Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]



This is an archived forum, so it is here for read-only purposes only. We are not accepting new members and members cannot post any longer. Members can, however, access their old private messages. Strawberry Fields was open from 2006 until 2011. There is a Strawberry Fields Beatles Forum on Facebook. If you are registered with Facebook, join us at the group there!

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Who are you going to vote for in the US Election?
McCain/Palin 8 (32%)
Obama/Biden 9 (36%)
Other 0 (0%)
I am not going to vote 0 (0%)
I am not a US Citizen, but if I was I'd vote for McCain/Palin 0 (0%)
I am not a US Citizen, but if I was I'd vote for Obama/Biden 7 (28%)
I am not a US Citizen, but if I was I'd vote for another candidate 1 (4%)
I am not a US Citizen, but even if I was I wouldn't vote 0 (0%)
Total Votes: 25
2008 U.S. Presidential Election
Topic Started: Feb 22 2007, 05:49 AM (37,409 Views)
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
As a republican (5 Rep, 1 Dem, 1 Ind) I post the following story with glee. If the dems are going to start tearing each other new a$$holes this early they may just blow this sure thing Bush has set up for them yet! B) The especially juicy stuff is in red.

Clinton, Obama, come out swinging
Fundraiser's barbs spark war of words

By Mike Dorning and Jill Zuckman
Tribune national correspondents
Published February 21, 2007, 10:39 PM CST


BEVERLY HILLS, Calif. -- One day after Sen. Barack Obama made a glittery statement with a Hollywood fundraiser that brought in an impressive $1.3 million, the top two Democratic presidential contenders went after each other in the first big food fight of the 2008 presidential election.

It started when David Geffen slammed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York in remarks published Wednesday morning, accusing the presidential candidate of lying with "such ease" compared to other politicians, dismissing her husband, former President Bill Clinton, as "reckless," and blasting the Clinton "machine." Geffen, a powerful Hollywood producer and executive, was once a major Clinton supporter but has switched to Obama and was a host of Tuesday's bash.

The Clinton campaign, perhaps stung by Obama's successful incursion into Hollywood, which at one time was unchallenged Clinton country, hit back hard, saying Geffen's comments contrasted poorly with the Illinois senator's self-promotion as a new breed of politician, unifying and optimistic.

"If Sen. Obama is indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics, he should immediately denounce these remarks, remove Mr. Geffen from his campaign and return his money," said Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson. "While Democrats should engage in a vigorous debate on the issues, there is no place in our party or our politics for the kind of personal insults made by Sen. Obama's principal fundraiser."

The Clintons have long been known for skilled, aggressive political infighting, and Geffen's comments provided a way for the Clinton campaign to test how Obama, relatively new to the national stage, would take a punch. It also was the first of what will no doubt be many attempts by rivals to knock the halo off Obama's head.

The Obama camp—eager to show that it knew how to handle criticism and could stand up to an experienced political warrior like Clinton—issued a biting statement.

"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters," said Obama communications director Robert Gibbs. "It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."

Obama also took the opportunity to go on offense, suggesting that Clinton was being hypocritical, since she had not disavowed the recent comments of South Carolina state Sen. Robert Ford. Ford, who has endorsed Clinton, said last week that if Obama were the Democratic nominee, "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose, because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything."
Gibbs said Wednesday that it is "ironic" that Clinton has praised Ford and accepted his support.

If both candidates had reasons for engaging in what might seem like a minor squabble, the spectacle of Clinton and Obama duking it out so early in the campaign was nonetheless striking. It was the sort of rat-a-tat-tat political spat that usually breaks out in the snowy cold of New Hampshire in the critical days before the nation's first presidential primary, rather than 11 months before that contest and almost two years before the 2008 election.
Geffen interview sparked spat

What ignited the battle of words was an interview with Geffen in Wednesday's New York Times by columnist Maureen Dowd, in which Geffen portrayed himself as disenchanted with both Clintons, their failure to always stand firm on principle and their style of political battle. "Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling," he said.

He called Bill Clinton "a reckless guy" who "gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country." Geffen slammed Hillary Clinton for refusing to apologize for her vote to authorize the Iraq war. "It's not a very big thing to say, 'I made a mistake' on the war, and typical of Hillary Clinton that she can't," Geffen said.

Asked if Obama would be able to stand up to the Clinton machine, Geffen said, "I hope so, because that machine is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective."

This rhetorical eruption came one day after Geffen—along with Steven Spielberg and Jeffrey Katzenberg, his partners in DreamWorks SKG—hosted a $2,300-per-person fundraiser for Obama at the Beverly Hilton, site of the glitzy Golden Globe Awards.

There was no red carpet, but stars of the entertainment world showed up in packs. Flashes popped in the hotel lobby as tourists spotted stars like Jennifer Aniston. She walked past purposefully, though she tossed her hair, turned and smiled when a fan with a digital camera yelled her name.

An all-star cast

Actors Ben Stiller, Eddie Murphy, Morgan Freeman, and Christine Lahti also showed up. Singers Jackson Browne and the Dixie Chicks' Natalie Maines were there. And so were producers Norman Lear, Ron Howard, Lawrence Bender, producer of Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth," and J.J. Abrams. The heads of several major studios also attended.

Tom Hanks and Denzel Washington bought tickets but did not show up.

Despite the star power, the event was a low-key affair. No cameras were permitted inside the fundraiser, which drew 300 guests and raised about $1.3 million, according to Katzenberg. Hotel security guards ejected camera crews and ushered out several reporters who had not registered as guests, explaining that they were acting on instructions from the organizers.

Obama and his wife, Michelle, came and left through a back entrance out of sight of the media and guests in the lobby. The couple spent about a half-hour mixing with the guests before the senator made his remarks.

Inside the ballroom, according to a pool reporter allowed in for the senator's remarks, Obama spoke of the entertainment industry's "enormous power," which he said comes with an "enormous responsibility" because of Hollywood's impact on American culture.

"Don't sell yourselves short," Obama said. "You are the storytellers of our age."

For a change, it was the Hollywood powers who were seeking autographs. The senator's aides invited guests to bring their own personal copies of Obama's books, "The Audacity of Hope" and "Dreams From My Father," and he agreed to sign them.

Guests noshed on carved meats, phyllo turnovers(greek appetizers?), shrimp dumplings and crab cakes.(ah, the food of the poor and disenfranchised.) The audience crowded the open bars inside the hotel ballroom, which was dressed with stunning displays of cut flowers and bathed in a flattering peach light.

Most of the celebrities had little to say on their way in or out.

"Mr. Stiller? What did you think of Sen. Obama?" asked one reporter. No answer.

As she left, Aniston did not slow down for her two-word response: "He's lovely."

Browne paused just long enough to belt out a more enthusiastic verdict: "He's great!"

When the Dixie Chicks' Maines stopped to speak to a knot of reporters, a hotel security worker tried to do what President Bush's supporters could not: shut her up.

As she talked to reporters, the security guard nudged his way into the middle. "No interviews," he told the Grammy Award-winning anti-war singer.
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

Oh, PLEASE!!!! Republicans will be doing the same sorts of things to one another. It's the start of the primary season. Are you suggesting that this sort of thing is exclusive to the Democratic party??




Hmmm, let's see. . . . just yesterday, John McCain said that Donald Rumsfeld will go down in history as one of the worst secretaries of defense ever!!!! He's now trying to distance himself from the very crowd that he once supported.


What's the difference? :unsure:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

I can't believe what McCain is doing. He seemed to have the nomination in the bag yet everything he says seems to damage his case.

There's nothing wrong with him walking away from people he once supported when those people prove themselves incompetent. But McCain is beginning to match Hillary for pandering to whoever he happens to be speaking to at the time. It's sad.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

This is how campaigns of every party operate during primary season (no matter how far away the primaries are). My question is, what does this mean:

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 12:49 AM
As a republican (5 Rep, 1 Dem, 1 Ind) I post the following story with glee.


Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Feb 21 2007, 10:13 PM
This is how campaigns of every party operate during primary season (no matter how far away the primaries are). My question is, what does this mean:

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 12:49 AM
As a republican (5 Rep, 1 Dem, 1 Ind) I post the following story with glee.

It's a secret code decipherable only by the "right". ;)










What's the frequency, Kenneth??:unsure:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 06:19 AM
mozart8mytoe
Feb 21 2007, 10:13 PM
This is how campaigns of every party operate during primary season (no matter how far away the primaries are).  My question is, what does this mean:

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 12:49 AM
As a republican (5 Rep, 1 Dem, 1 Ind) I post the following story with glee.

It's a secret code decipherable only by the "right". ;)










What's the frequency, Kenneth??:unsure:

Hmmm ... I was wondering that too, but perhaps what he's saying is that he's voted Republican 5 times, Democratic 1 time and Independent 1 time in major contests such as the race for the presidency.

Just a guess, since I have no idea how old he is with respect to that assessment ... but if I'm right then he probably considers himself Republican due to it being the way that he voted more times than not.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Icarus
Feb 22 2007, 12:39 AM
Hmmm ... I was wondering that too, but perhaps what he's saying is that he's voted Republican 5 times, Democratic 1 time and Independent 1 time in major contests such as the race for the presidency. 

Just a guess, since I have no idea how old he is with respect to that assessment ... but if I'm right then he probably considers himself Republican due to it being the way that he voted more times than not.

DING! DING! DING! Give that lass a prize! Good job Icky. (yeah, I'm that old!)

Scottycat,

Your purring tonight is with the blinders on tight! Using your example is there any chance if McCain is not the republican nominee that his berating of Rumsfeld will hurt Rumsfeld's chances of winning the presidency? No, that's right, Rumsfeld isn't running for president. See the difference? Try reading both sides in a book, not just the pages on the left.

Hugs and kisses,
John
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 21 2007, 11:05 PM
Icarus
Feb 22 2007, 12:39 AM
Hmmm ... I was wondering that too, but perhaps what he's saying is that he's voted Republican 5 times, Democratic 1 time and Independent 1 time in major contests such as the race for the presidency. 

Just a guess, since I have no idea how old he is with respect to that assessment ... but if I'm right then he probably considers himself Republican due to it being the way that he voted more times than not.

DING! DING! DING! Give that lass a prize! Good job Icky. (yeah, I'm that old!)

Scottycat,

Your purring tonight is with the blinders on tight! Using your example is there any chance if McCain is not the republican nominee that his berating of Rumsfeld will hurt Rumsfeld's chances of winning the presidency? No, that's right, Rumsfeld isn't running for president. See the difference? Try reading both sides in a book, not just the pages on the left.

Hugs and kisses,
John

:wacko: :wacko: :wacko: WTF?????
Been hitting' the ol' Ouzo tonight, John???







Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 02:05 AM
Your purring tonight is with the blinders on tight! Using your example is there any chance if McCain is not the republican nominee that his berating of Rumsfeld will hurt Rumsfeld's chances of winning the presidency? No, that's right, Rumsfeld isn't running for president. See the difference? Try reading both sides in a book, not just the pages on the left.

I am sure you remember the lovefest between McCain and Bush during the 2000 Republican primaries.

Candidates on both sides will attack each other viciously, only to later support whomever in their party wins the nomination. That is how the game is played.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 01:07 AM
:wacko:  :wacko:  :wacko: WTF????? 
Been hitting' the ol' Ouzo tonight, John???

Alas, no. Maybe its just too late :yawn: for this old-timer to make any sense when posting. :lol:

Icky, the more I think about it you should be worried that you were able to figure out my 'secret frequency code.' :whistle:
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

I'm still trying to figure out who the one Democrat was. :blink: :unsure:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
mozart8mytoe
Feb 22 2007, 01:17 AM
I am sure you remember the lovefest between McCain and Bush during the 2000 Republican primaries.

Candidates on both sides will attack each other viciously, only to later support whomever in their party wins the nomination.  That is how the game is played.

Actually Moz, back then our cable system didn't have the 'fair and balanced' channel so it actually escaped me.

That was one of the sweet things about this story. I saw it on the ABC evening news. They pointed out the negatives said about Clinton ("accusing the presidential candidate of lying with "such ease" compared to other politicians") from a man who had contributed $18 million to her and her husband's coiffers. But then trusty old 'independent' (and no doubt fair and balanced) George Stefanopoulos was there to toss her a softball question so she could respond that Obama was going into the gutter. In the meantime there is no mention of the black South Carolina senator Ford, who also happens to be a minister of a 10,000 black congregation and is on the Clinton payroll to get out the vote saying this: "Every Democrat running on that ticket next year would lose, because he's black and he's top of the ticket. We'd lose the House and the Senate and the governors and everything." :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: To close out the segment they had the equally unbiased Cokie Roberts lamenting the fact that the democrats were calling each other names. Oh, boo hoo. :baby:

p.s. Who's going to call Ford an 'uncle Tom' first, Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 01:32 AM
I'm still trying to figure out who the one Democrat was. :blink: :unsure:

You know I drink OUZO and you can't figure that out? Codes don't have to be that 'high in frequency' to get by you! What time is it by you? :P
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 21 2007, 11:48 PM
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 01:32 AM
I'm still trying to figure out who the one Democrat was. :blink:  :unsure:

You know I drink OUZO and you can't figure that out? Codes don't have to be that 'high in frequency' to get by you! What time is it by you? :P

Are you calling me stupid, John??? :unsure:


I try never to ASSume anything.




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 06:05 PM
Icarus
Feb 22 2007, 12:39 AM
Hmmm ... I was wondering that too, but perhaps what he's saying is that he's voted Republican 5 times, Democratic 1 time and Independent 1 time in major contests such as the race for the presidency. 

Just a guess, since I have no idea how old he is with respect to that assessment ... but if I'm right then he probably considers himself Republican due to it being the way that he voted more times than not.

DING! DING! DING! Give that lass a prize! Good job Icky.

You voted for Nader? :o
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 01:52 AM

Are you calling me stupid, John???

:no:


Here, I'll lay it out for you.

John Anderson
Ronald Reagan
Michael Dukakis
George Bush
Robert Dole
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 07:10 PM


"W" stands for winner

Of elections maybe, but not invasions. :P
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
james
Member Avatar

i dont care who it is but they better not do dumb stuff :hyper:
¸*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨) ¸.•*´¨*•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.• JAMES¨*•.¸¸.•*´¨
\±/(`'·.¸ (`'·..¸ (¯`·.·´¯) ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)\±/
­ †strawberry­­*•.¸¸.•* fields†

Posted Image

http://s1.zetaboards.com/3kWNation/index/ a board for gamers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Bill
Feb 22 2007, 02:12 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 07:10 PM


"W" stands for winner

Of elections maybe, but not invasions. :P

I figured out why you're not much of a sports fan. You seem to not have grasped that the outcome of a game is not decided until the rules state that the game is over.

I deduced this from the fact that you don't understand that invasions aren't declared to be victorious or lost until the "decider" has declared them over. To quote Lloyd Benson, "I know George W. Bush. You Bill, are no decider!" :P RBAYB!
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

If that's the best you've got, you really are either drunk or sleep deprived. :P

So pray tell me, oh One Who Knows, when WILL time be called?
Oh yes, that's right. Timetables are for losers, yeah?
So what have we "decided" that "Mission Accomplished" actually means? Or "cakewalk"?

I'll go out on a limb and say that your television and web browser don't know Bush any better than mine do.

FACT: Tommy Franks (architect of the invasion) expected a complete troop withdrawal by the end of 2004. Have you checked the date recently smart guy? :P :wub:

I'll tell you something about sports that you might not know: it has no relevance to anything other than itself. In other words, war ain't football. It's time the cheerleaders realised that. :hmm:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 12:10 AM
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 01:52 AM

Are you calling me stupid, John???

:no:


Here, I'll lay it out for you.

John Anderson
Ronald Reagan
Michael Dukakis
George Bush
Robert Dole
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

:blush: :blush: "We" have tried to forget about that one. :ph43r:









Apparently I was quite successful. :yes: :ph43r:




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
james
Member Avatar

i say if its hilary were messed if its the black guy were messed and if its the white guy were messed ...so no matter were messed though ill vote whos better! :hyper:
¸*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨) ¸.•*´¨*•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.• JAMES¨*•.¸¸.•*´¨
\±/(`'·.¸ (`'·..¸ (¯`·.·´¯) ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)\±/
­ †strawberry­­*•.¸¸.•* fields†

Posted Image

http://s1.zetaboards.com/3kWNation/index/ a board for gamers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 12:20 AM
Bill
Feb 22 2007, 02:12 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 07:10 PM


"W" stands for winner

Of elections maybe, but not invasions. :P

I figured out why you're not much of a sports fan. You seem to not have grasped that the outcome of a game is not decided until the rules state that the game is over.

I deduced this from the fact that you don't understand that invasions aren't declared to be victorious or lost until the "decider" has declared them over. To quote Lloyd Benson, "I know George W. Bush. You Bill, are no decider!" :P RBAYB!

Oh, gee -- I thought this was a WAR, not a "game". :rolleyes:




And, while I'm at it, let me lay it out for you . . . it's Lloyd Bentsen.




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
james
Member Avatar

you ask me alot of are young people didnt need to die for bush's stuff over oil and weapon of whatever. :(
¸*´¨)
¸.•´¸.•*´¨) ¸.•*¨) ¸.•*´¨*•.¸
(¸.•´ (¸.• JAMES¨*•.¸¸.•*´¨
\±/(`'·.¸ (`'·..¸ (¯`·.·´¯) ¸.·'´)¸.·'´)\±/
­ †strawberry­­*•.¸¸.•* fields†

Posted Image

http://s1.zetaboards.com/3kWNation/index/ a board for gamers!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 01:10 AM



Here, I'll lay it out for you.

John Anderson
Ronald Reagan
Michael Dukakis
George Bush
Robert Dole
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

Having been voting long, have you? You voted for Dukakis?

W stands for loser in my book and his decisions have been terrible.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 07:47 PM


And, while I'm at it, let me lay it out for you . . . it's Lloyd Bentsen.

The Republicans have been trying to reclaim that for almost 20 years haven't they? :lol: Remember when Reagan stood up and said, "Mr Clinton, you're no Bob Dole."
That may just have won the election for Clinton! :lol:

Likewise, being told I'm no George Bush is of great comfort to me. B)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
Bill
Feb 22 2007, 02:25 AM
If that's the best you've got, you really are either drunk or sleep deprived.  :P

So pray tell me, oh One Who Knows, when WILL time be called?
Oh yes, that's right. Timetables are for losers, yeah?
So what have we "decided" that "Mission Accomplished" actually means? Or "cakewalk"?

I'll go out on a limb and say that your television and web browser don't know Bush any better than mine do.

FACT: Tommy Franks (architect of the invasion) expected a complete troop withdrawal by the end of 2004. Have you checked the date recently smart guy?  :P  :wub:

I'll tell you something about sports that you might not know: it has no relevance to anything other than itself. In other words, war ain't football. It's time the cheerleaders realised that.  :hmm:

YIKES - seems I touched a nerve! SORRY! (still seems like a harmless attempt at a little humor - even with some sleep.) I'll try a proper response later as I'm late for work. :bye:
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 02:47 AM
And, while I'm at it, let me lay it out for you . . . it's Lloyd Bentsen.

Oh, I bet that felt good. :worship:
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 06:34 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?

Always the sensible one! ;)

Do pray tell give us a sensible definition of 'living wage.' (bold yours, not mine.) Why should an employer "give" it to any worker? Where does personal responsibilty to earn a good paying job fall into your definition? Sorry, seems too much like code for 'redistribution of wealth' to me.
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 07:25 AM
Icky, the more I think about it you should be worried that you were able to figure out my 'secret frequency code.' :whistle:

I'm not worried in the slightest ... I used to operate multichannel communication systems in the service. Although given that I am the only one that got it, and your take is a little contrary to others that are in the thread ...

... oh, never mind. Funny how quick people are to attack those that are able to decipher stuff like that when they've had too much rice wine or too little sleep. :blink:
Quote Post Goto Top
 
scottycatt
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:29 AM
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 02:47 AM
And, while I'm at it, let me lay it out for you . . . it's Lloyd Bentsen.

Oh, I bet that felt good. :worship:

Yes, quite! :yes:

When you flood your posts with phrases such as "you don't understand", "I don't think you grasp", "let me lay it out for you", and other condescending hogwash, what do you expect in return??


You might reconsider how you phrase things from now on. ;)




Why?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 04:38 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 06:34 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?

Always the sensible one! ;)

Do pray tell give us a sensible definition of 'living wage.' (bold yours, not mine.) Why should an employer "give" it to any worker? Where does personal responsibilty to earn a good paying job fall into your definition? Sorry, seems too much like code for 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

Oh heaven forfend that I should even hint that there should be a 'redistribution of wealth' in the US - I'm sure everyone there is happy that the rich get richer and the poor remain poor... everyone's a winner, right?

Not that I was even saying that. After you have given your labour for a week/months work, you are given your week's/month's wages by your employer. Simple as that - strange how you picked up on such a harmless word.

How would I define a living wage? I'll tell you what my definition of a living wage would be... working a 35-hour week which would yield a wage that would be enough to;

1. Pay the rent or mortgage
2. Pay for a decent standard of food for you and your family
3. Pay the utilities
4. Pay for any clothing & footwear you and your family may need
5. Pay for decent health insurance for you & your family
6. Pay to run a car for the family
7. Save enough each week to, after 18 years of saving, pay for your children's higher education

...and those are the basics. Anything else is the icing on the cake. I am absolutely positive that the only people who would argue against that would be people who already have those things.

I don't think that is asking too much. You have any President who will deliver that to the American people and you have possibly the most popular President in US history.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 23 2007, 03:27 AM

YIKES - seems I touched a nerve! SORRY! (still seems like a harmless attempt at a little humor - even with some sleep.) I'll try a proper response later as I'm late for work. :bye:

Hey John, I tried to pepper it with all the right smileys. :) :) :) Maybe I should have put some more in. You know i loves ya! :hug:
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Nicely put Andy. Anyone who works a full eight hour day should be able to live on what they earn in those eight hours whether it's in the boardroom or slopping out the shithouses.

I don't know if the expression is used elsewhere, but here we have a term called "job snobs" for unemployed people who refuse to take menial jobs.
I think the other side of the coin is "wage snobs." That is, those who seem to think that people who do menial work don't deserve to be paid enough to live on even though they work harder than us doing jobs that most of us thank God we don't have to do.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 10:38 AM



Oh heaven forfend that I should even hint that there should be a 'redistribution of wealth' in the US - I'm sure everyone there is happy that the rich get richer and the poor remain poor... everyone's a winner, right?

Not that I was even saying that. After you have given your labour for a week/months work, you are given your week's/month's wages by your employer. Simple as that - strange how you picked up on such a harmless word.

How would I define a living wage? I'll tell you what my definition of a living wage would be... working a 35-hour week which would yield a wage that would be enough to;

1. Pay the rent or mortgage
2. Pay for a decent standard of food for you and your family
3. Pay the utilities
4. Pay for any clothing & footwear you and your family may need
5. Pay for decent health insurance for you & your family
6. Pay to run a car for the family
7. Save enough each week to, after 18 years of saving, pay for your children's higher education

...and those are the basics. Anything else is the icing on the cake. I am absolutely positive that the only people who would argue against that would be people who already have those things.

I don't think that is asking too much. You have any President who will deliver that to the American people and you have possibly the most popular President in US history.

I work a 40 hour work week (50 at the moment) and even at what I get paid, I could not do all of these things on it. I have my pension and between the two, I can do these things.

I sure could use a new car, as I drive a 94 Honda Civic. I'm saving for a new car and I'm paying cash. No more car loans for me.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 03:10 AM
John Anderson

So you are the one.

JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 12:38 PM
I am absolutely positive that the only people who would argue against that would be people who already have those things.

I don't think that is asking too much.  You have any President who will deliver that to the American people and you have possibly the most popular President in US history.

I would doubt that anyone is advocating that people be denied the right to earn a living. But do you really see that as the President's responsibility? Should it be up to the President to deliver a decent wage for everyone or up to the businesses that hire people? Or, and this is kind of wacky, should it be up to the people themselves? Imagine how the people who call Bush a facist would feel if he actually had that much power.

The President of the United States can influence employment rates, inflation, the minimum wage, interest rates and foreign trade, but he cannot control them. One of the few areas in which the President has direct authority is in acts of war. Praise and/or blame for Iraq should be placed directly on the President. Blame for the appalling cost of living in this country rests on many of us.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

The president can't control such things directly but he does set the agenda. Kennedy knew nothing more than the average person about space travel, but he was the one who said, Wouldn't it be great if we could send a man to the moon and back before the decade is out!

And it happened.

Now if the President made it a national ambition that every worker in the richest nation on Earth made a living wage, then that would be one big step towards making it a reality because it would become not just a nice idea but a patriotic duty.

It also has two distinct advantages over Kennedy's challenge:
1: It's really not all that ambitious and,
2: It ain't rocket science.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

President Kennedy was the motivational speaker. He certainly did not deliver space to the people. Can President Bush speak out more about companies giving people a decent wage? Absolutely. Do you want him to have that much control that he can force companies to do so? Probably not.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~LovelyRita~

There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 11:09 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:29 AM
scottycatt
Feb 22 2007, 02:47 AM
And, while I'm at it, let me lay it out for you . . . it's Lloyd Bentsen.

Oh, I bet that felt good. :worship:

Yes, quite! :yes:

When you flood your posts with phrases such as "you don't understand", "I don't think you grasp", "let me lay it out for you", and other condescending hogwash, what do you expect in return??


You might reconsider how you phrase things from now on. ;)


Hello Pot,
This is kettle. Message received on your frequency Kenneth. Or have I ASSumed something? :whistle:

Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

~LovelyRita~
Feb 25 2007, 06:24 PM
There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )

Yes, some economists contend that a living wage is self defeating, but there are others who believe that the fear is exaggerated.

According to one analysis of the living wage experience of 36 cities, it was found that the higher wages brought about by a living wage appear to outweigh the effect of job losses. (Korez, Gene, "The Case for Living Wage Laws", Business Week, April 22, 2002.

My chief complaint is that cost is largely disregarded when it comes to corporate welfare.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 01:10 AM

George Bush

"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You got part of that right. It reads as W <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>STANDS FOR WEINER!!!!</span>
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
~LovelyRita~
Feb 25 2007, 06:24 PM
There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )

All I have to say to this rationale, is spoken like a true college freshem. I have had 3 of them so far. I will grant you on a certain level you may be correct, but in the long term, you haven`t been around the block quite enough.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 09:38 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 06:34 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?

Always the sensible one! ;)

Do pray tell give us a sensible definition of 'living wage.' (bold yours, not mine.) Why should an employer "give" it to any worker? Where does personal responsibilty to earn a good paying job fall into your definition? Sorry, seems too much like code for 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

huh?!? A living wage should be something that the employee should be able to live on and not have to worry to much about being able to feed their family, pay the bills, have gas for the car (something that in my area has seen go up 25 cents in the past 2.5 weeks!), and still have SOME money left over for emergencies. The only way I am able to make it is not due to my wages but due to me and my boyfriend winning a lawsuit against the people who hit us last year. Most of our settlement went to paying attorney bills, the rest goes to our regular bills and food. Luckily we have no children or the settlements would be totally gone. Living wage in the era of Dumbass is a joke! A sad joke at that!!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
mozart8mytoe
Feb 24 2007, 11:10 PM
President Kennedy was the motivational speaker. He certainly did not deliver space to the people. Can President Bush speak out more about companies giving people a decent wage? Absolutely. Do you want him to have that much control that he can force companies to do so? Probably not.

Kennedy may not have delivered space to us but he inspired those scientist who love space to become more committed to the program.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

It is encouraging to know that ten states and the District of Columbia have instituted minimum wages beyond the federal standard. If other states would follow suit, perhaps the federal government would get the message that we value the work of lower wage earners. As long as we continue our war on terror and our war on drugs, there is hardly enough money to declare war on poverty.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
beatlechick
Feb 27 2007, 12:47 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 09:38 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 06:34 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?

Always the sensible one! ;)

Do pray tell give us a sensible definition of 'living wage.' (bold yours, not mine.) Why should an employer "give" it to any worker? Where does personal responsibilty to earn a good paying job fall into your definition? Sorry, seems too much like code for 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

huh?!? A living wage should be something that the employee should be able to live on and not have to worry to much about being able to feed their family, pay the bills, have gas for the car (something that in my area has seen go up 25 cents in the past 2.5 weeks!), and still have SOME money left over for emergencies. The only way I am able to make it is not due to my wages but due to me and my boyfriend winning a lawsuit against the people who hit us last year. Most of our settlement went to paying attorney bills, the rest goes to our regular bills and food. Luckily we have no children or the settlements would be totally gone. Living wage in the era of Dumbass is a joke! A sad joke at that!!

Cathy , a living wage with or without kids in our curent political situtation is a joke. Take it from one who has been on not just both sides but all the sides (from experience , I can tell you there are more than one in america) of the coin. I have been a struggling American dream, I have been a very nearly making it American dream, I have also have been for a brief time an American dream, and then I have been a fall from the American dream. Through all of my experiences of the so called American dream the one thing that no one can ever take from me is my character and for this and this alone is the one reason to this day that I believe I am still a success!

I suppose the ultimate point I wish to make is this: If any of you believe that financial success and safety that it brings somehow makes you a success in this country then you are clinging to a myth. The sad fact is that anyone of us could fall victim to loosing it all financially, what matters is what we are able to do with our lives after that happens. If such sad times as financial struggle and hardship plague you and you can still hold on to your supposed principles of right and wrong and uphold them even when they are tacking final notices to cut off your power on your door then you have really and truly succeeded.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
BeatleBarb
Member Avatar

A living wage may not be the only answer to eliminate poverty, but it is certainly a step in the right direction towards paying many hard workers what they deserve. There is little said about the money we apply to corporate welfare, however, when it comes to hard working, low income Americans, we have plenty to complain about.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
theonlyfab4fan
Feb 26 2007, 05:56 PM
beatlechick
Feb 27 2007, 12:47 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 09:38 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 22 2007, 06:34 AM
fab4fan
Feb 22 2007, 08:10 AM
"W" stands for winner
"W" stands for winner

You must have been on the ouzo, John - you mis-spelled 'Wiener'. :P

Childish, yes. But it was worth it.

As for the whole point of this thread, I'm yawning. This is Groundhog Day for politics these days, US and UK. I'd be as disinterested as am I now whether they were Republican, Democrat or Coyote party. I think the only way the media think that the electorate is going to be interested in a campaign battle is to turn it into a soap opera. I hope they're wrong.

Issues, opinions, solutions... that's what I want.

Make positive statements about the environment, health, about how they'll go into bat for the American people to make everyone's everyday lives better, to eradicate poverty, to say no to corruption, to get out of big corporations' pockets and force every employer to give every working American a living wage, to give everyone hope of a better future, not just the rich and affluent. That's what I want to hear, not this BS. All sides should be ashamed of this regardless of whether it is 11 months or two days before the ballot and run a decent, honourable campaign - it'd make a change, right?

Always the sensible one! ;)

Do pray tell give us a sensible definition of 'living wage.' (bold yours, not mine.) Why should an employer "give" it to any worker? Where does personal responsibilty to earn a good paying job fall into your definition? Sorry, seems too much like code for 'redistribution of wealth' to me.

huh?!? A living wage should be something that the employee should be able to live on and not have to worry to much about being able to feed their family, pay the bills, have gas for the car (something that in my area has seen go up 25 cents in the past 2.5 weeks!), and still have SOME money left over for emergencies. The only way I am able to make it is not due to my wages but due to me and my boyfriend winning a lawsuit against the people who hit us last year. Most of our settlement went to paying attorney bills, the rest goes to our regular bills and food. Luckily we have no children or the settlements would be totally gone. Living wage in the era of Dumbass is a joke! A sad joke at that!!

Cathy , a living wage with or without kids in our curent political situtation is a joke. Take it from one who has been on not just both sides but all the sides (from experience , I can tell you there are more than one in america) of the coin. I have been a struggling American dream, I have been a very nearly making it American dream, I have also have been for a brief time an American dream, and then I have been a fall from the American dream. Through all of my experiences of the so called American dream the one thing that no one can ever take from me is my character and for this and this alone is the one reason to this day that I believe I am still a success!

Nicely said, Betsy. I have never even come close to living the American Dream. I have never made enough money to even consider renting a house much less buying one. My pay has always been just enough but with gas going up as much as it is going, and it isn't peak period yet, the freeze we had in California (I'm sure you've seen the produce, milk, and meat prices) the cost of food is going up as well. Now the freeze was not gov't generated but when is the gov't going to start demanding caps on the price of what we pay at the pump? It's been done before but it has been at least 6 years since that happened. When is the President going to take a more active part in researching global warming now that he has learned to say it? When is he going to start truly discussing and researching alternative fuels? My state, a Republican state, is already doing that. When is he going to start?
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
I say what I have said in my last couple of posts for this reason. We had a neighbor whom we thought (because we live in what is a fairly rich zip code) to be very upscale and wealthy. He owned a Mercedes Benz and luxury auto store. Little did we know that he was keeping it going because he was a huge cocaine dealer. Stupid us, we had just worked real hard for what we had managed to get and assumed everyone else in our neighborhood had as well. When we fell on hard times due to a series of unfortunate events (sounds like Leminy snicketss doesn`t it. lo) our good neighbor in an effort to come to our rescue offered my husband a position in his drug network. Can you imagine how terrified 2 fairly straight laced by the book people we are. Sure, we lilke to have a good time like the next person and we love to live in our wild past. However all of that has long since been behind us as parents. And me especially who lost a beloved family member to a drug related murder wasn`t about to get into anything like that. So, listen here you self righteous people who have so far dodged the bullets that life can shoot at you, don`t be to sure that one day it might not be you in the path. And then you have to ask yourself, will you be willing to be put on the street and homeless to keep the roof over your head or will you succumb to the temptation of easy money to be made if you want to break the law. Fortunately we did not have to break the law, and were able to save our house. We were lucky. Some others may not be. These are the choices that each and every person in this country faces. Even the people who believe they have so carefully prepared for that not to happen. It can and it does happen. So do not be so harsh with your judgements of people who have fallen on hard times. Some may desserve it, but most do not.

I`m sorry, I will now get down off my soapbox.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
BeatleBarb
Feb 26 2007, 05:03 PM
A living wage may not be the only answer to eliminate poverty, but it is certainly a step in the right direction towards paying many hard workers what they deserve. There is little said about the money we apply to corporate welfare, however, when it comes to hard working, low income Americans, we have plenty to complain about.

There nothing wrong with people on walfare if they can't find a job. and no I am not on wafare. I get a nut check.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~LovelyRita~

theonlyfab4fan
Feb 26 2007, 08:46 PM
~LovelyRita~
Feb 25 2007, 06:24 PM
There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )

All I have to say to this rationale, is spoken like a true college freshem. I have had 3 of them so far. I will grant you on a certain level you may be correct, but in the long term, you haven`t been around the block quite enough.

I definitely haven't "been around the block" and I'll be the first to admit it, but I thought I'd put in my two cents since we just discussed minimum wage in class. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the whole debate, but I'm finding many of your arguments quite interesting and informative.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
~LovelyRita~
Feb 27 2007, 01:48 AM
theonlyfab4fan
Feb 26 2007, 08:46 PM
~LovelyRita~
Feb 25 2007, 06:24 PM
There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )

All I have to say to this rationale, is spoken like a true college freshem. I have had 3 of them so far. I will grant you on a certain level you may be correct, but in the long term, you haven`t been around the block quite enough.

I definitely haven't "been around the block" and I'll be the first to admit it, but I thought I'd put in my two cents since we just discussed minimum wage in class. I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the whole debate, but I'm finding many of your arguments quite interesting and informative.

Tell your ecomomics professor who most likely has tenure, which may or may not provide him with a certain amount of financial security based on the size of his family and if he has a wife and she is employed that there is no such thing as a living minimum wage in this country. Not for ordinary working stiffs who don`t have the means to duck and dodge the collection pracitices for college loans and what not. I hear people all the time talking about how great the debt they are saddled with because of their college loans. Well in and of that self to a degreee is true but I also happen to know from working for a company who was an underwriter of college loans that a lot are never paid off and there are ways for those who do pay over many years to never have their credit affected by it. And in this country that is the name of the game, how well you can play the credit and non payment of credit to the best of your advantage. The reason this happens is because the poor saps who do work for minimum wage are paying the overruns for the the people who are defaulting or paying interest only on these loans. They are paying because they are the first who get sucked into to buying on the rent to own plan, or are willing to pay huge interest rates on secured credit cards just to have them. The poor people are the ones paying for the rich and upper middle class to get a break on these fees. That is economics in this country and it isn`t likely to change anytime in the forseeable future.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
It won`t change anytime soon because we live in a society that has been sold that we should have each and everything that is on the market as soon as it becomes available. Everyone wants the lastest toys, bells and whistles. Few people are willing to do without. So people have cell phones as well as landlines, and they get a new computer every 2 years or less so they will be on top of the latest technology and they have to have the latest digi cam and webcam and media center and hd tv, and plasma tc and sattelite and high speed because no one wants to be left out. Well if you can really and truly afford these things without robbing peter to pay paul and not live paycheck to paycheck and hand to mouth to have them by all means do so. The problem comes when people believe they are entitled to these things just because "everyone else" has them. It is usually the poorest segments of our society that buy into this thinking and end up paying so that those who can afford to pay more don`t have to for these very same services.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Some of us have been trying to diminish corporate welfare for years. It is easy to get Americans against welfare for people. After all, they are all lazy baby machines who just want a free lunch. But when you talk about billions of tax dollars for corporations, few people seem to mind.

And, I really do not believe that dismissing Grace's views because she is in college is very helpful. Remember, it is never trust anyone over 30, not under 30.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Don't judge others unless you walk in there shoes. not everyone on walfare is out for free lunch. there are some who have problems and hard times finding a job. You think it fun for someone to be on walfare. That maybe, they rather have a job to feel better about themselves. don't think walfare doesn't charge for there serves. maybe, more then they hand out. Do think when a man who leave there kids. and the women is on walfare they don't charge him for child sopport. They do. same thing if a man on and women works.
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 08:58 PM
Don't judge others unless you walk in there shoes. not everyone on walfare is out for free lunch. there are some who have problems and hard times finding a job. You think it fun for someone to be on walfare. That maybe, they rather have a job to feel better about themselves. don't think walfare doesn't charge for there serves. maybe, more then they hand out. Do think when a man who leave there kids. and the women is on walfare they don't charge him for child sopport. They do. same thing if a man on and women works.

Dotty, she is not talking about welfare for regular people, just stating that it is easier to get people against welfare for people but not so easy to get people against corporate welfare. Big difference!
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
mozart8mytoe
Feb 27 2007, 03:33 AM
Some of us have been trying to diminish corporate welfare for years.  It is easy to get Americans against welfare for people.  After all, they are all lazy baby machines who just want a free lunch.  But when you talk about billions of tax dollars for corporations, few people seem to mind.

And, I really do not believe that dismissing Grace's views because she is in college is very helpful.  Remember, it is never trust anyone over 30, not under 30.

I am not entirely dismissing Graces views because she is under 30 but merely asking that she (which I think she acknowleldeged) that while she is still in the protection of the college and parental support system that it is really easy to believe what the books tell you and quite another thing when you really and truly have to live in the real world with no safety net at all.

By the time I came of age I knew that I had no financial safety net that could be provided by the only surviving parent I had unless I was willing to sell my soul to the devil for it. I married a man who came from no financially secure background at all, but even though I recognizedt hat I also khew he was a good moral man who would be good to me and be a good mate and father to the family that we are raising. And I never made a mistake in that respect. We have been together since 1974. We both worked hard and made money and invested and then when corporate America began to change and major corps were laying off high salaried upper management and downsizing we got caught in that during a time that I had become a stay at home mom because we could afford for me to do so. So my husband gets laid off in corporate takeover and we decide to parlay his severance pay into financing a business of our own which for a long while was a success. He worked as an independant consultant for software and hardware developement and he was making 6 figures a year and we were bringing up 4 kids. But then we had a major setback, and I went back to work, a third shift job so nothing would have to change during my kids daily life, and then I took on a part time day job as well and then I added a paper route during the early morning hours between my 2 other jobs all the while making sure that our kids still got to school, soccer, music, scouts and all the other things they were involved in. Then my husband got hit by a truck which broke his neck ( and unlike chris reeves we didn`t have all of hollywood coming to our rescue) and then I got sick and I got sicker and sicker, and my husband was having neck surgery after neck surgery and I was in the hospital for the better part of the year. And then all of our savings were gone and we were selling everything we had that we could do without until we finally had to apply for disability and then the wait to prove we were desserving even though we had paid more than a million dollars into the system for this very thing. We had to go on food stamps, the ultimate humiliation for people like us who had always pulled our weight. I remember calling the agency when I was so desperate that I realized we had no choice, to find out what we had to do to apply and I was sobbing on the phone and the woman I spoke to said please stop crying, you have paid for this so don`t feel ashamed that you now need to use it. But I did feel ashamed. So perhaps it is harsh for me to suppose that some of you here who defend those who have a different view, that I believe you defend it because you have a safety net that I never had. You have a family you can call on if your personal chips are down, you have something to fall back on that a lot of people in this country don`t have. Not everyone who has had to suffer the horrors of economic downfall in this country have done so because they were lazy and looking for a free ride.

So my hat is off to all of you here who have no backup safety net, no family support to fall back on and have total financial security to last you the rest of your lives. I sadly did not succeed in that arena and if you did then I am glad for you, but don`t for one minute think it was because the books were right, it is because you got lucky. I do not begrudge you your luck so please do not diminish my experience of what can happen to people in America who believe that if they play by the rules that it is enough to keep them economically safe.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
beatlechick
Feb 26 2007, 08:23 PM
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 08:58 PM
Don't judge others unless you walk in there shoes.  not everyone on walfare is out for free lunch. there are some who have problems and hard times finding a job. You think it fun for someone to be on walfare. That maybe, they rather have a job to feel better about themselves. don't think walfare doesn't charge  for there serves.  maybe, more then they hand out. Do think when a man who leave there kids. and the women is on walfare they don't charge him for child sopport. They do. same thing if a man on and women works.

Dotty, she is not talking about welfare for regular people, just stating that it is easier to get people against welfare for people but not so easy to get people against corporate welfare. Big difference!

Oh, my mistake..sorry... :hmm: :wacko: :blink:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
I certainly never had a safety net. My brother and I come from a single parent household. My mom did her best to get work, have food on the table for us to eat, make sure we were clean, bail my brother out of jail, keep me in clothes (I grew to my full height and maturity by age 9), and still have enough to keep the house running. There was no father/husband to put money into our expenses and both of our dads were deadbeat dads. We did have a nice house but were brought up very well aware that things could go sour. I have lived on my own for well over 25 years and sometimes that meant having a room in someone's house after not having enough money to keep up the rent, utilities, gas, and food. I, too, had to go on food stamps but I was lucky it was just me. I could borrow money from my mom but unless I absolutely had to, I refused to. I am not a success by any stretch of the imagination but thankfully I have a roof over my head, a car with just enough money for gas, I eat everyday, and can still help my boyfriend take care of household expenses. He was born with disabilities so his income isn't very much. We just barely scrape by sometimes but we do it. We always know that we are living on the edge, it just depends on what side you slip on.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 09:27 PM
beatlechick
Feb 26 2007, 08:23 PM
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 08:58 PM
Don't judge others unless you walk in there shoes.  not everyone on walfare is out for free lunch. there are some who have problems and hard times finding a job. You think it fun for someone to be on walfare. That maybe, they rather have a job to feel better about themselves. don't think walfare doesn't charge  for there serves.  maybe, more then they hand out. Do think when a man who leave there kids. and the women is on walfare they don't charge him for child sopport. They do. same thing if a man on and women works.

Dotty, she is not talking about welfare for regular people, just stating that it is easier to get people against welfare for people but not so easy to get people against corporate welfare. Big difference!

Oh, my mistake..sorry... :hmm: :wacko: :blink:

That's okay, Dotty. Sometimes you really have to read what is being said. Not just look at it and see the words but really read and reason it out.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
beatlechick
Feb 26 2007, 08:38 PM
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 09:27 PM
beatlechick
Feb 26 2007, 08:23 PM
Dorothy
Feb 26 2007, 08:58 PM
Don't judge others unless you walk in there shoes.  not everyone on walfare is out for free lunch. there are some who have problems and hard times finding a job. You think it fun for someone to be on walfare. That maybe, they rather have a job to feel better about themselves. don't think walfare doesn't charge  for there serves.  maybe, more then they hand out. Do think when a man who leave there kids. and the women is on walfare they don't charge him for child sopport. They do. same thing if a man on and women works.

Dotty, she is not talking about welfare for regular people, just stating that it is easier to get people against welfare for people but not so easy to get people against corporate welfare. Big difference!

Oh, my mistake..sorry... :hmm: :wacko: :blink:

That's okay, Dotty. Sometimes you really have to read what is being said. Not just look at it and see the words but really read and reason it out.

I did read it. just didn't understand it correctly. ;)
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
theonlyfab4fan
Member Avatar
I AM THE BIGGEST JOHN FAN!
And there is nothing in the books to teach people that very lesson Cathy. And our youth should be taught just that. There might be a certain amount of science to appllied to economics but it is never an exact science. So therefore it isn`t a true science. Because real science doesn`t change. The science of 1 and 1 adding up to 2 is true throughout the entire universe and nothing that men can ever do will change it. But the management of peoples economic lives can be compared to a river and it is fluid and in the blink of an eye a disaster can strike to change the current. Books are falling very short of teaching that. Money and finance is not something written in stone. It never has been and it never will be.
You say you want to save humanity but it`s people that you just can`t stand
John came to me in a dream and this is what he said. "I had a vision of a man on a flaming pie, and he told me that Betsy with a B not Lisa with a L is the biggest fan of mine". John trumps 'the boss' !

I WAS ROBBED BY THAT DEVIL WOMAN

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
~LovelyRita~

Phew, that was a lot of reading! But thanks for posting your views Betsy. I truly understand where you're coming from. And you're right, I do have a safety net right now and I realize how lucky I am to have such a great support system. However, I saw the torture my friend went through when her family had to file for bankruptcy and the repo man came to school and towed her car away. I realize it's a rough world out there that no amount of schooling can ever really prepare you for, and things happen in life that you have no control over. One day you're on top of the world and the next day you're scrounging to make ends meet. A living wage is a very important thing, but like everything, there are always some disadvantages that one must consider.

And thanks for the support Lisa, sometimes I feel a little intimidated posting my opinions here because I'm so much younger than a lot of the other members. I realize that I'm a lot less knowledgeable than many of you guys, but it's nice to see that not all my posts are completely ignored. :P
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
~LovelyRita~
Feb 25 2007, 06:24 PM
There's also the fact that a living wage could lead to huge cuts in demand for labor. Economically speaking, when the amount of pay employers have to hand out increases, these employers may have to lower their demand for labor in order to afford the pay raises. This would result in layoffs and a higher rate of unemployment. Of course, all this depends on how elastic the demand curve is (are businesses capable of employing less people?) Most likely, the answer is yes, there is usually room for a few cuts.
(can you tell that I have an economics test tomorrow? ;) )

You're not considering all factors - if the populace in general has a larger income, demand for products and services will increase and, therefore, so will the demand for labour.

For the economy, it's a win-win situation.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Makes you wonder how officials can claim that they will stimulate the economy giving corporations billions in tax breaks and cutting taxes for the top 10% and at the same time claim that raising the minimum wage will cause unemployment.

Minimum wage earners are far more likely to spend their extra income at home instead of on foreign cars or shipping it off to the Cayman Islands.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 27 2007, 01:08 PM
For the economy, it's a win-win situation.

I believe you are not considering all the factors. If the minimum wage were doubled tomorrow, many if not most small businesses would either go out of business or at least have to lay off many employees. While larger income does indeed increase demand, larger unemployment does not.

If an employer has to pay higher wages immediately, he will see the cost immediately, without exception. If people are paid more tomorrow, they will not necessarily increase demand tomorrow. The demand could increase next week or next year. If you give me $1 you will immediately lose $1, but I might never spend it at all.

What is the answer? I am glad you asked. The minimum wage should be increased. Gradually.

The rationale for giving tax breaks to the most wealthy is that they will stimulate the economy by spending more if they have more. They claim that if they have a larger income, demand for products and services will increase and, therefore, so will the demand for labour. They call that a win-win situation.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 03:25 PM

If an employer has to pay higher wages immediately, he will see the cost immediately, without exception.  If people are paid more tomorrow, they will not necessarily increase demand tomorrow.  The demand could increase next week or next year.  If you give me $1 you will immediately lose $1, but I might never spend it at all.

No argument there.

mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 03:25 PM
What is the answer?  I am glad you asked.  The minimum wage should be increased.  Gradually.

Which is what's being proposed. ;)

mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 03:25 PM
The rationale for giving tax breaks to the most wealthy is that they will stimulate the economy by spending more if they have more.  They claim that if they have a larger income, demand for products and services will increase and, therefore, so will the demand for labour.  They call that a win-win situation.

That's assuming great morals and ethics on the part of the top 10%. Who is to say that they will spend it well and not invest it offshore, buy luxury imports, or pay illegal immigrants to build their third villa? As you said, they may never spend it at all.
(NB: I know that you were putting their point and not yours)

So it becomes a question of who you trust more to do the decent thing - hard working people struggling to support their families, or corporate raiders.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Bill
Feb 28 2007, 12:18 AM
(NB: I know that you were putting their point and not yours)

Moreover, I was using Andy's words to support their argument.

Bill
Feb 28 2007, 12:18 AM
So it becomes a question of who you trust more to do the decent thing - hard working people struggling to support their families, or corporate raiders.

That was not exactly fair and balanced, was it? One could also say "lazy whiners who cannot get off the couch or benevolent businesses that provide jobs and stability to hard working families".
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 12:06 AM
Bill
Feb 28 2007, 12:18 AM
(NB: I know that you were putting their point and not yours)

Moreover, I was using Andy's words to support their argument.

Help me out guys I'm lost.

What does this mean? (NB: *****) I've never seen it before.

Who is 'they' in "Moreover, I was using Andy's words to support their argument?"
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Nota bene is a Latin abbreviation that indicates something should be noted.

"They" are generally the opposite of "us" at any given time. In this case, the top 10% income bracket (I am assuming here that most of us are not one of them).
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 05:06 PM

Bill
Feb 28 2007, 12:18 AM
So it becomes a question of who you trust more to do the decent thing - hard working people struggling to support their families, or corporate raiders.

That was not exactly fair and balanced, was it? One could also say "lazy whiners who cannot get off the couch or benevolent businesses that provide jobs and stability to hard working families".

When did I ever claim to be balanced? I'm here to opinionate and it's my opinion that both expressions apply only to the minority of each demographic. As for the latter, I'd love to be wrong.
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
doris mendlovitz
Member Avatar

I sure hope this coming Presidential is a lot better than the last two.
love doris.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
Dorothy for president. I give them a bone. :P :D :lol:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Past The Point Of No Return
Member Avatar

Wealthier people pay more in taxes. That's why tax cuts have historically worked so well to stimulate growth.

The wealthy (or even the upper middle class) do different things with their "extra" money than many in the lower socio-economic classes. They save. They invest. They avoid costly debt by paying down any loans quickly to avoid punitive interest charges.

And guess what ? The government gets its "giveaways for the rich" back in spades. Save your money, pay taxes on interest income. Buy stocks, pay taxes on dividend income. Sell stock, pay capital gains taxes.

Funny how the panic over budget deficits always seems to fade without much fanfare when the market economy grows itself out of them. When citizens are allowed to keep their own money, they "spend" it and the government collects more taxes for the treasury.

I mentioned the market economy. Most in this thread seem to be complaining aout it, but that's what we've got and what we've had since we broke away from England. Why ? Because it's the only fair and equitable way to go. Allow the market to control prices and who pays what and who wins in business. The market economy doesn't have a heart or soul but I trust it further than I do either politicians or neo-socialist wannabes.

Who is to blame for the divergence in what is done with an individuals money ? If I save and another makes unwise purchases who is to blame ? We have a public school system. I used it in a different way than many others I witnessed while I was there. What you do with what you have is a better predictor of future success or failure than relying upon "luck".

We fail to plan, we don't plan to fail. Or do we ? That's one of the key issues for the upcoming election and those who would be president.
Whilst on the Internet, question the validity of ALL friendships, information and opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
You speak as one who has enjoyed a financially secure background. Not everyone is as "lucky" as you.

The market economy would be fair if we all started from year zero with an equal amount of resources and an equal amount of opportunity, but the fact is that money makes money. Children of the affluent have far more opportunities than the children of those who struggle to make ends meet. Most of the rich haven't done anything to deserve their wealth just as most of the poor haven't done anything to deserve being poor (there are exceptions in both cases), but it is clear who has the upper hand and, strangely, I don't hear many people in the lower economic classes even talking about the 'budget deficit', unless it is their own.

It is my assertion that the only people who will speak against every citizen being able to expect a 'living wage' for an honest day's work are people who already have it. The rich should pay an equal proportion of their income in tax as the poor - that is the only policy which could be called fair.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Past The Point Of No Return
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Feb 28 2007, 11:18 AM
You speak as one who has enjoyed a financially secure background. Not everyone is as "lucky" as you.

The market economy would be fair if we all started from year zero with an equal amount of resources and an equal amount of opportunity, but the fact is that money makes money. Children of the affluent have far more opportunities than the children of those who struggle to make ends meet. Most of the rich haven't done anything to deserve their wealth just as most of the poor haven't done anything to deserve being poor (there are exceptions in both cases), but it is clear who has the upper hand and, strangely, I don't hear many people in the lower economic classes even talking about the 'budget deficit', unless it is their own.

It is my assertion that the only people who will speak against every citizen being able to expect a 'living wage' for an honest day's work are people who already have it. The rich should pay an equal proportion of their income in tax as the poor - that is the only policy which could be called fair.

There we go with the "lucky" thing again. Does luck exist ? Certainly. But - to asaume that everyone with financial security was lucky is to hide your head in the sand.

Many, many successful Americans began as poor children. Immigrants often appreciate opportunity more than natives.

I haven't revealed (and won't) my personal financial circumstances - except to write that I am currently not in dire straits. I think we should post in the abstract and theoretical modes, unless some are willing to post about personal things. I will share that my father never earned more than a "living wage" and yet through planning and controlling spending he accumulated more than many who earned far more in salary.

This is my point. This is complicated. Parenting is critical. Every factor matters. The rich often go broke. Rich kids commit suicide. They do drugs. Let's stop making excuses and seeing people in comic book, one dimensional terms.

We all make choices. Once we leave the nest we can fly wherever we like and do whatever we like. I find some defenses of the rights of the "poor" to be implicitly racist or bigoted. How can "those" people possibly be expected to survive on their own ?

Every individual must bear the lions share of responsibility for his or her life circumstances. Some disagree and think that a benign fatherly government can be trusted to compensate for the social and familial shortcomings we face today.

I'm not yet ready to embrace big brother. I won't surrender my freedom of choice and self-determination to a bureaucracy which may or may not be competent. Ever see "Brazil" ?

All men are created equal. Yes or no ? Of course not. Jefferson meant that they enjoyed equal freedoms and rights. Freedom to either flourish or fail.

Whilst on the Internet, question the validity of ALL friendships, information and opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Not to the extent that we assume that all who fail deserve to.

Economic anarchy is not the answer - and anarchy is really what a free market economy is. It allows the market to decide and nothing else.

Imagine if we applied the same logic to road laws. If someone has the skills to drive their car at 200mph, why should the government stop them from reaching the peak of their potential? Equally, why should the government protect unskilled drivers from themselves? Why not just allow the lesser drivers to fail (ie: die) and they will cease to be a burden on the system while the rest can flourish. Oh, they might take a few other, dare I say, unlucky people with them, but that's life (or death) and if those people didn't have the good sense to keep out of the way of unskilled drivers, then what do you expect the government to do?

Makes perfect sense, right?

Well, the answer to that is obvious. And it's my answer to the free market as well.

The only true freedom is anarchy. What we have instead is freedom within reason and I'm quite comfortable with that. That's why I believe the market should be free within reason because absolute freedom leads to corruption - only you can't call it corruption if you're free to be that way. Very convenient!
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
mozart8mytoe
Member Avatar

Past The Point Of No Return
Feb 28 2007, 12:14 PM
Immigrants often appreciate opportunity more than natives.

Damn straight.
Nurse, I spy gypsies. Run.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
mozart8mytoe
Feb 28 2007, 08:11 PM
Past The Point Of No Return
Feb 28 2007, 12:14 PM
Immigrants often appreciate opportunity more than natives.

Damn straight.

That's true, they often do appreciate opportunities when allowed to have them.

Quote:
 
We all make choices. Once we leave the nest we can fly wherever we like and do whatever we like. I find some defenses of the rights of the "poor" to be implicitly racist or bigoted. How can "those" people possibly be expected to survive on their own ?


When I left my nest, I was not able to do "Whatever I like and fly wherever I like." I had to work to be able to afford rent, clothes, food, utilities, car, and gas. Yes, that was my choice .....but my choice out of need. I needed to work to have enough money to get by. I take exception to your point of defending the rights of the poor to being racist or bigoted. If I have money and have been poor, I will fight for their rights. I know what it is like to not have money. I know what it is like to have to be on food stamps, on unemployment, and nearly losing a place to live. I would want to fight so that the poor can have something decent. Have you ever been on the streets of downtown Los Angeles where you have entire families homeless or living in squalor. How the kids are going to school and the mother has what some would term a good job (i.e in an office job) but a job that would pay enough for one person but not enough for 2,3, or 4 kids. Who else is going to fight for their rights to an equal share of the financial pie? Many of the parents have more than 1 full-time job yet they barely scrape by on skid row. Not a nice place to raise kids. A terrible place. Don't they deserve people fighting for them? They are trying to keep their heads above water. They do survive on their own but sometimes that just isn't enough.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Great posts Bill & Cathy.

I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself. Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.

To look at the upper end of the scale though, it is interesting that there is not a single non-white face in the Top 50 (or indeed top 70) Richest Americans... (source: forbes.com).

I don't begrudge anyone success when they work hard & change their own fortunes, but I do begrudge people who have made their money through exploitation or manipulation of others (either present or ancestral), through the ruination of our environment, those who have profited through war and I begrudge anyone who is wealthy and looks down their noses at those struggling to survive... and would prefer to keep them 'where they are' to suit their own purposes. Those people are the greatest advocates of the pure market economy.

I also begrudge anyone who will spend enough money to feed a family of four for a year on a single designer handbag or pair of sunglasses. I truly wish that those people who haven't got a clue what it feels like to be hungry, poor and without hope could just spend a week in those people's shoes. Their perception would change, I'm sure. Although those are my personal feelings, I wouldn't advocate taking anything away from anybody - just giving those struggling to make end meet and/or living in poverty who want to work a better standard of living.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
maccascruff
Sing the Changes
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 04:59 AM


I don't begrudge anyone success when they work hard & change their own fortunes, but I do begrudge people who have made their money through exploitation or manipulation of others (either present or ancestral), through the ruination of our environment, those who have profited through war and I begrudge anyone who is wealthy and looks down their noses at those struggling to survive... and would prefer to keep them 'where they are' to suit their own purposes. Those people are the greatest advocates of the pure market economy.

I also begrudge anyone who will spend enough money to feed a family of four for a year on a single designer handbag or pair of sunglasses. I truly wish that those people who haven't got a clue what it feels like to be hungry, poor and without hope could just spend a week in those people's shoes. Their perception would change, I'm sure. Although those are my personal feelings, I wouldn't advocate taking anything away from anybody - just giving those struggling to make end meet and/or living in poverty who want to work a better standard of living.

I agree with both of these points Andy made.

I still am not in favor of illegal immigration. I am in favor of legal immigration. When I first left home, I had to make it on my own, too, to pay rent, etc. I'm still doing the same thing. I can only count on myself.

It really upsets me that people spend the kind of money they do on designer clothes and that includes the clothes designed by Stella McCartney. These people have not a clue what it's like for people to live from paycheck to paycheck, which the majority of people in the US do.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Past The Point Of No Return
Member Avatar

JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself. Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Whilst on the Internet, question the validity of ALL friendships, information and opinion.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
The last few pages has me sitting here baffled and fuming. What would be an equal tax for the rich compared to the poor? 33% isn't enough? Plus I don't know anyone who is in the higher tax bracket that doesn't give back to the community or help the people around them. Also as your income goes up, you lose deductions that middle income people still have. Who do you think helps keep the doors opened to Abuse homes for the woman and children shelters for the battered, help fund the food kitchens, have charity balls for the proceeds to go help those in need, help fund so the woman who can't afford breast x-rays can go in without paying, etc. ? Well it's not the people in the lower income bracket. People in the higher income brackets pay their taxes but also give a lot more in other ways to help the community and the charities they chose to give their $$$$ to.

By the way Andy, I know of no one selling purses or sunglasses that would feed a family of four for a year. I sure would like to know who sells these purses and sunglasses :hmm:


PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 03:32 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Are you insinuating that I have an agenda?

I am not defending 'minorities' - I am saying that the poor should have the chance, should they work, that they should earn enough to be able to lead a decent life.

I really don't understand your point. If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for.

Change is good.

PS. If I write in normal text here, I am posting as a member. If I post in blue, then I am posting as staff of this board. If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Queenbee
Mar 2 2007, 06:33 PM
The last few pages has me sitting here baffled and fuming. What would be an equal tax for the rich compared to the poor? 33% isn't enough? Plus I don't know anyone who is in the higher tax bracket that doesn't give back to the community or help the people around them. Also as your income goes up, you lose deductions that middle income people still have. Who do you think helps keep the doors opened to Abuse homes for the woman and children shelters for the battered, help fund the food kitchens, have charity balls for the proceeds to go help those in need, help fund so the woman who can't afford breast x-rays can go in without paying, etc. ? Well it's not the people in the lower income bracket. People in the higher income brackets pay their taxes but also give a lot more in other ways to help the community and the charities they chose to give their $$$$ to.

By the way Andy, I know of no one selling purses or sunglasses that would feed a family of four for a year. I sure would like to know who sells these purses and sunglasses :hmm:

Equal is equal, Judy.

If the underprivileged pay 25% of their income in income tax, then the over privileged should also pay 25% of their income in income tax.

That's what I call fair.

In addition to that, I believe that the middle classes and working classes probably give a higher percentage of their incomes to the needy as well. The rich haven't cornered the market in charity, much as they'd like to believe it.

If somebody have $50 in disposable income, it means much more to them to give $10 to a needy cause than somebody who has $5,000 in disposable income who gives $50 dollars.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 02:00 PM
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 03:32 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Are you insinuating that I have an agenda?

I am not defending 'minorities' - I am saying that the poor should have the chance, should they work, that they should earn enough to be able to lead a decent life.

I really don't understand your point. If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for.

Change is good.

PS. If I write in normal text here, I am posting as a member. If I post in blue, then I am posting as staff of this board. If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you.

not everyone can find a job! or get hired. you know how many times I put applications out. and not one hired me. yes, I went to school too. unfortunately I never pass. i also went to school how to get hired. wow, that thought me a lot. and we had to hear mental health talk about drug and alcohol. it was so, boring that I wanted to drink. just kidding. not about the boring part though. We had to dress up and every thing like we were going on a job inter view. oh, and we had job search too. and practice interviews. I went to every job around here. Even the ones who were suppose to help you get a job. but, never got me a job. Then, the system sent me to a special place who determine I am nuts. so, now, I get a nut check. I am not nuts I told them. I think I am normal. they think that the way i grew up effected me. No, it didn't I am normal. everyone says, I am. don't you all think? :unsure: :) :wub:

P.s. I am so, glad for spell check or none of you would understand half of what I am saying..
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
In response to your query about purses, there are items by Chloe at $2,365 and Jean-Paul Gaultier bags on sale for $1,495. (source: http://www.purseblog.com/) - and I am positive that there are more "exclusive" items available at a higher cost. These may not equate to an average annual food bill for some families, but they are not far off.

If you think that I am going to make statements that I can't back up, then you don't know me very well.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
Dorothy
Mar 2 2007, 10:25 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 02:00 PM
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 03:32 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Are you insinuating that I have an agenda?

I am not defending 'minorities' - I am saying that the poor should have the chance, should they work, that they should earn enough to be able to lead a decent life.

I really don't understand your point. If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for.

Change is good.

PS. If I write in normal text here, I am posting as a member. If I post in blue, then I am posting as staff of this board. If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you.

not everyone can find a job! or get hired. you know how many times I put applications out. and not one hired me. yes, I went to school too. unfortunately I never pass. i also went to school how to get hired. wow, that thought me a lot. and we had to hear mental health talk about drug and alcohol. it was so, boring that I wanted to drink. just kidding. not about the boring part though. We had to dress up and every thing like we were going on a job inter view. oh, and we had job search too. and practice interviews. I went to every job around here. Even the ones who were suppose to help you get a job. but, never got me a job. Then, the system sent me to a special place who determine I am nuts. so, now, I get a nut check. I am not nuts I told them. I think I am normal. they think that the way i grew up effected me. No, it didn't I am normal. everyone says, I am. don't you all think? :unsure: :) :wub:

P.s. I am so, glad for spell check or none of you would understand half of what I am saying..

I understand what you're saying Dorothy and I believe that if you can't make a contribution to society for a reasonable reason, then society should support you and ensure that you do not starve and suffer abject poverty. There should, however, be a huge incentive for you to, once you are able to make a contribution to society, go back out to work and improve your life.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 02:29 PM
Dorothy
Mar 2 2007, 10:25 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 02:00 PM
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 03:32 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Are you insinuating that I have an agenda?

I am not defending 'minorities' - I am saying that the poor should have the chance, should they work, that they should earn enough to be able to lead a decent life.

I really don't understand your point. If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for.

Change is good.

PS. If I write in normal text here, I am posting as a member. If I post in blue, then I am posting as staff of this board. If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you.

not everyone can find a job! or get hired. you know how many times I put applications out. and not one hired me. yes, I went to school too. unfortunately I never pass. i also went to school how to get hired. wow, that thought me a lot. and we had to hear mental health talk about drug and alcohol. it was so, boring that I wanted to drink. just kidding. not about the boring part though. We had to dress up and every thing like we were going on a job inter view. oh, and we had job search too. and practice interviews. I went to every job around here. Even the ones who were suppose to help you get a job. but, never got me a job. Then, the system sent me to a special place who determine I am nuts. so, now, I get a nut check. I am not nuts I told them. I think I am normal. they think that the way i grew up effected me. No, it didn't I am normal. everyone says, I am. don't you all think? :unsure: :) :wub:

P.s. I am so, glad for spell check or none of you would understand half of what I am saying..

I understand what you're saying Dorothy and I believe that if you can't make a contribution to society for a reasonable reason, then society should support you and ensure that you do not starve and suffer abject poverty. There should, however, be a huge incentive for you to, once you are able to make a contribution to society, go back out to work and improve your life.

Just because, I get ssi. for more then being nuts. I am still looking for a job.
i rather work then to be on ssi. I just hope someone hire me. also, I might not be example person for you all but, at least my two kids are mangers at burger king. I wish I even had a job like there's. I feel low that I can't even pass the G.E D. test. :cry:
Just call me Scum if you like. I don't care.. Well, that's a lie I do care. I get my feeling hurt a lot. Oh, bipolar and Skidso runs in my family. my grandmother was a sidso I don't know how spell that word. She was locked up in a mental ward. she tried kill my mother. I have a few sister have bipolar. :cry:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
You're obviously feeling sensitive right now, Dotty, but I'm on your side. I believe that society has a responsibility to ensure that people who cannot, for any genuine reason, earn their own income are given a respectable income. This is not to say that those people receiving Government funds do not want to earn, because I know how important self-respect is to the majority of people. We, as a caring society, should give a hand to those who need it and know that those who receive a hand will know how important their taxes are when it is their turn to pay them.
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Dorfliedot
Member Avatar
Beatlelicious
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 02:50 PM
You're obviously feeling sensitive right now, Dotty, but I'm on your side. I believe that society has a responsibility to ensure that people who cannot, for any genuine reason, earn their own income are given a respectable income. This is not to say that those people receiving Government funds do not want to earn, because I know how important self-respect is to the majority of people. We, as a caring society, should give a hand to those who need it and know that those who receive a hand will know how important their taxes are when it is their turn to pay them.

Ok, Andy. I am sorry. :cry:
Posted Image
Add Glitter to your Photos
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
beatlechick
Member Avatar
In Paul's Arms!
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 08:32 AM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

This is a pretty flip answer and looks like it's from someone that has never had to think of where the next month's rent is or how they're going to be able to afford food for their kids. I can't say that I have totally been therre, I have no kids but the babysitting I did often got me by when I was unemployed. I have known people that were in dire straits. Should I just call them what you just did?
Quote:
 
You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.
There are so many people that are dirt poor but don't feel needy or underprivileged in the way you put. I find this remark highly insulting. I'm sure that the struggling people on this board, and yes we do have struggling people, just love these labels. The most educated person can be poor. Education is a way to a means but there are some uneducated people who are rich.

As for liberal knee-jerk exercises, well if making sure the poor have a place to sleep, clothes on their back, food to eat, and transportation to work, the store, the post office is a part of that than count me in. BTW, I am not white. I am mixed race.

Yes, pity and special treatment are insulting but we are not talking about pity and special treatment. Just talking about giving someone a boost. It helps their morale, self-esteem, and their dignity.

If you want diversity, trying offering some.
Posted Image Posted Image
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Such positions do seem to be predicated on the assumption that people deserve their lot in life. It's an assumption that is morally and intellectually bankrupt and I cannot accept it.

I'm alright Jack so what's wrong with you?

There are people who could have done more with the opportunities I have had in life and there are people who would have done less. But first, you have ot have those opportunities. My situation is by no means ideal, but by any reasonable standards, I have been incredibly lucky. I will not delude myself that I must naturally deserve all thngs that come my way, good or bad. I help people whenever I can because I would hope that if the tables were turned, they would help me. Some have and some haven't. But we are all in this life together. Whatever happens to one person reflects on us all.

So next time you hear from one of these poor downtrodden souls for whom you have no empathy, remember that there but for the grace of God go you.

All opinions are welcome - and all opinions are subject to rebuttal.
I must note the irony of someone who advocates the individual taking responsibility for their circumstances, feeling hassled by the man. :lol: ;)
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 05:08 PM
Queenbee
Mar 2 2007, 06:33 PM
The last few pages has me sitting here baffled and fuming. What would be an equal tax for the rich compared to the poor? 33% isn't enough? Plus I don't know anyone who is in the higher tax bracket that doesn't give back to the community or help the people around them. Also as your income goes up, you lose deductions that middle income people still have. Who do you think helps keep the doors opened to Abuse homes for the woman and children shelters for the battered, help fund the food kitchens, have charity balls for the proceeds to go help those in need, help fund so the woman who can't afford breast x-rays can go in without paying, etc. ? Well it's not the people in the lower income bracket. People in the higher income brackets pay their taxes but also give a lot more in other ways to help the community and the charities they chose to give their $$$$ to.

By the way Andy, I know of no one selling purses or sunglasses that would feed a family of four for a year. I sure would like to know who sells these purses and sunglasses :hmm:

Equal is equal, Judy.



In addition to that, I believe that the middle classes and working classes probably give a higher percentage of their incomes to the needy as well. The rich haven't cornered the market in charity, much as they'd like to believe it.

If somebody have $50 in disposable income, it means much more to them to give $10 to a needy cause than somebody who has $5,000 in disposable income who gives $50 dollars.


First if someone spent say $2,500.00 on a purse and that would begrudge you because you can almost feed a family of four for a year......I don't think you can feed a family of four on $48.00 a week. Public aid gives you more.
And besides that, someone who can afford to pay that much for a purse or whatever they like to splurge on, should feel no quilt.

In the US the lower income bracket pays 10% in Federal Taxes and that's before any exemptions are taken. By the time they take their exemptions, they probably owe nothing, Zero! And they probably will get money back if they have children, because we give them a child credit. I've know people who have kids and get back $4,000.00 plus and also pay no taxes.

In the US the highest tax bracket is 35% and they lose deductions that the middle and lower get. So I would love to have your idea of an equal tax because our way isn't equal. The top 50% wage earners pay 96.5, of the Federal taxes. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0923085.html

I'm sure the middle class is generous in donating to charities. But I'm sure someone who has $5,000. in disposable income, would give more than $50.00.

And no one in a comfortable situation should look down on those less fortunate. I know of only one couple who does this, but their nothing but snobs and have debt up the kazoo and try to come off as wealthy at the expense of the family subsidizing them. There's a bad apple in every income bracket. I never have looked down on people have less than me. I've been on both sides of the fence so I know what it's like. I have told my story many times on this forum and PM.com I personally have never looked down the nose of someone less fortunate.

PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JeffLynnesBeard
Member Avatar
Administrator & Moderator
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 10:00 PM
Past The Point Of No Return
Mar 2 2007, 03:32 PM
JeffLynnesBeard
Mar 2 2007, 06:59 AM


I find the assertion that defending the rights of the poor to be implicitly bigoted and racist a racist comment in itself.  Race was not mentioned before that particular statement and I certainly do not see poverty as a primarily racial issue.


I simply MUST respond to an assertion which might label me as a racist or bigot.

By the Admin no less. :rolleyes:

To clarify (for those with NO agenda), I think that many who strive so mightily to defend special benefits for minorities also subconsciously might consider them to be inherently inferior or special cases otherwise worthy of more aid than the average citizen. Do you imagine that you can reshape history and compensate for what went before ? You'll open up a hornets nest of legal entanglements. I don't think this will happen. It insults those who have overcome "history" and succeeded.

Entitlements. Who is really entitled to anything ? If you are inclined to list groups in response, I think you might be engaging in the equivalent of "white guilt" and other liberal knee-jerk exercises.

You POOR thing. So needy. So uneducated. So UNDERprivileged.

It's fantastic to help people, to educate them, to treat them as equals, as friends.

Pity and special treatment are insulting, IMO.

I don't wish to extend this debate endlessly, but I trust that diversity here means more than honoring one sided opinions. :D

Are you insinuating that I have an agenda?

I am not defending 'minorities' - I am saying that the poor should have the chance, should they work, that they should earn enough to be able to lead a decent life.

I really don't understand your point. If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for.

Change is good.

PS. If I write in normal text here, I am posting as a member. If I post in blue, then I am posting as staff of this board. If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you.

I'd like to make a couple of amendments to this post and would rather not abuse my mod functions by editing it.

Firstly, I said, "If you are, indeed, defending the status quo because that is the way things are and the way that things always should be, then you are not a person I have much respect for."

I would like to alter that highlighted passage to "that is not an opinion I have much respect for", because that is my honest viewpoint. To make a sweeping statement about a person because of one of their views is wrong and I apologise for initially doing so.

Secondly, the passage, "If you use my position on the board against me, then I will not hesitate using my position on the board against you." was overly harsh. I regret using those particular words and withdraw that statement. I do, however, stand by my point that all of the administrators and moderators here express themseves freely and nobody should expect us to withhold any views merely because of our positions of responsibility. If anyone believes that we, ourselves, are breaking forum rules then, by all means, call us on it - but otherwise we have the same freedoms as any other member here.

Thirdly - and lastly - change is not always good. Change for the sake of change can be disasterous, so I would say, in the clear light of day, that change is good - sometimes. :D

Truth be known, I went to a retirement party last night and had the best part of a bottle of red wine, so - when I came home - I probably should have stayed away from the forum until I was able to be a little less 'passionate' about this issue. Still, we're all human. ;)
...and in the end, the love you take is equal to the love you make.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
fab4fan
Member Avatar
Caretaker
(((Andy)))
Doesn't that feel good? Admitting mistakes is not the strong suit of the liberal persuasion, how does it feel not to have the weight of perfection on your shoulders anymore?

My friend I jest! I know you can take it and when I get home from work I fully expect to see that you've written a witty remark ripping me a new arse for it. In all seriousness your previous post proves without a doubt why even though it seems the ONLY thing we have in common is our love for the Beatles I love discussing everything else with you as well.

Since I challenged you on your 'living wage' comment I have held back for quite a while now. It has allowed me to realize your 'misguidedness' :P comes from being a benevolent and good human being. As such I would ask that you incorporate 3 other things in your definition of 'living wage': the risk taken by employers in providing jobs (no one has touched on that yet,) human greed and laziness.

I look forward after digesting your answer ;) to getting back into this discussion.
Mnisthiti mou Kurie!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bill
Member Avatar

Surely human greed cuts both ways here.

Since we're about it John, could you tell us what possible circumstances could justify someone working a 40 hour week and NOT making a living wage? I mean, it's all very well to say these people ought to pull themselves up by their bootstraps and get better jobs, but if they all did that, then that would just leave the illegal immigrants to do the necessary work, right?
Put a puppet on it.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Queenbee
Member Avatar
Moderator
Minimum wage needs to increase. The government has passed a bill giving the small company's a break on tax deductions to offset the wage increase. Now their working on the increase for the people.


Also here is a link to what each state has into law for the minimum wage.

http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm

PEACE and love to my friends, Judy

When the Power of Love over comes the Love of Power, the world will know Peace.
-Sri Chinmnoy Ghose

Till me meet again ~ I Love you Mike! You were one of a kind.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Fully Featured & Customizable Free Forums
Learn More · Sign-up Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Things We Said Today · Next Topic »
Add Reply


"Treasure these few words"