whether someone has one cow or a herd of 100,000,000 cows, the cow(s) still belong to the person and the person should not be forced to distribute (proportionally speaking) more of his/her cows just because s/he was able to acquire more cows or was better at breading/tending to his/her cows. If the person feels charitable and wants to donate some cows, that’s great. But it should not be mandatory. If that means the neighbor dies, so be it. Why is it the successful cow owner’s job to sustain the life of his/her neighbor?
breeding* I was probably thinking of veal parm.
Absolutely, probably because I am a Red Tory “Red Toryism derives largely from a High Tory and imperialist tradition that maintained the unequal division of wealth and political privilege among social classes can be justified, if members of the privileged class practiced noblesse oblige and contributed to the common good. Red Tories supported traditional institutions like religion and the monarchy, and maintenance of the social order. Later, this would manifest itself as support for some aspects of the welfare state. This belief in a common good, as expanded on in Colin Campbell and William Christian’s Political Parties and Ideologies in Canada, is at the root of Red Toryism.” full details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Tory
So, in essence, red torys (tories?) (synonymous with socialists in my mind) want to impose their morals on others.
You see, not mandating the “rich” to pay more proportionality does not mean that they won’t do so on their own volition. But it seems according to your principles, they shouldn’t have the choice. The “common good” should, by force, be more of their responsibility than that of others less fortunate.
The common good is “Common”. As in, a compromise agenda that works for all (Rich stay fairly rich, poor don’t die). What America’s rich should be doing (and some are saying http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125918497) is paying more taxes in line with previous levels – Let’s call it the Clinton era taxes, I won’t even go back to the 20s through 60s, where the tax rates were exponentially higher. (pardon the NPR hope it doesn’t taint your page).
She, along with others in her camp, can write a check out to the Dept. of Treasury. I’m sure the Dept. will gladly accept it. But to impose her will to pay more on others is nonsense. That’s like me saying, “You know, I really like animals. I want to donate 10% of my income to animal shelters. But I’m not going to stop there. I’m going to lobby to force everyone else in the country to do the same.”
Animals are not people. Unless this is Animal Farm and we can’t tell the difference between humans and pigs…
I personally like animals more than people. That’s why I used that example. But replace the animal shelter in the example with an orphanage…the analogy still applies.
And if you feel this way, why don’t you take the doors down in your house/apartment and invite the homeless to share your dwelling. When you get breakfast in the morning, make sure to buy some for all of the less fortunate that you may pass on your way to work.
I liken the duty of the “rich” to pay more proportionally to the “duty to rescue” in torts. In this country, the law does not generally require a person to rescue someone who is in peril. That doesn’t mean there aren’t good Samaritans. It just means that the government does not impose it upon people to act in a way that some perceive as moral.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duty_to_rescue
Suffice to say, we differ, but that is ok :)
I’m so disappointed that you’re one of them.
One of who? I’m just an observer, I can’t even vote, make political donations, etc. Just stopping by for a visit…