"Someone has to clean the toilets"

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
thats the result of Hard Work, Dedication, and a product people want.

Dont be a Hater.
I'm not complaining about people being rich. Good for them. But when that wealth is derived from depriving people of their livelihoods, leaving them nowhere to go, there should be a cost.

And rich people should want to pay that cost, given the amount of political power the millions of economically irrelevant people have.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I think the capture of wealth by the wealthy justifies additional taxation that can be used to support the economically irrelevant people, since their capture of that wealth made those people economically irrelevant. If you abide by that you deprive humanity of some of the greatest minds in human history. It's not worth it.
The wealthy do pay more taxes. How much more is the point of contention. Labeling earnings as "capturing wealth" is distorting the situation, making it sound like they're just stealing it. And you earning money doesn't reduce my income. Envy surely doesn't justify the taking of another's fruits of their labor. You've got people like schuylaar or Buck who just plain flat out refuse to work who spend their days demanding even more largess from the public while condemning them them at the same time. They both "claim" they made tons o' money years ago and therefore we owe them not only a living, but a pretty damn good one at that. Then insult and curse us for not doing enough, with "enough" being defined by them.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
the result of your "solution would be a nation of these:
you would usher in the Idiocracy?
The point could be made that those people are the result of "unlicensed" parents with poor parenting skills. Not saying I support the idea of licensing parents.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
The point could be made that those people are the result of "unlicensed" parents with poor parenting skills. Not saying I support the idea of licensing parents.
they are the result of the sorts of people who would be issued licenses.

po' folks wouldnt get licenses, and when Planned Parenthood controls the licenses (as was their original focus) coloured people wont get licenses either.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
The wealthy do pay more taxes. How much more is the point of contention. Labeling earnings as "capturing wealth" is distorting the situation, making it sound like they're just stealing it. And you earning money doesn't reduce my income. Envy surely doesn't justify the taking of another's fruits of their labor. You've got people like schuylaar or Buck who just plain flat out refuse to work who spend their days demanding even more largess from the public while condemning them them at the same time. They both "claim" they made tons o' money years ago and therefore we owe them not only a living, but a pretty damn good one at that. Then insult and curse us for not doing enough, with "enough" being defined by them.
You aren't following the discussion. My comment relates to the elimination of labor by automation, which leaves the labor with no livelihood (and the people who depended on the demand of that labor to earn their livelihoods as well). My point is that a large number of people are economically irrelevant and incapable of earning any living on their own. If you filled every available job in this country right now you would have millions of people left over with nothing to do.

Given that the wealthy have vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant, additional taxation to support those people is justified. As automation continues wealth inequality will continue to increase and more people will be rendered economically irrelevant. It's not their fault. I don't think anyone should be starving in the streets because some geniuses invented computers and robots.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I've often thought that raising a child was the most important responsibility we as humans have. Yet those among us who are least capable seem to be having the most children.

You need a license to drive, to hunt, to fish, to get married, or to start a business. But any moron with nuts can squirt his load into a uterus and have a child and there are no repercussions to them (from society), in fact, we give them money.

Wouldn't it make sense to require a license to bring a child into this world? Doing so without a license could be met with forced sterilization or something, any such rule would require teeth.

Ultimately this is a "big government solution" so I would want it done through the states and not the federal government.
The potential for corruption is severe, and the motive for it, extreme.
I find it instructive that the right to procreate wasn't enumerated in any state document. It is universally acknowledged as absolute. We view governments like China's, who do impose restrictions, as being totalitarian in this regard.
Licensing fertility won't and can't work. The route toward depopulation is ... other, and quietly being pursued.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
You aren't following the discussion. My comment relates to the elimination of labor by automation, which leaves the labor with no livelihood (and the people who depended on the demand of that labor to earn their livelihoods as well). My point is that a large number of people are economically irrelevant and incapable of earning any living on their own. If you filled every available job in this country right now you would have millions of people left over with nothing to do. Given that the wealthy have vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant, additional taxation to support those people is justified. As automation continues wealth inequality will continue to increase and more people will be rendered economically irrelevant. It's not their fault. I don't think anyone should be starving in the streets because some geniuses invented computers and robots.
You are a Luddite. The wealthy haven't "vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant", they just find more efficient ways to do things. They don't deserve to be punished for that. Do you want to pay $200,000 thousand for a piece of crap car? That's what it would cost without automation. Food production, consumer goods, everything you buy depend on automation to make them affordable. Without automation, hundreds of millions would be starving in the streets. You're letting some idealized fantasy world that just can't exist without the death of 90% of the human race become your goal. And those that remain would be living as we did 1000 years ago. Think things through.
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
You are a Luddite. The wealthy haven't "vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant", they just find more efficient ways to do things. They don't deserve to be punished for that. Do you want to pay $200,000 thousand for a piece of crap car? That's what it would cost without automation. Food production, consumer goods, everything you buy depend on automation to make them affordable. Without automation, hundreds of millions would be starving in the streets. You're letting some idealized fantasy world that just can't exist without the death of 90% of the human race become your goal. And those that remain would be living as we did 1000 years ago. Think things through.
Again, you misunderstand. I'm not complaining about the technology at all or advocating against it. But it is an undeniable fact that the wealthy have vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant. That's part of the efficiency--an unavoidable and indisputable consequence. I'm merely pointing it out.
 

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
You are a Luddite. The wealthy haven't "vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant", they just find more efficient ways to do things. They don't deserve to be punished for that. Do you want to pay $200,000 thousand for a piece of crap car? That's what it would cost without automation. Food production, consumer goods, everything you buy depend on automation to make them affordable. Without automation, hundreds of millions would be starving in the streets. You're letting some idealized fantasy world that just can't exist without the death of 90% of the human race become your goal. And those that remain would be living as we did 1000 years ago. Think things through.
Ever play the game of Monopoly?

Tell me how that ends
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Again, you misunderstand. I'm not complaining about the technology at all or advocating against it. But it is an undeniable fact that the wealthy have vastly increased their wealth by rendering other people economically irrelevant. That's part of the efficiency--an unavoidable and indisputable consequence. I'm merely pointing it out.
No, most the rich produce nothing. They get their money by buying low and selling high, whether it be stocks or groceries. Some by selling their expertise. Some by being entertaining, or playing a sport well. The minority who gain their wealth by producing stuff are the ones who employ the poor, giving them income and keeping them from continuing to be poor. The only ones we don't "need" are the entertainers and sportsmen. But we want them and are willing to pay for them. Take away the idea of wealth removes their incentive for supplying what we need. You should be demanding the NFL lose it's non-profit status and publicly bought billions of dollars of sports stadiums. Instead of those who employ the rest of us making us NOT "economically irrelevant".
 

tokeprep

Well-Known Member
No, most the rich produce nothing. They get their money by buying low and selling high, whether it be stocks or groceries. Some by selling their expertise. Some by being entertaining, or playing a sport well. The minority who gain their wealth by producing stuff are the ones who employ the poor, giving them income and keeping them from continuing to be poor. The only ones we don't "need" are the entertainers and sportsmen. But we want them and are willing to pay for them. Take away the idea of wealth removes their incentive for supplying what we need. You should be demanding the NFL lose it's non-profit status and publicly bought billions of dollars of sports stadiums. Instead of those who employ the rest of us making us NOT "economically irrelevant".
Yeah, that's just not true.
 

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
If you abide by that you deprive humanity of some of the greatest minds in human history. It's not worth it.

Now THAT'S some bullshit right there.

Most folks that live in the "ghetto" live there for a reason, and it's not because they are an undiscovered rocket scientist, it's because they're fucking dumb as a bag of hammers. There's always exceptions, but, contrary to popular belief, exceptions are NOT the norm.

I ran into quite a few folks who enlisted to get out of the shithole environment their parent (note the word PARENT, not PARENTS) borne them into, and while nice enough, they were usually on the lower end of the "smart dude" scale.

However, it's not the lack of brains that holds people back as much as it's the lack of anything that even remotely resembles a work ethic. "Opportunity" means nothing to these kind of folks, as they aren't willing to work hard enough to exploit said "opportunity".
 

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Now THAT'S some bullshit right there.

Most folks that live in the "ghetto" live there for a reason, and it's not because they are an undiscovered rocket scientist, it's because they're fucking dumb as a bag of hammers. There's always exceptions, but, contrary to popular belief, exceptions are NOT the norm.

I ran into quite a few folks who enlisted to get out of the shithole environment their parent (note the word PARENT, not PARENTS) borne them into, and while nice enough, they were usually on the lower end of the "smart dude" scale.

However, it's not the lack of brains that holds people back as much as it's the lack of anything that even remotely resembles a work ethic. "Opportunity" means nothing to these kind of folks, as they aren't willing to work hard enough to exploit said "opportunity".
People living in ghettos are not afforded the same opportunities as other well off people
 

Wilksey

Well-Known Member
People living in ghettos are not afforded the same opportunities as other well off people
And?

Short people are not afforded the opportunities of tall people.
Stupid motherfuckers are not afforded the same opportunity as even the quasi-intelligent.
Fat bastards are not afforded the same opportunity as non-fat bastards.


Are you going to shit on those people as well?
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Now THAT'S some bullshit right there.

Most folks that live in the "ghetto" live there for a reason, and it's not because they are an undiscovered rocket scientist, it's because they're fucking dumb as a bag of hammers. There's always exceptions, but, contrary to popular belief, exceptions are NOT the norm.

I ran into quite a few folks who enlisted to get out of the shithole environment their parent (note the word PARENT, not PARENTS) borne them into, and while nice enough, they were usually on the lower end of the "smart dude" scale.

However, it's not the lack of brains that holds people back as much as it's the lack of anything that even remotely resembles a work ethic. "Opportunity" means nothing to these kind of folks, as they aren't willing to work hard enough to exploit said "opportunity".
wow, it's like a race to the center of the dumb with the righties around here.

most people live in "ghettos" because they were de facto segregated into them and the cycle of poverty keeps them there, not some republican meme of laziness.

witness: detroit



san antonio



washington DC



the same thing happens in every city. it is our legacy as a nation, and i don't know how we'll overcome it. but we must if we are to give the promise of opportunity equality to all. and calling people stupid or lazy for being born into areas of lower opportunity helps nothing and is quite prejudiced and ugly.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
People born to shitty lifestyles often climb out. More often, they are socialized by the environment they are in and become the next generation of leaches.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer, because they keep doing what it was that made them that way.

In my junky days I engaged in this behavior. Pawning my stuff, car title, computer, and not working. Even the non drug addicted in these areas engage in similar activity.

I honestly think some of this could be mitigated by a little financial education in public schools.

I am aware of too many poor people that have ascended to the middle class to say they are barred from such progress by society, too often the barrier is self imposed.

My parents own apartments. Very often the renters are in the process of saving for a home. These people drive inexpensive cars. Then you have the people who seem to be content to live a life of paycheck to paycheck subsistence. They drive new(er) cars, go out and eat often, have the most trendy gadgets, and engage in expensive habits. They are the first ones to bitch about not being able to get ahead.
 

BigNBushy

Well-Known Member
wow, it's like a race to the center of the dumb with the righties around here.

most people live in "ghettos" because they were de facto segregated into them and the cycle of poverty keeps them there, not some republican meme of laziness.

witness: detroit



san antonio



washington DC



the same thing happens in every city. it is our legacy as a nation, and i don't know how we'll overcome it. but we must if we are to give the promise of opportunity equality to all. and calling people stupid or lazy for being born into areas of lower opportunity helps nothing and is quite prejudiced and ugly.
It is a fact if a neighborhood starts having lots of black folks move into it property values go down.

A good example is found in Memphis TN. There is a community called Whitehaven (I shit you not) where the white people moved out of the city, and into Whitehaven. Whitehaven is now a very black community, as this was generations ago. The white people in Memphis now live in Germantown.

Atlanta is the same, 40 years ago the white folks started moving north, they called the area Buckhead, it is now referred to as blackhead and is declining rapidly.

I don't know why this is, but it is. White people build a nice community, black people are attracted to it, a tipping point is reached, white people start moving out, the community declines.

Why is this?
 
Top