You don’t protect my freedom

[BotanyBoy]

There are more poor people. That's not wrong. It's empirically proven data-backed evidence.

You're trying to claim that inequality is due to individuals? That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

Nuh uhhh!! Limbaugh n' Hannity told him!!! That's why he dun need no dang 'o argument...

 

[PayDay]

Those who lack the ability to be critical of something, cannot possibly love it.

If you blindly accept that this is the best country in the world, without fighting to make it a better place, you're not patriotic, you're just a blind nationalist.

Also, changing the subject pretty much indicates to me that you have lost the argument.

Nope.

 

[PayDay]

There are more poor people. That's not wrong. It's empirically proven data-backed evidence.

You're trying to claim that inequality is due to individuals? That's the worst argument I've ever heard.

Nope.

 

[PayDay]

Plenty...



And policy of the authorities that govern over them.....that means the rich and the politicians they purchase to manage the country. Not the poor and politically powerless....no matter how bad you want the opposite to be true.



LOL keep telling yourself that lie....



And the fantasy world of the RWCJ continues.....



Never said anything of the sort....but income disparity in america does suck, and it's the rich/politicians who did it...not entitlement programs and modifying what the poverty level is, which is supposed to be modified along with the changing times.

You're not aiming at anything, your just spouting non sense in incomplete thoughts with seemingly random variables.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

 

[KingOrfeo]

There are more people at the poverty level due to more entitlement programs and a modifying of what poverty level is.

Not even you can possibly believe that.

 

[PayDay]

Not even you can possibly believe that.

Do you even read?

#610: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=60544203&postcount=610

"Something given has no value."

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/16/war-poverty-colossal-flop/

But today the Census will almost certainly proclaim that around 14 percent of Americans are still poor. The present poverty rate is almost exactly the same as it was in 1967 a few years after the War on Poverty started. Census data actually shows that poverty has gotten worse over the last 40 years.

How is this possible? How can the taxpayers spend $22 trillion on welfare while poverty gets worse?

 

[BotanyBoy]

You're not aiming at anything, your just spouting non sense in incomplete thoughts with seemingly random variables.

Worst. Thread. Ever.

Worst. Deflection. Ever.


Look I know you want the entirety of planet earths wealth concentrated into like 150 peoples hands while the rest of humanity lives in total squalor, you are a republican right?

Right...but that's not a good thing...it's bad pretty much all around.

 

[PayDay]

Worst. Deflection. Ever.


Look I know you want the entirety of planet earths wealth concentrated into like 150 peoples hands while the rest of humanity lives in total squalor, you are a republican right?

Right...but that's not a good thing...it's bad pretty much all around.

So? There is always a rich guy in the neighborhood. Assuming he is to blame for all of your problems is infantile.

 

[richard_daily]

Nope.

Saying "nope" doesn't make it any less true.

If you can't criticize and make something better, you're just a blind follower.

 

[richard_daily]

So? There is always a rich guy in the neighborhood. Assuming he is to blame for all of your problems is infantile.

If the rich guy is stealing from everyone else, then he is absolutely to blame for the financial problems of the neighborhood.

That's the reality of what's happening today.

 

[richard_daily]

Do you even read?

#610: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=60544203&postcount=610

So on one hand, you say "there are not more poor people", and then in the next breath, you admit that you're wrong, but fail to accept personal responsibility for being wrong, and then blame it on social welfare programs...

Nice.

 

[possum123]

You do recognize that as a problem, don't you?

Someone has to be on the bottom.
There isn't a tie for first place.

 

[PayDay]

So on one hand, you say "there are not more poor people", and then in the next breath, you admit that you're wrong, but fail to accept personal responsibility for being wrong, and then blame it on social welfare programs...

Nice.

? Hello? Unspoken variables? Logic what?

"What is the rate of population increase corrolating to those numbers."

Get good brain.

 

[PayDay]

If the rich guy is stealing from everyone else, then he is absolutely to blame for the financial problems of the neighborhood.

That's the reality of what's happening today.

You only have one basis of proof for that.

 

[PayDay]

Saying "nope" doesn't make it any less true.

If you can't criticize and make something better, you're just a blind follower.

You can't say something is true and then make it true.

What's your point?

 

[PayDay]

If the rich guy is stealing from everyone else, then he is absolutely to blame for the financial problems of the neighborhood.

That's the reality of what's happening today.

You only have one basis of proof for that.

Try some of this:
#104: http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=44099524&postcount=104

Why does Murdoch get a bad wrap? Maybe it is because he is onto Sum Thing.

Watch this whole speech, it is worth it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbqLO1TBnGo

Greed =/= Always

I thank him for this speech, said it better than I could ever try to.

"Government and the Press should be accountable."

Free Market = PRO >.<

My day has been made. Hope exists. Change can be for the better.

 

[oggbashan]

So on one hand, you say "there are not more poor people", and then in the next breath, you admit that you're wrong, but fail to accept personal responsibility for being wrong, and then blame it on social welfare programs...

Nice.

The difficulty with any argument about 'poor people' is how you define 'poor'.

If, as many government statistics do, you define poor as being at or below a percentile of an average income level, then the crude numbers of 'poor' will always be the same. As the general population improve their gross or net income, the numbers of 'poor' will be the same even if they have a larger purchasing power than before.

If you define 'poor' by international standards, then any 'poor' person in the developed world will be incredibly rich by African standards.

The same applies to standards of deprivation. It all depends on what and how you measure deprivation. If you include access to publicly provided services, then rural and country areas will be 'deprived' because they don't have nearby access to public transport, libraries, hospitals etc.

On the other hand, decayed urban areas by that measure are not 'deprived' because they have those public facilities within a short distance.

Unless you define your terms, arguments can be as pointless as if one poster is talking about oranges and the other about potatoes.

 

[PayDay]

The difficulty with any argument about 'poor people' is how you define 'poor'.
...
It all depends on what and how you measure deprivation.
...
Unless you define your terms, arguments can be as pointless as if one poster is talking about oranges and the other about potatoes.

Well done, sir.

 

[KingOrfeo]

So? There is always a rich guy in the neighborhood.

No, there isn't. There used to be, back in the '50s -- your boss might live a few blocks from you, in a bigger house but one otherwise pretty much the same as yours -- but now they live in different, all-rich neighborhoods, where they can ignore the rest of us.

 

[BotanyBoy]

So? There is always a rich guy in the neighborhood. Assuming he is to blame for all of your problems is infantile.

I'm not blaming him for all my problems....I'm saying he's got all the money if he wants our roads fixed, to carry on wars on the other side of the planet etc....the mother fucker is going to have to cough some of it up.

Don't want to live in a nation of diseased retards living in squalor? Gonna have to cough some of it up......

Want to stay on top of scientific and technological development? Gonna have to cough some of it up.....

The poor don't fucking have it as much as you want to keep squeezing that stone there ain't no more blood in it and the middle class is about dry.

 

[PayDay]

No, there isn't. There used to be, back in the '50s -- your boss might live a few blocks from you, in a bigger house but one otherwise pretty much the same as yours -- but now they live in different, all-rich neighborhoods, where they can ignore the rest of us.

What is wrong with you? No hugs? Too bad.

I'm not blaming him for all my problems....I'm saying he's got all the money if he wants our roads fixed, to carry on wars on the other side of the planet etc....the mother fucker is going to have to cough some of it up.

Don't want to live in a nation of diseased retards living in squalor? Gonna have to cough some of it up......

Want to stay on top of scientific and technological development? Gonna have to cough some of it up.....

The poor don't fucking have it as much as you want to keep squeezing that stone there ain't no more blood in it and the middle class is about dry.

You, to me, seem to have politicians, wealthy, corporation, business, and society all twisted around.

You seem to want a world of equal distribution of wealth when advancement and profits from advancement should be regulated, yet want advancement continuously and that will make everyone happy and productive and advancement will happen because business can't make too much money or pay anyone more than they should have?

Like 'highbrow marxist' or whatever.

...which is absolute crazy talk.

 

[BotanyBoy]

You, to me, seem to have politicians, wealthy, corporation, business, and society all twisted around.

How so?

You seem to want a world of equal distribution of wealth

Never once did I ever suggest anything remotely close to that absurd.

You're just making shit up because nutty Teahaddist corporate slime ball dick sucker.

when advancement and profits from advancement should be regulated, yet want advancement continuously and that will make everyone happy and productive and advancement will happen because business can't make too much money or pay anyone more than they should have?.

Like 'highbrow marxist' or whatever.

BAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA ask RobDownSouth, KO and DanC how marxist I am. I'm not a marxist, I'm just not a loony ass teahaddist .

...which is absolute crazy talk.

What is? That blathering clusterfuck I have quoted up there? For sure....

Or were you talking about the parts where you're just making random shit up?

 

[KingOrfeo]

You seem to want a world of equal distribution of wealth when advancement and profits from advancement should be regulated, yet want advancement continuously and that will make everyone happy and productive and advancement will happen because business can't make too much money or pay anyone more than they should have?

I'd settle for something like Scandinavian social democracy. Plenty of advancement going on there.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I'd settle for something like Scandinavian social democracy. Plenty of advancement going on there.

THAT^^ is a marxist.....he really would like equal wealth distribution.

I just want you jack wagons in the GOP to realize we gotta pay some bills and clean house....that's gonna cost and the only way it's happening is if we lay into the rich a bit. But scream for their tax breaks anyhow...fucking retards.

 

[KingOrfeo]

THAT^^ is a marxist.....he really would like equal wealth distribution.

Weeellll . . . maybe some form of democratic socialism as distinct from social democracy, but only if we get there by very gradual stages, so we can deal with unintended consequences as they arise; and private enterprise is never eliminated or marginalized entirely; and we're not ideologically locked in to one model of "socialism" but will readily experiment with different ones to see what works best, e.g., nationalization and state planning v. dirigisme v. worker management of autonomous businesses (like in the Spanish Revolution). There should be no "theology of the final goal," i.e., a vision of socialism as something that is to come after capitalism.

Or we could just stick with social democracy, it works well enough, and better than what we've got here now.

Revolution, trying to do everything at once according to some complete model the revolutionaries already have in mind, always seems to make things worse. When Lenin declared "We will now proceed to build the socialist order!" he was leading a party of revolutionaries who had never before been allowed to participate in government even as a party in opposition. Most Bolsheviks had no experience in government, administration, or business or industrial management. Lenin (and Marx) seems to have figured that after the "capitalist integument" was "burst," everything would just fall into place, if managed by people with the right ideology. Such hubris, such naivete.