^^^^^What a great post....lets fuck the poor up the ass.....but ill just throw this in at the end to show i care.....

quote:

I care so deeply about the poor you have no idea.

quote:

Originally posted by ogvh5150 The word you are not using is socialized, as in you advocate socialized healthcare. On again with the con of socialized health care: If you still think socialized medicine is a good thing, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. How fortunate for leaders that men do not think. Adolph Hitler The great masses of the people will more easily fall victims to a big lie than to a small one Adolph Hitler

The modern accepted idea of a socialist country is that of a place like Sweden, it's not focused on centralizing the means of production or Marxism. Regardless, you decided to label me as a Marxist, which I am not at all. I still don't think you understand my persepctive at all, especially since you claim that I'm a Marxist for noting that I agreed with some conservative reforms that cut welfare programs.

The Hitler quotes are just wonderful. I like how your way of debating is trying to link my views with extremists like Hitler and Marx.

Have you ever looked at the lifespans and overall costs between American and Swedish or Canadian systems? The search button has plenty of previous discussions. Also the first article you posted said that Canadiens supported user fees for those who can afford them not cutting access for the poor to healthcare. I'd prefer a mix between private investment and technology and government insurance that everyone is covered, so seemingly Canada is moving toward what I think is a good idea, but the U.S. HMO is riddled with problems and soaring premiums.

How about where the U.S. ranks in terms of education standards among other industrialized nations?

You can sell your Brooklyn Bridge a lot easier by ignoring those items.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Okay if their is one thing that you left should take from this though, is rejection of the idea that we leave the rich with more and poor with less. That is the biggest crock that is ever shot out from the left that we hear. Now we are interested in economic growth okay and that does more for the poor than any bs social program could ever do with any amount of money.

Are you aware that the gap between rich & poor is growing? Nothing you've posted suggests that trickle-down economics supply the poor with any greater living standards. That's what us liberals are concerned about.

Why don't we deal with items like

THIS instead first? The Washington Nationals can pay for their own stadium or else stay at RFK, rather than have politicians sneak in $45 million tax increases for baseball into an emergency supplemental for Iraq. There's even more pork in that bill not related at all to Iraq, including more tsunami aid after all that's been raised already by the private and public sectors.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich. Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail. The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason.

What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now.

quote:

Now poverty is considered living in either an apartment or an old tiny house, you have maybe 1 car, you never go hungry, etc. Astonishingly this is pretty much middle class in Europe(hahaha socialists thats what you get for ignoring economics).

@ denny_shibby

This is astonishing..............especially if you happen to believe it

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich. Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail. The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason. What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now.

Man, you can calm down just a bit!

Anyway:

quote:

Since 1973, the bottom fifth of families have seen their income fall by an average of 0.2 percent per year, while the bottom 40 percent have seen no growth at all. At the same time, the top fifth of families have seen their income rise by 1.1 percent per year. The growth in inequality abated—but did not reverse course—during the high employment years of the late 1990s. Since the recession of the early 2000s, however, inequality has begun to grow again. Families whose total income places them in the bottom fifth of households lost ground, as their incomes fell by 1.9 percent, to $17,984 between 2002 and 2003, while income for those in the top income brackets rose—by 1.1 percent, up to $86,867. Growing inequality over the past few years has been accompanied by economic growth and rising productivity. Between 2003 and 2004, the gross domestic product increased by 3.0 percent and productivity increased by 4 percent. But it was not enough to generate strong job growth. As of March, four years after the recession began, the economy has generated only 415,000 net new jobs. Had the share of Americans working remained at its 2000 level, 4.5 million more people would have had jobs by now. It wasn't always this way. Economic growth used to benefit all families. In the decades after World War II up until 1973, family income grew at about the same pace for families across the income distribution. The bottom fifth of families saw their income rise by an average of 2.6 percent per year, as did the top fifth of families. What's changed? The disconnect between economic growth and incomes is the result of a shift in the balance of power away from workers towards CEOs and corporate profitability. While wages have been falling, after-tax profits have grown by 18.2 percent in 2004 and 14.3 percent in 2003. There are no longer countervailing forces to prevent the wealthy from appropriating all the gains from growth. Labor is no longer a strong force to be reckoned with and government is not protecting worker's paychecks. Unions used to provide good jobs for a third of America's workers. Now, union density in the private sector has dipped into the single digits. When baby boomers were growing up, the government took responsibility for ensuring decent labor standards. Congress passed legislation that protected workers, and regulatory bodies such as OSHA and EEOC enforced these protections. Today, young people entering the workforce are faced with a virtually unregulated labor market as Congress has essentially abdicated its responsibility to provide a decent floor for workers. A prime example is the minimum wage, which has not been increased since 1997.

Source

With how housing prices, healthcare costs and post-secondary educational costs have all drastically risen, among others, how exactly is the market going to provide these for the next generation of poor people? It sure hasn't done much for this generation from the previous one. Sure economic growth is great for producing new advancements and research, but that doesn't mean those at the lower end have greater access to them.

___________________
Download My Spring '08 Mix Here

Thurs May 15: Influence @ Tini Martini w/ Kris B. vs. Nosmo, Rikler & Mike Palmeri
Thurs June 5: Under the Influence @ Tini Martini w/Mathias Matthew, Jack Kim & more TBA

quote:

Originally posted by denny_shibby Yeah no shit shirlock the gap between the rich and poor is growing. But that doesn't mean that the poor are getting worse off because of it. They just aren't gaining money at faster rates than the rich.

I see. So let's continue gutting those programs that help the poor, the poverty-stricken, and the disabled because, well fuck, I guess we can just continue to ignore them and let them fucking fend for themselves, right?

quote:

Let me tell you something the gap between the rich and the poor will always be growing and anything you try to do to stop it just this side of taxing everything or practically everything from them will fail.

Funny how it's shrunk in the past as a result of a former fiscally responsible president who also enjoyed one of the biggest economic booms in our history at the same time.

You remember him, right? Go ahead, you can say his name.

quote:

The gap between rich and poor argument is the stupidest argument in liberal arsenal, and its an insult on your own intelligence to present it for the above reason.

A lovely assertion on your part without a supporting rationale. Why am I not surprised?

quote:

What you don't get is that you are playing the poor of the future against the poor of today with your bullshit social programs. Those programs stand in the way of future economic growth. That growth is what makes it easier on the poor in the future. So your motto is fuck the poor in the future we don't care about them, we want our moneys now.

I think that motto fits your bill of today's Conservatives quite a bit better really. If we want to continue discussing in generalities, in general who's fucking the future poor more? Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the Democrats are fucking over the poor harder than the Republicans who are in total control right now with all the future programs for the poor, poverty, the elderly, the children, and the disabled slowly being cut? You honestly going to try to convince me that this fiscally fucked up GOP Congress who can't get a fucking enough of borrowing us into a fucking oblivion is actually BETTER than if Democrats were in control right now, and that the Republicans do, in fact, know how to treat those aforementioned groups better than the Democrats? They're effectively putting a fucking BIRTH tax on every kid being born since those next generationers have to fucking pay off every penny these "compassionate conservatives" are borrowing away, and yet you have the outlandish vitriol to put your anger at the fucking liberals?

Methinks your vitriol is a bit misplaced, sir.

But rather than throw immature bullshit labels and sweeping generalizations on everyone whom you disagree with, why don't you pick a particular social program that makes you pull your hair out and explain yourself in specific detail a bit better. Labelling and generalization is fun and all, but let's try to leave such immature tactics to the extreme ******s like Coulter and Moore, shall we?

And if you can't think of one, I'll pick one of my own - Social Security. Please compare and contrast our current SS program with that of Bush's privatization program and how both effectively fucks the poor in the future, as well as which one you think is worse.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

Alright, Opus. I'm gonna show you what a evil, cold-hearted capitalist I can be...This was such a heartwarming response. Really great stuff. The rich are evil, blah blah blah. Pity the poor.

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 I see. So let's continue gutting those programs that help the poor, the poverty-stricken, and the disabled because, well fuck, I guess we can just continue to ignore them and let them fucking fend for themselves, right?

Dammit, we need more of these programs. We need to dictate charity on society. We will get government to wield its mighty monopoly on force and force those evil rich to fork over a larger dollar amount than we ask the average man to fork over, to help out someone less fortunate than he. Charity is great, but it's not something you can govern.

quote:

You remember him, right? Go ahead, you can say his name.

Yeah, you mean C-l-i-n-t-o-n, right? Shhhh, don't say it out loud three times. Clinton closed his eyes and rode the wreckless train that hit a wall in 2000. It didn't happen overnight.

On the positive side, the 90's showed what kind of growth a smoothly running, competitive, capitalist economy can generate with the right inputs in place. The tech boom of the 90's was probably a generational event for those on this board that are over the age of 13. But on the downside, the 90's show what can go wrong when the cargo is carried on speculation, hype, excessive greed; all with an irreponsible driver holding the wheel.

The recession that came afterwards has actually probably been weaker than it should have, given the excess of the 90's. It was brought on by a "perfect storm" and some big negative overtones. In all honesty, I do not for one believe that we have seen how bad things will get, as there are still large excesses and overcapacity, interest rates are going up, consumers are still tapped out in credit, there are no more tax cuts to go around, the dollar could very easily head sharply lower--this economy is skating on thin ice. But I digress. We were talking about taxes and I was busy being insensitive...


Not that I hate poor people, but your opinion on me seems to be that I resent them, and that I don't care about them because I am not one of them myself. Therefore, government should use it's monopoly on force to make me hand over even more of my money to someone who didn't earn it. As if that will stop that person from pissing my money down the drain on crack cocaine and some new bling. As if money is what makes us equals. Typical liberal mind trick.

How am I fucking them over exactly? By not being generous enough? According to your standards? What these people need is better job training, not another unemployment check. You cannot manipulate the bell curve for a sustained period of time.

Call me selfish, but I live for me first, and then worry about my charity afterwards, and I'm sure there will be some because it's tax deductible, as it should be. If you want to incentivize people to be more generous, then let them deduct the generosity from their taxes, however you want to calculate the number. What's good for this goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, fuck the poor. Make sure you pull the knife out of my back on your way out. Wanna kick my dog while you're here?


/rant

Last edited by Shakka on Apr-16-2005 at 11:37

quote:

Call me selfish

Your selfish.

quote:

Yeah, fuck the poor. Make sure you pull the knife out of my back on your way out. Wanna kick my dog while you're here?

Stop ranting.........................

Since 1973, the bottom fifth of families have seen their income... Yet again a liberal uses facts that are completely worthless. Instead of using the unemployment rate during the campaign, the correct measure of employment they use, total job loss, job gain. Gee there are differences in population people and you do have a baby boom generation going into retirement maybe factors like that can have affects on whos working. Then you guys state that the deficit is the biggest we have ever had by using dollar amount. Gee isn't there something called inflation ah duh. The fact is that the deficit has never exceeded 30 percent of gdp which means that there have been like 5 or so presidents that have had greater deficits in the last century. Now another thing that is retarded is that you don't compare the wages with prices and perk packages to(i.e. health benefits, etc.). Its pointless to compare wages if you don't compare them to something like the cost of a loaf of bread, a car from a given year, a tv from a given year, etc. Thats just it you guys have to divorce yourselfs from standard economic indicators to project your worthless views on events and situations. Whats next you going to go back to GNP instead of GDP or whatever to make our economy look worse or something.

Hey why don't you try to take up my argument that you are fucking over the poor of the future to give to the poor of today?

Also by the way the number of homeless in this country is less than a couple hundred thousand, but the "poverty line" is some how put around the bottom 20 percent of the entire country like 70 million people. So considering that if you have a small old house/apartment, 1 car, a couple tvs, etc. you are considered poor in America. This is also considered middle class in Europe. How is this? Standard of living and past growth have propelled the United States past Europe so much. And all those piece of crap social programs in Europe have done nothing to help their society or there poor in comparison to a country like the U.S. that is one of the 5 biggest capatalist countries in the world(the only of which that is decently sized). I'm sorry but you people are blind as a bat. You know one of the big catalysts for change in Eastern Germany in the late 80s is when western tv made it into east. The east watched station after station showing westerners with nicer clothes, nicer cars, nicers houses, etc. That will by all of Europe 10-20 years down the road. They are going to eventually wake up to realize that while they are stuck back with a middle class with a flat and a little smart car, the U.S. poor will have several almost brand new cars, nice house/apparment--all owners no renters, can go on a couple vacations a year. This will be our poor, and why will this be our poor because of economic growth not bs social programs--they can just sustain an underclass with shit rundown projects, etc. while growth will transform the poor from those piece of crap projects into basically the middle class of today.

AND YES I AM HONESTLY SAYING THAT DEMOCRATS FUCK OVER THE POOR MORE THAN REPUBLICANS for the above reason. The only thing that they have shielding them is that they don't know they are doing that.

Okay generalities maybe can't work in your view of things because you actually believe that social programs can provide more than the market can which me and many others do not. I also have a vast knowledge of the individual programs and how to make them atleast less damaging and more helpful for the vast amounts of money we jam in them. They all follow a reoccuring theme, make them more market oriented(another generality for you). In the case of social security the private accounts are a great idea. We have heard from you liberals that some old women living only on her social security has to, "Somedays choose between food and medicine." Well private accounts are designed so people can have bigger social security checks when they retire. This has been tried before. I believe Texas was able to get a plan through a little bit ago that allowed some private investment accounts(I don't have to much info on that though) and I heard that their recipients recieve many times more in retirement than the rest of the country. And Chile has private investment accounts for their citizens. The first year the private accounts were instituted only like a fourth of the country got them. They were such a success the first year that the second year 90 percent of the country was signed up for them. In terms of the programs effects on future growth, they both take out the same amount of money in fica taxes so either way you look at it future growth would roughly be the same, but since everybody or at least everybody that decides to take part will be getting more money plus the increase in investment in the economy you could see positive growth if anything.

Last edited by denny_shibby on Apr-18-2005 at 04:03

I really knew when I got into this that I wasn't going to convince really any of you leftists defact to the other side, but I decided to give it a shot anyway. So I'm not going to really waste much more of my very precious time debating this shit anymore I have a life. Instead I am going to be the bearer of bad news to you leftists out there.

Well lets see here first off you guys have a turf war going on in your party where various factions are blaming each other for their present situation. You have Moveon.org because of campaign finance reform has risen to the top of the party A list. Because of taxable donations to candidates and rnc and dnc, 527s have arose because they are still tax exempt because they don't verbally endorse a particular candidate or party. So Moveon.org has become a donation power house that is using there vast amounts of money to leverage against the party. They want the candidates to follow there orders or they will see to it that they wont get elected again. So your kook base are the ones in power now guys.

Due to population trends in the U.S. the South is on the verge of becoming more populous than the north. The southern Red States will have a larger population base than the Blue states by 2010 this doesn't include undecided states or still barely Red States. Several blue states will be loosing a rep seat withing the next to congressional elections. These states include California, New York, and I believe 2 or 3 more. The same number of red states will be picking up that amount of rep seats. This will mean a switch of 8-10 representative seats and electoral votes from blue state hands to red state by 2008. Now you may think you are just transmitting blue state voters into the Red states making them at least more blue, but when the democrat strategist and expert in population trends was asked about this he said, "I wish that was so, but after looking into it most of these movers aren't that much in the democrat party camp or they are undecided. They are seeming to basically switch sides when they get in to these red states where they are surrounded by conservative voters.

Major democrat black and latino politicians have been warning democrat politicians that there treatment of Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzalez and comments like Howard Deans in the Black Caucus that they could see a backlash like they have never seen before from the minorities defacting to the Republican side. My prediction is that we will see a republican latino vote coming extremely close to 50 50, and a black vote from like 20-80 percent to 35-65 percent because of that and much of the black church community joining the Republican side. That is the case assuming Condi isn't on the ticket later. Personally I believe that Condi will hop on as vp to whoever is the next republican pres candidate. If that is the case I believe that for the first time in a very long time the Republicans will receive a majority percentage of 50-60 percent of Black voters.

Ammazingly Rush Limbaugh was treated to a suprise a couple of months ago when a prominant national scale democrat approached him asking for advice on how the democrats can get back in power. He was extremely nice and honest about it with his answer being, "Find a way to divorce yourselves from the media, they are going down the tubes and taking you guys with you. Stories like the Rathergate(national guard story) story aren't doing you guys any favors at all. Divorce yourselves from them and maybe not right away, but you might beable to regroup and come back in the spotlight in maybe 10 years." Rush wont disclose the democrats name because of the implications that would have on the guys career. Believe it or not, but as long as I have listened to Rush nobody has ever caught him in a lie.

Prominant Democrats have already come to the realization that the Democrat party AS WE KNOW IT AT LEAST will cease to exist in short time. The consensus of the new Democrat party will be a coalition of the anti war and protectionists. Basically a modern day isolationist party. They would be anti war, anti-immigration(to draw conservatives), anti-free trade, and severely protectionist society; harsh on Janet Jackson type stuff, and would try to put an end to all this sex in the media, porn on the net, even respectful of anti abortion, etc. This coalition of activist democrats and protectionist conservatives would then be the new left maybe 10 years down the road. This is the line Hillary is trying to tiptoe at the moment with her statements about abortion, and excessive pornography and premiscuis sex.

Because of Hillary releasing documents to the press with regards to Howard Dean trying to get Clinton to go to war in Iraq in the late 90s right before the primaries, Howard Dean doesn't like Hillary at all. Me and many others believe that probably one of Deans biggest goals is to prevent Hillary from winning the primaries. Why do you think McCauliffs last action as DNC chairman was to release Demzilla into the open? Demzilla being the list of millions on top of millions of numbers the liberals have for courdinating campaigns. Demzilla used to be the biggest thing the DNC had to leverage against the liberal candidates.

This came out several months before the election and it was better news to me than the elections results could have ever been. More people watch fox news right now than their top 8 competitors combined.

So liberals you have a lot going against you right now in this country, and slowly in the rest of the world, but a little farther down the road. My suggestion to you guys: move to Europe or Canada, they have all those programs that all you liberals want there waiting for you; you don't even have to try to get everybody to think like you anymore you can just move. Take you pick at any of those countries.