Why I Shop At Wal-mart Despite My Progressive Politics

[LeftyHenry]

No, it is basic information that is fact, not based on a text book. I have already admitted that, in a perfect world, socialism would be a perfect system. However, most people are, by nature, lazy baztards that won't do any more than absolutely necessary to get by.
I know people that are lifetime welfare cases. Because they are content to live off the government tit.
I also know people that will starve before they ever stoop to that level, as they put it. They will work like maniacs to get ahead, but they won't bother to work that hard without reward.
And I don't have to disprove anything about socialism. There is nothing to attack.

Ok fine you're right. People are lazy and socialism would be perfect if people had an incentive. hmm... If only there was an incentive...Ah! Bingo

Labor Time Vouchers

here's a quote from one of my blog entry's which recently talked about this

LTVs in short, are basically a measurement of how hard one works at his or her job. It is an account on a computer which you log into when you start working and log out of when you stop. LTVs can be determined by the smaount of stress and effort put into your job. The amount and quality of the product you produce. Or the successful completion of a hard task. When you are finished working, you log out and print the LTVs which you will then save up and use to by non-necessities such as electronics and furniture. What is the point of LTVs? Simple to provide a motive and incentive for man to work during the time he is still intoxicated by the evils of capitalism.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Ok fine you're right. People are lazy and socialism would be perfect if people had an incentive. hmm... If only there was an incentive...Ah! Bingo

Labor Time Vouchers

here's a quote from one of my blog entry's which recently talked about this

We currently call those pay checks. The smart companies have a quota system, where the employees have a set amount of product to produce during their shift.
By exceeding that, they get paid bonuses. As for LTV's to buy non-necessities? That is Big Brother big time. No thanks. We've got enough government oversight. We don't need them determining who gets what any more than already.

 

[RealmOfThePureForms]

What morals are at ends with the accumulation of wealth?

What changes should be made?

How is my lifestyle or working my trade in order to buy what it is that I want, or spend money to do what it is that makes me happy, wrong?

What quarrels are there between men who do not deal with eachother through force, but the voluntary trade of value for value?

Hey I am not blaming the average worker. I am blaming corporations that enslave everyone around them. There is nothing wrong with feeling joy from buying a new tv. The problem is that you are made to believe that happiness only exists from buying a new tv,car, house, (insert material object here).

The problem is under capitalism you are not working your trade. You are working for someone else under conditions that are almost identical to a dictatorship. The moment you walk through the doors to go to work you surrender everything it means to be an America. All of your constitutional rights are revoked including your right to free speech. You are corporate property and you have been stripped of your humanity.

Our laws do not exist to protect the poor. Our laws exist to protect the rich from the poor. Because if the poor ever had a chance to return even a fraction of the exploitation they have suffered at the hands of the rich, you would see the return of slavery in the form of CEOS being shackled and forced to pick crops for the rest of their lives.

Our society is run by the corporate elite. They buy our politicans, they tell the government to go to war sending thousands of our soldiers to die so they can profit. Once again it is not the rich who die, only the poor. The poor go to war to defend the rich who make profit off the war.

This is not America and this is not freedom.

Laws exist to protect the rich from the poor.

The justice system is not blind and a rich man will serve no time for comitting a crime of identical nature to a poor person who would be sentenced to jail

Mega-corporations send our government to war to make the rich and greedy even more money at the expense of the poor class losing their sons and daughters on the battlefield.

We do not have a democracy. Capitalism is wholey incompatible with democracy. Capitalism breeds facism. In time the corporations gain control and own everything. When that point is reached you see a complete deterioration in all the processes that once made a democracy possible.

*Elections no longer matter because corporations buy politicans through lobbyists

*The justice system no longer seeks justice, only to exonerate the rich and condemn the poor

*Corporates removed basic freedoms and attempt to subvert any laws which are created to protect the rights of the individual exactly as would occur in a fascist society.

The following are quotes from our leaders who understood just how dangerous corporations were and are today. If you cannot believe what I am saying then look at what they said and see the truth for yourself. What they said has come true and nobody seems to notice or care.


"The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, and more selfish than bureaucracy. It denounces as public enemies, all who question it's methods or throw light upon it's
crimes. I have two great enemies, the Southern Army in front of me and the Bankers in the rear. Of the two, the one at my rear is my greatest foe..corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money powers of the country will endeavor to prolong
it's reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in the hands of a few, and the Republic is destroyed. --Abraham Lincoln

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The
issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly
belongs." -- Thomas Jefferson

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."
Samuel Adams

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Hey I am not blaming the average worker. I am blaming corporations that enslave everyone around them...

Good post, I still completely disagree with most that you said because, and I mean no personal offense by this, you speak in generalizations as if there was an organized evil in the court system to punish the poor. To me it seems that the litigious nature of America causes the courts to often decide in favor of the poor, unless the rich can afford better lawyers.

You may consider this unfair, but those are the spoils of making money, you have more of it to spend. Ask yourself this, do the poor exist because the rich took their money, or do the poor exist because the rich have money? (Granted this is a very general question, and im well aware of the exceptions to the rules.)

You didnt answer a single question of mine that you quoted, please do in a substantive way.

The problem is under capitalism you are not working your trade. You are working for someone else under conditions that are almost identical to a dictatorship. The moment you walk through the doors to go to work you surrender everything it means to be an America. All of your constitutional rights are revoked including your right to free speech. You are corporate property and you have been stripped of your humanity.

I dont see it that way. Your civil rights are protections from your government. Free speech doesnt apply in private property, nor the work place.

When you work your CHOSEN trade, you work under the terms you AGREE to when you sign your CONTRACT. (Note: I know not all jobs are so cushy, but stay with me.) You arent forced to surrender any freedom, you are working on your own terms and if you boss's policies become like a Dictatorship, you are NOT forced to continue to work for him/her.

 

[RealmOfThePureForms]

Good post, I still completely disagree with most that you said because, and I mean no personal offense by this, you speak in generalizations as if there was an organized evil in the court system to punish the poor. To me it seems that the litigious nature of America causes the courts to often decide in favor of the poor, unless the rich can afford better lawyers.

You may consider this unfair, but those are the spoils of making money, you have more of it to spend. Ask yourself this, do the poor exist because the rich took their money, or do the poor exist because the rich have money? (Granted this is a very general question, and im well aware of the exceptions to the rules.)

You didnt answer a single question of mine that you quoted, please do in a substantive way.



I dont see it that way. Your civil rights are protections from your government. Free speech doesnt apply in private property, nor the work place.

When you work your CHOSEN trade, you work under the terms you AGREE to when you sign your CONTRACT. (Note: I know not all jobs are so cushy, but stay with me.) You arent forced to surrender any freedom, you are working on your own terms and if you boss's policies become like a Dictatorship, you are NOT forced to continue to work for him/her.

A corporation is a legal person under the 14th amendment according to the US Supreme Court. The 14th amendment was created to prevent any human being from ever owning another human being againin the USA. Shareholders own corporations. Therefor corporations are in violation of the 14th amendment. By US Supreme Court ruling of being a legal person it is illegal for them to be owned by anyone and yet they are.

The problem with what you are saying is you are treating corporations like they are legal persons. Our constution is designed to protect us from all threats to our freedom. Fascism is corporate ownership of the free market. Communism is government ownership of the free market. Do you understand that corporations own our free market and that they now have enough power to cause major political changes any time they choose? This makes corporations more than just private innocent structures. They are acting in a fascist manner and are violating our rights and our election process.

If your only choice for a job is a corporation(most people only have this choice). Then here is how I see it. If you have to choose between 3 different dictators to survive, then you don't have a choice to begin with, You are forced to give up your freedom just to be able to eat and have a place to live. Since this is the case, it could be argued without great difficulty, that you are infact forced to live in a dictatorship or die from starvation. When your only 2 choices are live in a dictatorship or die, you don't have a choice.

Corporations have become so powerful and so manipulative, that they now control the lives of every day Americans in ways most people never even think about. Wal-Mart alone employs over 1 million American workers. Keep in mind that is like a nation onto itself.

Corporations have overstepped their legal rights but nothing is done to stop them because they are too powerful. This is the boundry FDR, Abraham Lincoln, and Thomas Jefferson all feared. The boundry that once crossed, would give corporations freedom from democratic restraint. Now they have that and in a few years they will not just be manipulating our government as they are now, they will be outright running it. When the president of China came to the US recently, before he visited the White House, he visited Bill Gates for a meeting. Welcome to the future of America. A Corpocracy.

 

[LeftyHenry]

We currently call those pay checks. The smart companies have a quota system, where the employees have a set amount of product to produce during their shift.
By exceeding that, they get paid bonuses. As for LTV's to buy non-necessities? That is Big Brother big time. No thanks. We've got enough government oversight. We don't need them determining who gets what any more than already.

Non Necessities would be basically electronics like plasma screen tvs and ipods and furniture and decoration stuff. Neccessities as necessities to life. Basically everything that a man must have will be socialized.

In our current system that is not so. In our current system money is passed down, and is for everything while in communism it'd only be for 'the finer things in life'. Also it wouldn't be circulated so there wouldn't be a large inequality in wealth. So in this system, eveyone starts off the same. Get's everything they need. And if they work hard, they can get whatever they wish. It's a win win situation.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Non Necessities would be basically electronics like plasma screen tvs and ipods and furniture and decoration stuff. Neccessities as necessities to life. Basically everything that a man must have will be socialized.

In our current system that is not so. In our current system money is passed down, and is for everything while in communism it'd only be for 'the finer things in life'. Also it wouldn't be circulated so there wouldn't be a large inequality in wealth. So in this system, eveyone starts off the same. Get's everything they need. And if they work hard, they can get whatever they wish. It's a win win situation.

I started off with nothing, and still have most of it left, too!! But you know what? I don't want to dip into the pocket of my neighbor Fred whose dad busted his butt for thirty years and left him ten million dollars, either.
Why? Because the money is Fred's, not mine. We all have the same abilities, barring physical and mental handicaps, in this country. There are still millionaires being made in America, on a regular basis.
And a lot of those millionaires did not start out as such. They got their asses off the couch and quit waiting on their frigging lottery numbers to come in.
People who are handicapped should be given assistance. People who are lazy should have to sweep the city streets while on the government tit until they decide to get a damn job. Or mandatory education, but no, it should not be anyone elses responsibility to provide for a slacker.
As I said before, handicapped is an exception. And lets not waste either of our time with the outrageous scenarios that can be cooked up.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I started off with nothing, and still have most of it left, too!! But you know what? I don't want to dip into the pocket of my neighbor Fred whose dad busted his butt for thirty years and left him ten million dollars, either.
Why? Because the money is Fred's, not mine. We all have the same abilities, barring physical and mental handicaps, in this country. There are still millionaires being made in America, on a regular basis.
And a lot of those millionaires did not start out as such. They got their asses off the couch and quit waiting on their frigging lottery numbers to come in.
People who are handicapped should be given assistance. People who are lazy should have to sweep the city streets while on the government tit until they decide to get a damn job. Or mandatory education, but no, it should not be anyone elses responsibility to provide for a slacker.
As I said before, handicapped is an exception. And lets not waste either of our time with the outrageous scenarios that can be cooked up.

I never said anything about rewarding slackers. Slackers in communism will be treated as criminals as they are the ones stealing. However I don't think there will be many slackers as marxism can't be forced. It has to come when the people overwhelmingly support it.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

And that is it's ultimate failing. You are stating, and correct me if I am misinterpreting, that being lazy will be considered criminal. Thus, freedom of expression is gone.
I don't like lazy people. However, there are always going to be those that will live off the government for free if any way possible.

 

[128shot]

F

Of course not, but they fight to keep a lot of jobs here in America. Hell if it were not for unions, their would not be a manufacturing job left in the United States.

Even though most new manufacturing jobs are becoming less unionized by the year?


BTW, don't hate wal-mart, hate the supplier. Its like shooting the messanger. Wal-mart wouldn't sell cheap product if people didn't buy that cheap product, you know.


Its seriously a consumer problem, not a business issue. Its a grinding reality that most people will never admit.

 

[LeftyHenry]

And that is it's ultimate failing. You are stating, and correct me if I am misinterpreting, that being lazy will be considered criminal. Thus, freedom of expression is gone.
I don't like lazy people. However, there are always going to be those that will live off the government for free if any way possible.

They'll be criminals by indirectly stealing from society and from your co-workers and neighbors. You won't be charged with anything officially, but you can bet that your co-workers will. If you do slack off, and you're co-workers notice they'll do something about it because everyone is linked together in communism. Thus there will informal pressure to work from the people around you.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

They'll be criminals by indirectly stealing from society and from your co-workers and neighbors. You won't be charged with anything officially, but you can bet that your co-workers will. If you do slack off, and you're co-workers notice they'll do something about it because everyone is linked together in communism. Thus there will informal pressure to work from the people around you.

No interest in this type of society. I want to get rid of all the deadbeats, that is certain, but I am not willing to give up my ability to make a very good living for me and mine.
Thus, I will always choose the way and government that screws me over the least. Socialism isn't geared toward those that are self motivated, and have a goal in mind.
I'll stick to our current government, until we can find one that taxes less and lets me achieve more on my own.

 

[RealmOfThePureForms]

I started off with nothing, and still have most of it left, too!! But you know what? I don't want to dip into the pocket of my neighbor Fred whose dad busted his butt for thirty years and left him ten million dollars, either.
Why? Because the money is Fred's, not mine. We all have the same abilities, barring physical and mental handicaps, in this country. There are still millionaires being made in America, on a regular basis.
And a lot of those millionaires did not start out as such. They got their asses off the couch and quit waiting on their frigging lottery numbers to come in.
People who are handicapped should be given assistance. People who are lazy should have to sweep the city streets while on the government tit until they decide to get a damn job. Or mandatory education, but no, it should not be anyone elses responsibility to provide for a slacker.
As I said before, handicapped is an exception. And lets not waste either of our time with the outrageous scenarios that can be cooked up.

Now see this is one of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years.

Capitalism says it is morally ok to justify ONE MAN having 10 MILLION dollars, while 20 MILLION children are starving in that same country every day.

This is the kind of morality capitalism teaches to our children. Let me tell you something, on the grand scale of humanity and morals, way, way beyond national boundries and laws, capitalism violates the sanctity of human dignity by giving people amounts of money they could not morally earn in 50 lifetimes, let alone one. The rich shareholders, corporations, businessmen who spend their entire life hoping for the misfortunes of others so that they can become richer.

I swear on everything I stand for, one day Capitalism will be viewed as a barbaric system in which people unjustly earned great sums of money at the expense of other peoples very lives. The only thing that will be more perplexing to future enlightened generations than how we could choose capitalism, is how we could possibly proclaim that it was morally just and that some business man was justified in taking 10 million dollars simply because he was good as manipulating and destroying other peoples lives.

In capitalism nobody gets rich unless it is at the expense of another. It is a morally bankrupt system of economics that will ensure there will always be a massive underclass of exploited poor people who can never climb the ladder. And the greedier the rich elitest class becomes, the larger the underclass must become to sustain their greed.

It's not laziness. There are not 40 million lazy poor people in this country. It's exploitation. For the rich to have, the more poor must have not. So call it what it is. Do not use the word "earned" "busted his butt" or "hardship" on anyone who has millions of dollars. Use the words "exploited" "manipulated" and "found a way to steal from others without going to jail". Because for every millionare that "earned it by busting his but through hardships" there are 50,000 regular men and women who work twice as hard only to have all their hard work and effort returned to the millionare while they return to their paycheck to paycheck, choose between electricity and medication, feed the children or pay the heating bill, lives.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Capitalism says it is morally ok to justify ONE MAN having 10 MILLION dollars, while 20 MILLION children are starving in that same country every day.

I swear on everything I stand for, one day Capitalism will be viewed as a barbaric system in which people unjustly earned great sums of money at the expense of other peoples very lives.

In capitalism nobody gets rich unless it is at the expense of another. It is a morally bankrupt system of economics that will ensure there will always be a massive underclass of exploited poor people who can never climb the ladder. And the greedier the rich elitest class becomes, the larger the underclass must become to sustain their greed.

You cant be serious? The fact that I earn money that someone else doesnt have makes me morally evil?

Wealth is PRODUCED, and most people get rich by offering a product or service in exchange for money. No one steals anything from the poor. My income at the expense of no one.

Income inequality is an effect of growing markets. There will always be inequality but that is irrelevant if per capita GDP increases with the standards of living.

Someone as smart as you has read the Wealth of the Nations im sure. You cant really believe that the only way to produce wealth is through looting. Thats communism... Everyone owning and taking from everyone.

You really seem to hate individualism, materialism, and money. And what it seems you support is the forced redistribution of wealth, and communism.

Say we were all equal financially. Every bum had as much cash as every great nobel prize winner. Then what? Those who dont know how to produce wealth will spend more than they earn, while those who know how to will create income inequality. Gonna force the productive citizens to "share" again?

And you still havent answered my questions

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Now see this is one of the pseudo-moral principles which have hag-ridden us for two hundred years.

Capitalism says it is morally ok to justify ONE MAN having 10 MILLION dollars, while 20 MILLION children are starving in that same country every day.

This is the kind of morality capitalism teaches to our children. Let me tell you something, on the grand scale of humanity and morals, way, way beyond national boundries and laws, capitalism violates the sanctity of human dignity by giving people amounts of money they could not morally earn in 50 lifetimes, let alone one. The rich shareholders, corporations, businessmen who spend their entire life hoping for the misfortunes of others so that they can become richer.

I swear on everything I stand for, one day Capitalism will be viewed as a barbaric system in which people unjustly earned great sums of money at the expense of other peoples very lives. The only thing that will be more perplexing to future enlightened generations than how we could choose capitalism, is how we could possibly proclaim that it was morally just and that some business man was justified in taking 10 million dollars simply because he was good as manipulating and destroying other peoples lives.

In capitalism nobody gets rich unless it is at the expense of another. It is a morally bankrupt system of economics that will ensure there will always be a massive underclass of exploited poor people who can never climb the ladder. And the greedier the rich elitest class becomes, the larger the underclass must become to sustain their greed.

It's not laziness. There are not 40 million lazy poor people in this country. It's exploitation. For the rich to have, the more poor must have not. So call it what it is. Do not use the word "earned" "busted his butt" or "hardship" on anyone who has millions of dollars. Use the words "exploited" "manipulated" and "found a way to steal from others without going to jail". Because for every millionare that "earned it by busting his but through hardships" there are 50,000 regular men and women who work twice as hard only to have all their hard work and effort returned to the millionare while they return to their paycheck to paycheck, choose between electricity and medication, feed the children or pay the heating bill, lives.

This is the biggest crock I've seen in quite a while. It is the typical 'it's not your fault' routine, and that is old and worn out. Most of these millionaires make their money by providing a product or service. They employ people and pay them to make the item/provide the service, thus helping to support the families of those who work for them.
Yet no one bothers to look at that particular item, instead they continuously rant and rave about how it isn't fair that a group of people pooled their money together and started a company providing X, all at the risk of losing their investment if the company went bust, but that is not important.
This is not what being self employed means. I run a small operation, rehabbing houses. I employ my sons, and they are well paid. But I am the one that is investing my money and experience into the properties, I am the one that is finding them, negotiating the price, and taking all the financial risks.
And by your standards I don't deserve the lions share?
Wrong.
I know a friend of mine who I've known since high school. He used to live in a twenty foot silver stream trailer with his parents and five siblings.
Currently he has a four hundred thousand dollar home, new vehicles, and is paying his kids way through college.
He has no college. He has busted his arse to get where he is, and has never once stepped on anyone.
I've seen him help out those who are in rough shape, myself included, when I was down, and never once mention it again. So save the rich people are evil line for the DNC.
I know the reality. People with no money can be azzholes, just like those with money can be.
Individuality is what it all boils down to. So keep the stereotyping, and stop trying to spin it where money is evil and people with it are as well.
They earned it, they damn well deserve the right to do with it what they want.

 

[RealmOfThePureForms]

You cant be serious? The fact that I earn money that someone else doesnt have makes me morally evil?

Wealth is PRODUCED, and most people get rich by offering a product or service in exchange for money. No one steals anything from the poor. My income at the expense of no one.

Income inequality is an effect of growing markets. There will always be inequality but that is irrelevant if per capita GDP increases with the standards of living.

Someone as smart as you has read the Wealth of the Nations im sure. You cant really believe that the only way to produce wealth is through looting. Thats communism... Everyone owning and taking from everyone.

You really seem to hate individualism, materialism, and money. And what it seems you support is the forced redistribution of wealth, and communism.

Say we were all equal financially. Every bum had as much cash as every great nobel prize winner. Then what? Those who dont know how to produce wealth will spend more than they earn, while those who know how to will create income inequality. Gonna force the productive citizens to "share" again?

And you still havent answered my questions

Your wrong about me. I don't support the complete redistribution of wealth. Only something inbetween. I want SOME redisribution of wealth. I want to know that a system is in place that makes sure no children starve to death. And if that requires taking out a few millionares than I think that is a fair trade.

I love individualism and hate materialism. But society comes before individualism. It is not a right but a duty for humanity to take care of its own. If we fail to do that then we fail to give the most basic of human rights, the right to eat and have shelter.

How can you justify anyone having millions of dollars a year. They have no right! They can make enough to live comfortably but they have no right to make more than enough to live comfortably. They have no right to make millions when millions of children are starving to death in the same country! I am sick and tired of the hypocrisy!! This country is not giving and it is not geneorus. It is a disgrace to humanity!! If you think some asshole millionare has a right to have millions of dollars because he is better at exploiting poeple than someone else then you need to rethink your beliefs. NO CHILD SHOULD HAVE TO STARVE IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY ON EARTH YET EVERY NIGHT 20 MILLION CHILDREN GO TO BED HUNGRY! And you sit there and justify this by telling me that someone has the right to own 10 million dollars.

What a joke! A nation that calls itself Christian! A nation whos religious leader Jesus Christ oppposed everything that exists in capitalism. And it takes an agnostic to argue Jesus' beliefs against a christian nation that embraces all the vices Jesus Christ preached against. A nation of hypocrites is what we live in. I hate capitalism and everything it stands for. I pledge my life to undoing the evils this pathetic hypocritcal system has caused.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

I want to know that a system is in place that makes sure no children starve to death. And if that requires taking out a few millionares than I think that is a fair trade.

I love individualism and hate materialism. But society comes before individualism. It is not a right but a duty for humanity to take care of its own. If we fail to do that then we fail to give the most basic of human rights, the right to eat and have shelter.

How can you justify anyone having millions of dollars a year. They have no right! They can make enough to live comfortably but they have no right to make more than enough to live comfortably. They have no right to make millions when millions of children are starving to death in the same country!

There is no such system that makes sure NO children starve to death, and if that was the purpose of a system, Im not sure it would last very long.

How about a system that ensures that most wont starve, and those who are starving have a chance at social mobiltiy? Oh wait I forgot you hate capitalism.

In this country the rights of the individual supercede the comfort of the majority. Individualism must never be sacrificed for collectivism...

There is an evolutionary incentive to taking care of yourself and your loved ones, there isnt one for the sake of everyone else. You cant save everybody...

At least we are clear, you find it wrong for any one person to have a million dollars and also its impossible to reach said wealth without having "exploited" the poor. So if voluntary trade is exploitation, how does one accumulate wealth honestly? And where do you draw the line on how much a person can make(cap)?

*Note: Its been 3 pages of you responding to me but not actually answering a question, I have officially given up hope to get those kinds of answers.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

There is no such system that makes sure NO children starve to death, and if that was the purpose of a system, Im not sure it would last very long.

How about a system that ensures that most wont starve, and those who are starving have a chance at social mobiltiy? Oh wait I forgot you hate capitalism.

In this country the rights of the individual supercede the comfort of the majority. Individualism must never be sacrificed for collectivism...

There is an evolutionary incentive to taking care of yourself and your loved ones, there isnt one for the sake of everyone else. You cant save everybody...

At least we are clear, you find it wrong for any one person to have a million dollars and also its impossible to reach said wealth without having "exploited" the poor. So if voluntary trade is exploitation, how does one accumulate wealth honestly? And where do you draw the line on how much a person can make(cap)?

*Note: Its been 3 pages of you responding to me but not actually answering a question, I have officially given up hope to get those kinds of answers.

Lachean, you are wasting pixels on this one. He has swallowed the class warfare/all rich people are evil line up to the pole.
No one is responsible for their own lives, it is always the 'underserving rich' who only worked sixty to one hundred hours a week to get where they are for the most part who are really lazy baztards that didn't do squat to deserve it.
The constitution guarantees a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Not a guarantee that one will reach those goals. The hypocrisy is from those that want to STEAL what another persoin has earned.
As for generosity, check your figures. Americans give more than any other country on an individual basis than any other nation.
Keep your hate. I'll keep working toward those underserved dollars.

 

[LeftyHenry]

No interest in this type of society. I want to get rid of all the deadbeats, that is certain, but I am not willing to give up my ability to make a very good living for me and mine.
Thus, I will always choose the way and government that screws me over the least. Socialism isn't geared toward those that are self motivated, and have a goal in mind.
I'll stick to our current government, until we can find one that taxes less and lets me achieve more on my own.

There is no point in arguing then if you have no interest. It means you just don't care. You have brought up no good points against marxism except for the fact that you like to be greedy.

The 'American Dream' is really just a mirage. It happens to one in a million or something like that, yet keeps us working and keeps them reeping the fruits of our labor.

Socialism doesn't tax at all and cures poverty. What can be better than that unless you're a selfish prick?

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

There is no point in arguing then if you have no interest. It means you just don't care. You have brought up no good points against marxism except for the fact that you like to be greedy.

The 'American Dream' is really just a mirage. It happens to one in a million or something like that, yet keeps us working and keeps them reeping the fruits of our labor.

Socialism doesn't tax at all and cures poverty. What can be better than that unless you're a selfish prick?

First of all, my comments were not directed at you, LeftyHenry. I don't mind debating the issue with you, you make clear, concise points, with the exception of the above post, where I was referred to as a selfish prick.
Never said I was selfish. I donate money when I have it, and help out those who I know that need help.
But I do disagree with the idea that we must create a form of class warfare.
If anything, the one thing I would say I'd like to see is to give people that donate to charities a bonus deduction if they donate over a certain amount.
And I don't mean a low donation, either. If someone donated, say, $500,000 dollars to a charity, they can write off $510,000 on their taxes.
Sounds foolish, but it would definitely increase donations, and it would help out those who are without certain things.
Give a slightly smaller amount to those that donate to international charities, and a higher amount to those that donate to national ones. Fix our house first, so to speak, and then balance them out.
I have no problem with charities to help people. I have a major problem with robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.
I hope this is a bit more clear. If you want more information, I'd be happy to provide that as well, including how I think welfare should be run.

 

[LeftyHenry]

There is no such system that makes sure NO children starve to death, and if that was the purpose of a system, Im not sure it would last very long.

Oh yes, a system that cares for the welfare of it's people. Give me a break, next you'll tell me donate to charity. HA!

There is a system. A theory that has never been tried. Communism. Communism has successfully been scared by the USSR and US propaganda, but the true theory that marx wrote strives for a more perfect world. That's the goal isn't it?

How about a system that ensures that most wont starve, and those who are starving have a chance at social mobiltiy? Oh wait I forgot you hate capitalism.

32 million isn't most but its still too much to sacrifice IN THE RICHEST COUNTRY. And **** social mobility that throws people in poverty, and has others have billions and billions of dollars and 16 mansions. It's sickening.

Why must you need social mobility? What's wrong with equality and unity?

In this country the rights of the individual supercede the comfort of the majority. Individualism must never be sacrificed for collectivism...

individualism and collectivism and one in the same. I of all people that everyones different but that doesn't mean we can't care for one another as a community.

There is an evolutionary incentive to taking care of yourself and your loved ones, there isnt one for the sake of everyone else. You cant save everybody...

But if everybody does this to everyone what would be the problem.

At least we are clear, you find it wrong for any one person to have a million dollars and also its impossible to reach said wealth without having "exploited" the poor. So if voluntary trade is exploitation, how does one accumulate wealth honestly? And where do you draw the line on how much a person can make(cap)?

Why doesn't everyone share wealth collectivly. If people feel the need to have more material things then they work hard for their community and accumalate LTVs which can be used to get these things. I see no problem with that.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

Guys, we've really hijacked this thread. Maybe we should make a new thread and let this one get back to bashing wally world.

 

[LeftyHenry]

First of all, my comments were not directed at you, LeftyHenry. I don't mind debating the issue with you, you make clear, concise points, with the exception of the above post, where I was referred to as a selfish prick.

No that wasn't directed at you. It's directed at anyone who likes taxes and poverty so unless you like taxes (which you said you don't) and/or poverty, it doesn't refer to you.

Never said I was selfish. I donate money when I have it, and help out those who I know that need help.
But I do disagree with the idea that we must create a form of class warfare.

That's good. I don't have much money but I'm thinking about joining the peace corps. That'll be in quite a few years but I'm planing ahead.

***

What do you mean by class warfare? Communism is classless. A revolution would be class warfare maybe but that's not really the point of it.

If anything, the one thing I would say I'd like to see is to give people that donate to charities a bonus deduction if they donate over a certain amount.
And I don't mean a low donation, either. If someone donated, say, $500,000 dollars to a charity, they can write off $510,000 on their taxes.
Sounds foolish, but it would definitely increase donations, and it would help out those who are without certain things.

Well then it becomes a vicious cycle. What I mean is who will be the ones donating and writing off? The upper class. Where will the money go? To people in horrible conditions abroad. Who does the right off effect? People in horrible conditions in America because welfare and medicare/caid go bankrupt eventually.

Give a slightly smaller amount to those that donate to international charities, and a higher amount to those that donate to national ones. Fix our house first, so to speak, and then balance them out.
I have no problem with charities to help people. I have a major problem with robbing Peter to pay Paul, so to speak.
I hope this is a bit more clear. If you want more information, I'd be happy to provide that as well, including how I think welfare should be run.

Not if Peter is a real jerk who has six cars and Paul is a hard worker who has a family to feed.

 

[Blue Collar Joe]

No that wasn't directed at you. It's directed at anyone who likes taxes and poverty so unless you like taxes (which you said you don't) and/or poverty, it doesn't refer to you.

I don't mind taxes, I understand that they are a necessity. Thus, I have no issues with paying them. I do have issues with raising taxes, especially when, if we trimmed all the pork out of our government, we could really do a lot of good.

That's good. I don't have much money but I'm thinking about joining the peace corps. That'll be in quite a few years but I'm planing ahead.

Good on you, but what may be better? Why not start a charity of your own, where you control where the money goes? You are obviously not financially driven, and that is what kills most charities off, realistically. Their overhead starts eating more and more of their donations up. Disgusting, but a fact of the business. Greed affects many people.

What do you mean by class warfare? Communism is classless. A revolution would be class warfare maybe but that's not really the point of it.

The DNC plays the rich vs. poor card every election. And, if you look at the numbers, their idea of the 'rich' is sixty k or more a year. Hardly rich. However, communism would continue to do as it always has. The reality is, you either have total control where the populace is subjects, or you have capitalism, where you have greed involved. People are inherently greedy for the most part, with few exceptions. A lot talk the talk, but very few can actually walk the walk.

Well then it becomes a vicious cycle. What I mean is who will be the ones donating and writing off? The upper class. Where will the money go? To people in horrible conditions abroad. Who does the right off effect? People in horrible conditions in America because welfare and medicare/caid go bankrupt eventually.

Good point. How about the money is donated to the welfare programs, to fund education and job training for those on the welfare roles, so that they can escape from the hole they are in? The people who 'donate' are still paying taxes, but they get an overall deduction, and the government is not losing any money, as they will now have more for funding programs that drastically need an overhaul?
Provide education, and child care for those that need it, so that they can become productive members of society? Charge them an interest free loan after they have gotten out of school and have been employed for six months, then the cycle continues, as their funds now help others in the same situation begin their climb out of poverty?
And not make the money only for college. Tech school, trade school, all those forms of job training could qualify.
Thus, we could have much better people contributing to our society as a whole, and none of it forced.
Rather than simply a check every month, give them a hand up, rather than the current hand-outs.
Again, I can go into more detail if wanted.

Not if Peter is a real jerk who has six cars and Paul is a hard worker who has a family to feed.

I am a Paul. I work my arse off to provide for my family, and still made less than 25k last year. But I don't have any intention of robbing Peter just because I don't like him.

 

[LeftyHenry]

I don't mind taxes, I understand that they are a necessity. Thus, I have no issues with paying them. I do have issues with raising taxes, especially when, if we trimmed all the pork out of our government, we could really do a lot of good.

Taxes are necessary in a market economy but I think a better system would be to simplify the tax system and to make it so that you get to choose where your money goes. That way if you're against the war you don't have to pay for it and vica-versa. Of course I think this should be to an extent otherwise alot of necessary social programs might go bankrupt.

Good on you, but what may be better? Why not start a charity of your own, where you control where the money goes? You are obviously not financially driven, and that is what kills most charities off, realistically. Their overhead starts eating more and more of their donations up. Disgusting, but a fact of the business. Greed affects many people.

HA! That'd be nice but I couldn't do that as that takes money and mass organization. Also it's not really my thing. I'd rather connect with people on a personal level.

But it's ironic since the Peace Corps were originally a oranization used to fight so called 'communism' in latin America, yet I'm a communist.

The DNC plays the rich vs. poor card every election. And, if you look at the numbers, their idea of the 'rich' is sixty k or more a year. Hardly rich. However, communism would continue to do as it always has. The reality is, you either have total control where the populace is subjects, or you have capitalism, where you have greed involved. People are inherently greedy for the most part, with few exceptions. A lot talk the talk, but very few can actually walk the walk.

I hate the DNC. They are way too broad. They try to cover everyone from the center to the extreme left. And that 60k thing is obscence. For example in Manhattan, New York City, if you make 110k or less (maybe 100k) you're considered middle class since the cost of living is insane.

And I obviously disagree with communism 'doing what it always does'. I think Communists nowadays have the advantage of history. They're able to look at Lenin and Stalin and identify the mistakes and make sure to change them.

Good point. How about the money is donated to the welfare programs, to fund education and job training for those on the welfare roles, so that they can escape from the hole they are in? The people who 'donate' are still paying taxes, but they get an overall deduction, and the government is not losing any money, as they will now have more for funding programs that drastically need an overhaul?
Provide education, and child care for those that need it, so that they can become productive members of society? Charge them an interest free loan after they have gotten out of school and have been employed for six months, then the cycle continues, as their funds now help others in the same situation begin their climb out of poverty?
And not make the money only for college. Tech school, trade school, all those forms of job training could qualify.
Thus, we could have much better people contributing to our society as a whole, and none of it forced.
Rather than simply a check every month, give them a hand up, rather than the current hand-outs.
Again, I can go into more detail if wanted.

I do think that welfare needs major reform. It shoudl provide needs of survival for people but should have a comprehensive job placement program.

I am a Paul. I work my arse off to provide for my family, and still made less than 25k last year. But I don't have any intention of robbing Peter just because I don't like him.

But do you see how unfair it is? Peter gets paid millions because he 'organizes' the Pauls. Paul get paid 25k because he works in poor conditions doing the dirty work. What??? Why not organize yourself and get Peter's money. After what is he really doing except leeching off of you?