- 1,232
- 11
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
thats what we get for electing a democrat
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Team Ио
I agree and disagree with you to a certain point. I do believe that there is a certain percentage of low income people who try as they might, will forever be stuck in the lower class. However, I also believe that there is decent sized percentage of people that have the aptitude to achieve more, such as going to school at night to get a degree or learning a trade, who chose not to pursue these options. I feel like some are under the mindset that they would rather another person else pay more taxes and get a handout than to make a personal sacrifice for their own benefit.Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25
Ofcourse you are right...there those who live in poverty who really are "lazy"...but republicans often forget that a great amount of those in poverty are actually comprised of the working poor. I was just pointing out the weakness of the "4.0 vs. 2.0 student" analogy. It portrays all wealthy people has hard-workers who deserve every penny they get while all poor people are lazy and who survive by leaching off of the wealthy.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
obviously there are exceptions to both but you can't try and say that most of the the people living in poverty are always trying there hardest and spending their money wiselyOriginally Posted by kidposite
I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
Originally Posted by kidposite
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
just felt like this is relevant to this post
Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr
people geitting way off track here
prime example: i be john mayer, rambling about how garbagemen work as hard as lawyers. lol. try to stay on topic big guy.
Originally Posted by MARTIN AND CO
I love how this thread turned into a rich vs poor thing with people chanting how the rich have been getting one over on the poor since the beginning of time like they have some sort of concise view of history since the middle ages and before that...
Lets get something straight, the order in which the world's groups rank is the following, from highest to lowest:
THE MONARCHY
THE RICH
THE POOR
The rich screw the poor ( to be realistic, actually are the only source of income for poor, besides the army)
And the Monarchy screws EVERYONE, only the thing is, when you're poor and have nothing, its a lot easier on ones soul to be constantly kept at a certain level of lacking, versus building you wealth, living lavishly, then having it taken away.
The Monarchy decides to wage a war, the Rich are sometimes forced (sometimes happily) lend money for these wars, the wars don't go so well, so the Monarchy imposes a tax to further fund the war since the rich can't raise any more money for them. Who gets taxes? The Rich, or the peasants who own nothing? 40% of nothing is still nothing.
This taxation destroyed some of the wealthiest families in Europe, who built unbelievable fortunes and lived so lavishly that the largest house in MTV cribs is probably small than a wing of their house. Granted, I'm not saying this lavishness was right, but my point is that history can and usually will repeat itself.
For anyone wishing to point out that the Monarchy doesn't exist, all I can tell you is that it just changed its name to democracy or whatever free or no so free form of government is being run by kings and emperors calling themselves presidents and prime ministers.
If the Monarchy so chooses to, it will have absolute power regardless if its a democracy.
Russia isn't a great (or even good) example of democracy, but you have a guy like Mikhail Khodorkovsky, makes almost 20 BILLION dollars, then gets sent to jail for 10 years by some guy with a $3,000 networth aka President Putin. The Rich can try to buy influence, but they can often fail, and in the end the monarchy dictates peoples lives.
As long as the rich are doing good that means the companies they own are doing good. As long as the companies as doing good, the people that work for them can do OK at least. Then those workers can take their wages, spend them, and aid in making colgate, volvo, Hovnanian, mcdonalds, wholefoods, dell, nike, etc. shareholders' richer, which then continues the cycle that allows people to earn and live. Thats just the way it works folks. Now do you really want the rich to be doing bad? In an era of globalization?
If you think that people won't get tired of it all and move away, its only a matter of time. Kenneth Dart, the heir and now owner of the DART group of companies (the plastic containers, the Styrofoam cups, etc) willingly renounced his US citizenship and moves to the Bahamas to not pay taxes. He sees his family in Florida because Nicaragua, a country that give him citizenship and diplomatic status, eventually built an embassy in his hometown. If you spend more than a certain amount of days in the US, you will get taxed as a resident, even if you aren't one, so as a diplomat that doesn't apply to him, so hes in Florida as often as he likes to be.
This isn't about the govt raising NY'ers taxes from like 10 to 15 percent. Its from 40 to 60 percent. Its no joke. Its ok to spend taxpayer money on things that not abstract and straightforward, like improving infrastructure. However, when you try to "fix an economy" with a "stimulus package", the only thing so far that has been consistent is the bailout money recipients using that money to hire lobbyists to get them unfair (for the public) terms on that money.
Oh and for the record you know when doctors are overpaid when you get billed 150 dollars for a 30-40 minute visit where they do virtually nothing. Pay top specialists all the money you want, but when "average joe" doctors make enormous salaries, its just wrong. Its not like they're all geniuses by an means either. The idiots at one of the top hospitals in the country needed 3 days and 2 ER visits to confirm that antibiotics were not the right course of treatment for my father's viral Pneumonia. It took malpractice suit threats for them to actually realize the reason he could barely breath was because his lungs were filled with liquid the body produced, not because of his age. These are the geniuses who can't even properly treat and diagnose stupid freaking pneumonia, and they think they're not overpaid? Please. Oh, and when one of the real doctors (not nurses, because doctors are far too busy and underpaid to be taking care of their patients) visits him in his room for 15 minutes, that costs 700 dollars! amazing!
Edit:
Team Ио
I was thinking the EXACT same thing.Originally Posted by kix4kix
You do realize Monarchy is a form of government not a class right?Originally Posted by MARTIN AND CO
I love how this thread turned into a rich vs poor thing with people chanting how the rich have been getting one over on the poor since the beginning of time like they have some sort of concise view of history since the middle ages and before that...
Lets get something straight, the order in which the world's groups rank is the following, from highest to lowest:
THE MONARCHY
THE RICH
THE POOR
Repubs always act like there aren't lazy rich people that just sit around and live off of the income from their passive investments. (which may have even been inherited)Originally Posted by cguy610
News flash genius. Most people DONT wanna stay in the hood, trap, ghetto, w/e you wanna call it. Stop basing your assessment of impoverished people based on the news.Originally Posted by malikdagoat
obviously there are exceptions to both but you can't try and say that most of the the people living in poverty are always trying there hardest and spending their money wisely
Koch Family Foundations[1] consist of the David H. Koch Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
Funding for the foundations comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. ... Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion."
"The company is owned by two of the richest men in America," David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch (described as 'reclusive billionaires'), who have a combined personal fortune estimated at more than $3 billion and who have emerged as major Republican contributors in recent years. ... Both David and Charles Koch are ranked among the 50 richest people in the country by 'Forbes'."
The Koch brothers control the three family foundations that have "lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on 'free market' advocacy institutions in and around Washington."[2] --'The Nation', "What Wouldn't Bob Dole Do for Koch Oil?"
The foundations are financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society. David is a libertarian who "provides a significant amount of funding for the Cato Institute's $4 million annual budget."
I wonder what their motivation is....
I wonder what their motivation is....Originally Posted by Jagshemash
I can't help be a little skeptical about any article from Fox News/NY Post. Notice the language - may, could. They're using 'The Tax Foundation' as their source who is funded by the Koch Foundation and the Earhart Foundation.
Here's a little info about the Koch Foundation:
Koch Family Foundations[1] consist of the David H. Koch Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and the Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation.
Funding for the foundations comes from the conglomerate Koch Industries, the "nation's largest privately held energy company, with annual revenues of more than $25 billion. ... Koch Industries is now the second largest family-owned business in the U.S., with annual sales of over $20 billion."
"The company is owned by two of the richest men in America," David H. Koch and Charles G. Koch (described as 'reclusive billionaires'), who have a combined personal fortune estimated at more than $3 billion and who have emerged as major Republican contributors in recent years. ... Both David and Charles Koch are ranked among the 50 richest people in the country by 'Forbes'."
The Koch brothers control the three family foundations that have "lavished tens of millions of dollars in the past decade on 'free market' advocacy institutions in and around Washington."[2] --'The Nation', "What Wouldn't Bob Dole Do for Koch Oil?"
The foundations are financed via the oil and gas fortunes of Fred G. Koch, a founding member of the John Birch Society. David is a libertarian who "provides a significant amount of funding for the Cato Institute's $4 million annual budget."
Originally Posted by welcometothetonezone
Originally Posted by Ralf Loran
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
WTH? When did this happen and where?
Obama got schooled in Russia. Got lectured like a little boy by Putin for an hour.
When someone in Russia lectures you for an hour that basically means they think pretty low of you.
Not surprised he got snubbed here.� Obama's "hope" and "change" means nothing there.
They're explouiting Obama's psychology. Putin prob had an entire volume drawn up on Obama's entire (real) history.
Stop overreacting. It's just a handshake.
Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer
I agree and disagree with you to a certain point. I do believe that there is a certain percentage of low income people who try as they might, will forever be stuck in the lower class. However, I also believe that there is decent sized percentage of people that have the aptitude to achieve more, such as going to school at night to get a degree or learning a trade, who chose not to pursue these options. I feel like some are under the mindset that they would rather another person else pay more taxes and get a handout than to make a personal sacrifice for their own benefit.Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25
Ofcourse you are right...there those who live in poverty who really are "lazy"...but republicans often forget that a great amount of those in poverty are actually comprised of the working poor. I was just pointing out the weakness of the "4.0 vs. 2.0 student" analogy. It portrays all wealthy people has hard-workers who deserve every penny they get while all poor people are lazy and who survive by leaching off of the wealthy.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
obviously there are exceptions to both but you can't try and say that most of the the people living in poverty are always trying there hardest and spending their money wiselyOriginally Posted by kidposite
I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
Originally Posted by kidposite
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
just felt like this is relevant to this post
Originally Posted by GTEK
NT is so inconsistent..
One min we got someone asking why is there poverty...
And now we got a thread with people who make over $250,000
who dont want to pay taxes to help those in need.
You not paying obama your helping your country.
U know? How that 21 year old is going out there in foreign countries
to get shot for you? The least you could do is help his mom out with healthcare.
You are saying that you don't know a single person who has the ability to do more than they are currently doing? Every person in the lower, middle, and upper class are maxed out as far as their potential is concerned? Like I previously said, I realize that some people may be doing everything that they possible can and are still stuck in the lower class, but you can't be serious if you are saying that everyone in the lower class can't advance if they put more effort into it.Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25
Originally Posted by I Be John Mayer
I agree and disagree with you to a certain point. I do believe that there is a certain percentage of low income people who try as they might, will forever be stuck in the lower class. However, I also believe that there is decent sized percentage of people that have the aptitude to achieve more, such as going to school at night to get a degree or learning a trade, who chose not to pursue these options. I feel like some are under the mindset that they would rather another person else pay more taxes and get a handout than to make a personal sacrifice for their own benefit.Originally Posted by RockyBalboa25
Ofcourse you are right...there those who live in poverty who really are "lazy"...but republicans often forget that a great amount of those in poverty are actually comprised of the working poor. I was just pointing out the weakness of the "4.0 vs. 2.0 student" analogy. It portrays all wealthy people has hard-workers who deserve every penny they get while all poor people are lazy and who survive by leaching off of the wealthy.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
obviously there are exceptions to both but you can't try and say that most of the the people living in poverty are always trying there hardest and spending their money wiselyOriginally Posted by kidposite
I do not feel that this example is as relevant to the real world as you or a Republican might think. In the above example, you have one girl who worked hard for a 4.0 while her friend was getting a 2.0 while not working hard at all. In the real world, you'll have your share of "4.0 students"...people who work really hard and earn very good money. However, where this example falls short is by portraying all "2.0 students" as lazy, stay-at-home bums who do not have the desire to become financially successful. Poverty is often cyclical, one might work 60+ hours a week and barely struggle to survive. It is extremely naive to believe that recipients of wealth distribution are all lazy people who just leach off of the "4.0 students'" earnings.Originally Posted by Carlos Tevez
Originally Posted by kidposite
A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age she considered herself to be a very liberal Democrat and was for distribution of all wealth. She felt deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch Republican which she expressed openly.
One day she was challenging her father on his beliefs and his opposition to higher taxes on the rich & more welfare programs. In the middle of her heartfelt diatribe based upon the lectures she had from her far-left professors at her school, he stopped her and asked her point blank, how she was doing in school.
She answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain. That she had to study all the time, never had time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend and didn't really have many college friends because of spending all her time studying. That she was taking a more difficult curriculum.
Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Mary."
She replied, "Mary is barely getting by", she continued, "all she has is barely a 2.0 GPA" adding, "and all she takes are easy classes and she never studies." But to explain further she continued emotionally, "But Mary is so very popular on campus, college for her is a blast, she goes to all the parties all the time and very often doesn't even show up for classes because she is too hung over."
Her father then asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct a 1.0 off your 4.0 GPA and give it to her friend who only had a 2.0." He continued, "That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair equal distribution of GPA."
The daughter, visibly shocked by the father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That wouldn't be fair! I worked really hard for mine, I did without and Mary has done little or nothing, she played while I worked real hard!"
The father slowly smiled and said, "Welcome to the Republican Party."
just felt like this is relevant to this post
How did you come to this conclusion?
maybe you're just too fickle to understand what everyone else did.Originally Posted by Joseph Camel Jr
people geitting way off track here
prime example: i be john mayer, rambling about how garbagemen work as hard as lawyers. lol. try to stay on topic big guy.
Real talk, I hate to hear people complain but then don't have a solution. Basically they are complaining to be complaining. For all you guysagainst it, could you atleast explain an alternative that would help out. I'm not saying I agree with taking half of someones paycheck but maybe that willhelp curb people from spending beyond their means.Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton
What it as comes down to is this to me, if you can give than give point blank. It's cool if you want to be on your high horse and have that "I got here alone so they could do the same" mentality but realize those same people who you said nah I'm not giving jack !!%+ to you will be the same that will rob you when you walking out of the bank. Desperate times call for desperate measures and we have to survive.
Real talk it's bigger than $$ no problem don't give up your money but atleast GIVE a solution, a answer, a job. Let us know how we could get where you're at or help us start somewhere but just saying no because you're selfish and greedy isn't going to get you nowhere because you live in the same world as me.
Originally Posted by p0tat0 5alad
Real talk, I hate to hear people complain but then don't have a solution. Basically they are complaining to be complaining. For all you guys against it, could you atleast explain an alternative that would help out. I'm not saying I agree with taking half of someones paycheck but maybe that will help curb people from spending beyond their means.Originally Posted by heLiumcLinton
What it as comes down to is this to me, if you can give than give point blank. It's cool if you want to be on your high horse and have that "I got here alone so they could do the same" mentality but realize those same people who you said nah I'm not giving jack !!%+ to you will be the same that will rob you when you walking out of the bank. Desperate times call for desperate measures and we have to survive.
Real talk it's bigger than $$ no problem don't give up your money but atleast GIVE a solution, a answer, a job. Let us know how we could get where you're at or help us start somewhere but just saying no because you're selfish and greedy isn't going to get you nowhere because you live in the same world as me.
Originally Posted by Ralf Loran
Originally Posted by wawaweewa
Originally Posted by bhzmafia14
WTH? When did this happen and where?
Obama got schooled in Russia. Got lectured like a little boy by Putin for an hour.
When someone in Russia lectures you for an hour that basically means they think pretty low of you.
Not surprised he got snubbed here.� Obama's "hope" and "change" means nothing there.
They're explouiting Obama's psychology. Putin prob had an entire volume drawn up on Obama's entire (real) history.