Economic Stimulus Act a sham?

Master of Logic Joined: Oct 04, 2003 Posts: 9362

Quote:

Everyone should contribute or not expect anything from others.

Contribute how? There are more ways to contribute to society than merely having a huge paycheck. People who stay home and take care of the kids are contributing by keeping those kids on the right track.

What I don't get about middle and rich class is how they can condemn a poor person who pumps gas or cleans toilets as a looser. An honest job IS contributing.

I cant stand people who are work o holics who think everyone should work 100 hours a week and have no life outside their job. I cant stand people who who pay someone to clean the toilets in their house, who won't do it themselves and then condemn the person doing it as being a looser who deserves it because they don't live in a mansion.

I am for the free market and if money is what your life is all about, be my guest, but I do get sick of people who wont get their hands dirty and then bitch about the people who do get their hands dirty.

Every product from gas, to bread, to bricks, to toilet paper, touches the hands of a blue collar or minimum wage worker. Without them the jaded snobs who bitch about them wouldn't be able to get anything done.

If everyone made 5 million a year, who would do the work?

|Our market depends on the existance of all these classes. Do not condemn the poor becuase their priorities are not about jets or mansions or lots of zeros on their paychecks.

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:35 am

Quote:

Everyone should contribute or not expect anything from others.

Brian37 wrote:

Contribute how? There are more ways to contribute to society than merely having a huge paycheck. People who stay home and take care of the kids are contributing by keeping those kids on the right track.

What I don't get about middle and rich class is how they can condemn a poor person who pumps gas or cleans toilets as a looser. An honest job IS contributing.

That it is. However, I don't think that's what was meant. I think what was meant was regarding those who can work but refuse to, preferring to live off the largesse and "benificence" of the government, i.e. the taxpayers.

Posted: Sun Apr 20, 2008 3:36 am

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Knight: did you know that Sean no longer considers himself a market anarchist? He is moving towards the Chicago school.
.

Saitou wrote:

That's a step in the right direction.

No it isn't. The idiot monetarists think everything can be solved by playing with interest rates and fucking with the money supply.

Want to know what happens when you do that?

Right now. The economic situation we're in. THAT is what happens.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Saitou wrote:

We'd need a constitutional amendment banning other forms of taxation before we could implement the Fair Tax. Otherwise the government will just turn it into another revenue stream.

Taxing consumption makes a hell of a lot more sense! Taxing income is just plain ugly. All the money is treated like pure profit when you had to trade so much time and skill (at least for some) to make it. If you're rich but have little in the way of income you're taxed less.

Even though a far right winger buy the standards of most of the people on this forum I can stomach wealthier people paying more however I don't think the progressive tax rates is a good idea since it discourages a lot of behavior that is good.

Also, every adult should pay a minimum amount of tax every year. I can stomach a "small hand" up even though I find wealth transfer immoral even when the government does it. Giving money to losers and leaches I don't like at all. Everyone should contribute or not expect anything from others.

Getting rid of all other tax would be a good idea. We sould have one solid high sales tax in the place of the income tax. It would probably get rid of social security as people would be able to save up their money.

You can't just label the lower class like that, though. Of course there are people who are leeches and people who are losers, but mostly there are people who were not brought up the right way to value education, people who saw no way out of their poverty, and people who may have been denied proper food, shelter, and an environment to learn by poverty. And as Brian37 said, we do need the lower class.

It seems like some people don't like paying taxes for social programs because they are afraid that that money might go to help one of the people who live off the welfare system. I read part of Nickel and Dimed, and it had one chapter on a journalist who decided to go live on a minimum wage job or two. Despite what people think, most of the lower class does work really hard.

Newbie Joined: Feb 04, 2008 Posts: 23

Knight_of_BAAWA wrote:

McDuffie_for_Congress wrote:

Knight: did you know that Sean no longer considers himself a market anarchist? He is moving towards the Chicago school.
.

Saitou wrote:

That's a step in the right direction.

No it isn't. The idiot monetarists think everything can be solved by playing with interest rates and fucking with the money supply.

Want to know what happens when you do that?

Right now. The economic situation we're in. THAT is what happens.

Not to mention their downright nutty view of gold, and their views on antitrust.

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:18 am

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:

Everyone should contribute or not expect anything from others.

Contribute how? There are more ways to contribute to society than merely having a huge paycheck. People who stay home and take care of the kids are contributing by keeping those kids on the right track.

Contribute by working. Not all contributions are equal and they are not necessarily proportional to the amount of effort or hardship in the job--productivity, value, and efficiency are much more important factors. It may seem unfair but it is a necessary reality.

Brian37 wrote:

What I don't get about middle and rich class is how they can condemn a poor person who pumps gas or cleans toilets as a looser. An honest job IS contributing.

That wasn't my intention. I admire all hard workers. But even as I do that I also pity those who don't reach for and achieve their full potential. Of course it is up to the person to decide what they want from life and making as much money as they can may mean nothing to them.

Brian37 wrote:

I cant stand people who are work o holics who think everyone should work 100 hours a week and have no life outside their job. I cant stand people who who pay someone to clean the toilets in their house, who won't do it themselves and then condemn the person doing it as being a looser who deserves it because they don't live in a mansion.

Nobody is a loser over something they don't have. A loser would be someone who tells themselves they can't or simply choose not to. A loser is someone who doesn't contribute and support themselves or their children.

Brian37 wrote:

I am for the free market and if money is what your life is all about, be my guest, but I do get sick of people who wont get their hands dirty and then bitch about the people who do get their hands dirty.

I don't know anyone like that and wouldn't care to.

Brian37 wrote:

Every product from gas, to bread, to bricks, to toilet paper, touches the hands of a blue collar or minimum wage worker. Without them the jaded snobs who bitch about them wouldn't be able to get anything done.

The idea of no minimum wage workers is an unrealistic fallacy. Think about it. Sure the amount of the minimum wage could change but there would always be one.

Brian37 wrote:

If everyone made 5 million a year, who would do the work?

Everyone making the same amount of money is an unrealistic scenario. Such a thing would, of course, be a disaster.

Posted: Sat Jul 12, 2008 3:24 am

Cygnus wrote:

You can't just label the lower class like that, though.

I think my sentence structure implied something I didn't mean to say. This was my fault. There are many people who pay no federal income tax but are not losers. I meant to apply that label to those who choose not to work and yet expect to enjoy the work of others.

Cygnus wrote:

Of course there are people who are leeches and people who are losers, but mostly there are people who were not brought up the right way to value education, people who saw no way out of their poverty, and people who may have been denied proper food, shelter, and an environment to learn by poverty. And as Brian37 said, we do need the lower class.

When people don't take advantage of every opportunity they have it is a tragedy. Even our public school system--awful though it is--gives an opportunity to be educated or at least a launching pad.

Cygnus wrote:

It seems like some people don't like paying taxes for social programs because they are afraid that that money might go to help one of the people who live off the welfare system. I read part of Nickel and Dimed, and it had one chapter on a journalist who decided to go live on a minimum wage job or two. Despite what people think, most of the lower class does work really hard.

Many of the hardest jobs in terms of labor are the lowest paying jobs. I have great respect for people who work hard to support their families.

Post Noob Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 58

jkorath wrote:

When people panic about things, the market suffers for it. Yeah, we're THAT pathetic.

Correction the market is so weak .
Its easy to get lost in word mumble jumble lets remember that the market is nothing else then the sum of its parts , the market are people using a transfer protocol in a agreed fashion.
The buzz word “market” is nothing else then the buzz word “internet” both are only a sum of its parts the internet is only a lot of computers using the same communication protocols.

If you disagree can you define what the market is in your opinion ?

PS: It might help you if you not only realize this but try to communicate your ideas to simple citizens in this way.

PS2: I’m surprised to here that most of you and people you know are living of credits O.O shocking. Why did you do this ? Did you really needed to start living of credits ? O.O

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Quote:

When people don't take advantage of every opportunity they have it is a tragedy. Even our public school system--awful though it is--gives an opportunity to be educated or at least a launching pad.

It should, but the schools in inner city and poverty stricken areas are often funded very poorly. The way our schools are funded is a broken system. Areas with higher wealth have really nice schools. Poor areas have crappy schools. If we could find a way to get that taken care of, then the poverty levels would fall.

Posted: Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:03 am

Cygnus wrote:

Quote:

When people don't take advantage of every opportunity they have it is a tragedy. Even our public school system--awful though it is--gives an opportunity to be educated or at least a launching pad.

It should, but the schools in inner city and poverty stricken areas are often funded very poorly. The way our schools are funded is a broken system. Areas with higher wealth have really nice schools. Poor areas have crappy schools. If we could find a way to get that taken care of, then the poverty levels would fall.

This is not so. Some of the worst performing schools have the most per-pupil spending. The problem is how schools are run and the best teachers want nothing to do with some of them. Schools are government run and the government does nearly everything very poorly.

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

So you want the private sector to provide education? Government doesn't have to do everything poorly; in fact, the French government does education very well.

Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 10:59 pm

Cygnus wrote:

So you want the private sector to provide education? Government doesn't have to do everything poorly; in fact, the French government does education very well.

Competition produces the best results. Government's role in education should only be to ensure everyone has an opportunity to get a quality one.

Post Noob Joined: Jun 09, 2008 Posts: 58

Saitou wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

So you want the private sector to provide education? Government doesn't have to do everything poorly; in fact, the French government does education very well.

Competition produces the best results. Government's role in education should only be to ensure everyone has an opportunity to get a quality one.

I’m curious how this is different from government running everything and simply playing Hitler and punishing every teacher or school who misbehaves in contrast to other (emulating market elimination) .

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

The only way I can think of that would provide some consistency is if schools were proportionally funded and all run by the government. Competition produces the best results, but I don't really understand how that's supposed to work with public schools. Won't that just leave some schools at a disadvantage? Doesn't that in turn leave children at a disadvantage?


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore