Really?SEREVENT wrote:
Weren't RAF personnel advised not to wear their uniforms in public because some RAF guys were attacked?
This country is a disgrace.
Not that i've heard of.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Really?SEREVENT wrote:
Weren't RAF personnel advised not to wear their uniforms in public because some RAF guys were attacked?
This country is a disgrace.
that is interesting.... nothing like that happens here. i gather it doesnt happen in the US either?
Last time I checked, roofers, plumbers, firemen, EMT techs, cops, road construction crews, mechanics etc.... were not poverty class jobs. Middle class are blue color workers, as well office workers. Doctors, lawyers, etc....you are saying this is what middle class is? YOU are the one in need of a reality check. They are the upper class, while the filthy rich is in a class all by themselves. Just how much would want to pay a toilet cleaner if YOU owned a business. Of I am sure you would be fair and pay him as much as you would pay your accountant. Yeah, I am the one who needs a reality check.CameronPoe wrote:
Are you seriously telling me that middle class people work in McDonalds, vaccuum office buildings, gather garbage, sweep streets, clean toilets, work behind checkout desks and do odd-jobs like plastering and bricklaying? Get a fucking reality check. Middle class people are accountants, lawyers, engineers, doctors, scientists, technicians, managers, actuaries, teachers, lecturers, journalists, etc. Now I realise why you're so off the wall with your theories: you're completely disconnected from reality.lowing wrote:
1. Cam, the rich do not provide the capital, the MIDDLE CLASS provides the labor and the poor provide nothing. Society can not function without the rich or the middle class, the poor however are the ones you insist we all work for and drag along while they contribute nothing except a fucking VOTE to put into office a socialist who tells them the rich will pay more for them if they only vote him in.
The upper class provide the vast majority of capital. The middle class provide a certain amount of labour and a certain amount of capital. The poor provide labour, mainly the shitty jobs that don't require an extensive education - shitty but necessary nonetheless - the kinds of jobs that don't really enable one to accumulate much capital.
When the middle class lower themselves to start cleaning toilets for money then maybe you'll start to have a point.
PS Wasn't it the rich who were peddling house loans to uncreditworthy people hand over fist? Are they not now responsible for additional burden to the taxpayer since the US started bailing out poorly run banks and businesses?It's not a punishment. If not for this system the country would probably collapse - just as feudalism was brought crashing down when the poor had enough of the privileged exploiting them for labour at bare subsistence levels. And when the country collapses your riches won't be any good to you whatsoever, unless of course you managed to get the last plane out of it. The stability of your nation enables you to become rich. So effectively it's repaying that debt.lowing wrote:
2. You say rightly so, I say it is punishment for being rich. Obama says to nail the rich for more money is "Neighborliness". He wants to force the rich to be nice. He doesn't say the world will collapse if they do not. He is saying the govt. will dictate FOR YOU how nice you should be, how much is too much earnings. Yeah, this is the America I wanna live in. You may love the govt. controlling you in this way Cam, I however, do not.
Of course, you are entitled to your views.When the rich makes a profit we all win! lol. Yeah, especially when they ship all the jobs out to the latest dirt poor country. lol. We might 'all win' if they were bound by law to commit all of their profits to inward reinvestment, but of course no such laws exist and their profits may or may not benefit the people of the nation in which they reside.lowing wrote:
3. How so, a service/ product is supplied, if people want it they will pay for it, they more they pay the more the rich makes a profit, when the rich makes a profit, we all win.I'm just spelling out the reality of the situation. That's all.lowing wrote:
4. There you go, reverting back to your argument that "well, that is just the way it is"..I already know that Cam, but that does not mean I think it is right. Hence the debate.
Manual labour - blue collar workers - WORKING CLASS. You see the clue is in the title: LABOUR -> work -> working class.lowing wrote:
Last time I checked, roofers, plumbers, firemen, EMT techs, cops, road construction crews, mechanics etc.... were not poverty class jobs. Middle class are blue color workers, as well office workers. Doctors, lawyers, etc....you are saying this is what middle class is? YOU are the one in need of a reality check. They are the upper class, while the filthy rich is in a class all by themselves. Just how much would want to pay a toilet cleaner if YOU owned a business. Of I am sure you would be fair and pay him as much as you would pay your accountant. Yeah, I am the one who needs a reality check.
Everything is the liberals fault with you lowing. Never the grubby hawkers of the loans themselves. It's quite funny really.lowing wrote:
It was the liberals that demanded that something be done to allow all the undeserving a chance for home ownership, so they were "qualified". Now we are all paying for it. I do not feel however, it should be a taxpayer burden to bail them out.
We did, and you were evidently wrong on that count. Lowing - find an island somewhere, create Lowingland and try your plan out. It would be interesting to see how long a nation where a particular strata of society basically live like slaves would last (or a nation without manual labour would last, as the case might be).lowing wrote:
Actually you did not address this paragraph, but yeah, I am entitled to my opinion. I do not feel the country will callapse under the wieght of giving free rides.
We already discussed reality.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 16:08:00)
Mmm. lots of opposition to Iraq war here to (we've started pulling our troops out) but ive never heard a story of Defence Force Personel being attacked for being in the defence force or even verbally attacked. i think we learnt after Vietnam that its not the soldiers that the public should take its anger out on but rather the dumb ass governments that sent them to war...SEREVENT wrote:
Not that i've heard of.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Really?SEREVENT wrote:
Weren't RAF personnel advised not to wear their uniforms in public because some RAF guys were attacked?
This country is a disgrace.
that is interesting.... nothing like that happens here. i gather it doesnt happen in the US either?
But peole here really hate the Iraq war. And Tony Blair for some reason. Gordon Brown i can understand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class To answer your class structure Cam, working class are not poverty strickenCameronPoe wrote:
Manual labour - blue collar workers - WORKING CLASS. You see the clue is in the title: LABOUR -> work -> working class.lowing wrote:
Last time I checked, roofers, plumbers, firemen, EMT techs, cops, road construction crews, mechanics etc.... were not poverty class jobs. Middle class are blue color workers, as well office workers. Doctors, lawyers, etc....you are saying this is what middle class is? YOU are the one in need of a reality check. They are the upper class, while the filthy rich is in a class all by themselves. Just how much would want to pay a toilet cleaner if YOU owned a business. Of I am sure you would be fair and pay him as much as you would pay your accountant. Yeah, I am the one who needs a reality check.
Middle class - white collar workers - those I described. One of the provisions for being a member of the middle class is that you have received a tertiary education.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_class#Current_usage
If you have to work in a mine or a factory or on a building site or any such place you are working class, simple as that. That's the generally accepted definition.
Upper class - people who were born into wealth or managed to accumulate massive amounts of wealth through business enabling them to live lives where they don't have to work.
And if I was a business owner I would pay the market rate for a toilet cleaner, which is probably at or close to the minimum wage, seen as you're asking. We already did the calculations for minimum wage earnings in the US over the period of a year. It doesn't really provide you with any sort of a living to raise a family or spend money on educating/bettering yourself. It isn't conducive to persuading banks to lend you the money to educate yourself either...Everything is the liberals fault with you lowing. Never the grubby hawkers of the loans themselves. It's quite funny really.lowing wrote:
It was the liberals that demanded that something be done to allow all the undeserving a chance for home ownership, so they were "qualified". Now we are all paying for it. I do not feel however, it should be a taxpayer burden to bail them out.We did, and you were evidently wrong on that count. Lowing - find an island somewhere, create Lowingland and try your plan out. It would be interesting to see how long a nation where a particular strata of society basically live like slaves would last (or a nation without manual labour would last, as the case might be).lowing wrote:
Actually you did not address this paragraph, but yeah, I am entitled to my opinion. I do not feel the country will callapse under the wieght of giving free rides.
We already discussed reality.
Elements of the working class ARE NEAR THE BREADLINE lowing. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in every economy who are one redundancy or one tax increase away from the pavement, irrespective of how personally responsible they are.lowing wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class To answer your class structure Cam, working class are not poverty stricken
So, you are telling me that you would pay people according to what their skills dictates, well excuse the rich for doing the same.
I am sorry Cam, was a gun placed t oa persons head t osign ofr a home they could not afford? I forgot personal responsibility has no place in liberal doctrine.
Yeah, Cam and this is your view of reality? I already told you a society can exist with out the poor, it can not exist without the risk takers the investers, in other words, the rich.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-13 16:53:42)
Which is it Cam last post you said it was the working class, now it is "elements of the working class". The working class is not poverty stricken, it is of course understood that when you have borders on a stat, that people are going to be closer to that line than others.CameronPoe wrote:
Elements of the working class ARE NEAR THE BREADLINE lowing. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there in every economy who are one redundancy or one tax increase away from the pavement, irrespective of how personally responsible they are.lowing wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lower_middle_class To answer your class structure Cam, working class are not poverty stricken
So, you are telling me that you would pay people according to what their skills dictates, well excuse the rich for doing the same.
I am sorry Cam, was a gun placed t oa persons head t osign ofr a home they could not afford? I forgot personal responsibility has no place in liberal doctrine.
Yeah, Cam and this is your view of reality? I already told you a society can exist with out the poor, it can not exist without the risk takers the investers, in other words, the rich.
lowing: Are there people in every nation who do really menial shitty jobs that pay at or near the minimum wage, yes or no?
lol at your assertion that the world can exist without poor people. When cleaning toilets and general unskilled labour start paying wages that allow people to invest in bettering themselves then I'll start to believe your bullshit. When the investers have no unskilled labour at hand to make them even richer or to provide services for the skilled labour it will be some utopia...
Personal responsibility is very important lowing, we both agree upon that. Are you saying that the banks were right to be irresponsible in this manner? Bizarre!
Last edited by lowing (2008-09-14 07:08:52)
What, no they don't. No more so than other countries. Stop giving foreigners misinformation about us.SEREVENT wrote:
Not that i've heard of.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Really?SEREVENT wrote:
Weren't RAF personnel advised not to wear their uniforms in public because some RAF guys were attacked?
This country is a disgrace.
that is interesting.... nothing like that happens here. i gather it doesnt happen in the US either?
But peole here really hate the Iraq war. And Tony Blair for some reason. Gordon Brown i can understand.
Your part true in this statement.The part your wrong is that not every one hates the war. Tony Blair is a lying fucking idiot and l can not think of one good thing hes done for this country. All hes done is sell us futher to the bloody Euro as he wanted to be the first Premier of Europe! Gordan Browns shit out as hes got to clean the mess up and he can't.jord wrote:
What, no they don't. No more so than other countries. Stop giving foreigners misinformation about us.SEREVENT wrote:
Not that i've heard of.Little BaBy JESUS wrote:
Really?
that is interesting.... nothing like that happens here. i gather it doesnt happen in the US either?
But peole here really hate the Iraq war. And Tony Blair for some reason. Gordon Brown i can understand.
Well lowing, given that the world isn't black and white, there are VARYING DEGREES of everything. I don't expect you to understand such a thing as you have never demonstrated an understanding of this concept thus far on this forum. So basically I gather that you are going to pretend there are no members of the working class that are perilously close to the breadline - you can continue living that lie, it doesn't help in what is supposed to be a rational debate.lowing wrote:
Which is it Cam last post you said it was the working class, now it is "elements of the working class". The working class is not poverty stricken, it is of course understood that when you have borders on a stat, that people are going to be closer to that line than others.
In America you are FREE to make a decision yes, it doesn't mean anything will come of it - no matter how hard you try: because just like in every other country in the world the US is not an equal opportunity society. People have inherent advantages through circumstance. I'm not going to pretend to imagine you understand intra-generational poverty cycles, well documented by sociologists.lowing wrote:
Yes there are people who do "menial shitty jobs" always, that is the price you pay for the decisions of your life that, in America you are FREE to make. Look at your country, you boast about how great socialism is, yet you still have poverty. With all the govt. "efforts" you still have people that refuse to take care of themselves.
Next time I meet a toilet cleaner with a degree riding around in a Mercedes I might begin to listen to you...lowing wrote:
It is not bullshit, when ethe demand for toilet cleaners goes up so will their pay and benefits. Watch how much your trash collector will make the second no one is around to take the trash.
Erm, because of circumstances that are no fault of their own? No responsible parents to educate them, broken homes, etc. are, whether you pretend otherwise or not, an impediment to progress. They will have to try about 100 times harder than people born into more fortuitous circumstances to get even a fraction of the distance others will in life. I don't suppose you might understand that concept either - the fact that many have to work far harder than others and are far more at risk of failure through circumstance. Your magic land where everything always works out is exactly that: magic land.lowing wrote:
Also, if cleaning toilets does not pay well ( which it doesn't) it kinda makes you wonder why a person with 2 good arms and 2 good legs would settle for such a job. Ahhhhhhhhh we all have our choices to make in life I guess. I live by my choices, so can they. I work to feed my family, I should not have t owork twice as hard to cover another that does not. All that does is take away from my kids.
It is wrong for a car dealer to drum up tons of bad debt when he is well aware of the buyers credit rating - it's called financial suicide. lol. It is knowingly dragging your business into bankruptcy. Get a reality check: it takes two to tango and the banks are every bit as culpable, again whether you are prepared to admit to this hard fact or not. And you're right - no tax payer should have to shoulder this burden: the failed banks should die for their misguided golden goose milking.lowing wrote:
I am saying, the people were wrong for getting into loans they could not afford. Is it wrong for a car dealer to sell you a car you can not afford or probably do not need? Nope, it is your choice. Is it wrong for a Store to sell you a 65' big screen TV on a credit card when you probably can not afford it? Nope. We are responsible for our own stupidity and irresponsibility, no one else. I will say that the resolution of this personal responsibility crisis should be between the loaner and the borrower. the tax payer should not be burdened with it.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 09:34:16)
I see Cam, so basically, yourwhole argument is people are where they are at in life, not because of decisions or choice, but because of and chance and luck. The rich are rich because, well, they are just luckierthan the poor, they did not EARN it or work for it, or risk anything for it, they are merely lucky. and the poor, they are just the unlucky who have no control over their lives lives or their decsions. Chance has dealt them shitty cards and there is nothing they can do to improve themselves....Basically you believe in luck and chance, I believe in desicions and responsibility. Yet you insist I am of a fantasy land.. Don't look now Cam, but my verbs are of this word unlike luck and chance.CameronPoe wrote:
Well lowing, given that the world isn't black and white, there are VARYING DEGREES of everything. I don't expect you to understand such a thing as you have never demonstrated an understanding of this concept thus far on this forum. So basically I gather that you are going to pretend there are no members of the working class that are perilously close to the breadline - you can continue living that lie, it doesn't help in what is supposed to be a rational debate.lowing wrote:
Which is it Cam last post you said it was the working class, now it is "elements of the working class". The working class is not poverty stricken, it is of course understood that when you have borders on a stat, that people are going to be closer to that line than others.In America you are FREE to make a decision yes, it doesn't mean anything will come of it - no matter how hard you try: because just like in every other country in the world the US is not an equal opportunity society. People have inherent advantages through circumstance. I'm not going to pretend to imagine you understand intra-generational poverty cycles, well documented by sociologists.lowing wrote:
Yes there are people who do "menial shitty jobs" always, that is the price you pay for the decisions of your life that, in America you are FREE to make. Look at your country, you boast about how great socialism is, yet you still have poverty. With all the govt. "efforts" you still have people that refuse to take care of themselves.
PS We have less poverty-stricken people. That's what would be described as a good thing.Next time I meet a toilet cleaner with a degree riding around in a Mercedes I might begin to listen to you...lowing wrote:
It is not bullshit, when ethe demand for toilet cleaners goes up so will their pay and benefits. Watch how much your trash collector will make the second no one is around to take the trash.Erm, because of circumstances that are no fault of their own? No responsible parents to educate them, broken homes, etc. are, whether you pretend otherwise or not, an impediment to progress. They will have to try about 100 times harder than people born into more fortuitous circumstances to get even a fraction of the distance others will in life. I don't suppose you might understand that concept either - the fact that many have to work far harder than others and are far more at risk of failure through circumstance. Your magic land where everything always works out is exactly that: magic land.lowing wrote:
Also, if cleaning toilets does not pay well ( which it doesn't) it kinda makes you wonder why a person with 2 good arms and 2 good legs would settle for such a job. Ahhhhhhhhh we all have our choices to make in life I guess. I live by my choices, so can they. I work to feed my family, I should not have t owork twice as hard to cover another that does not. All that does is take away from my kids.It is wrong for a car dealer to drum up tons of bad debt when he is well aware of the buyers credit rating - it's called financial suicide. lol. It is knowingly dragging your business into bankruptcy. Get a reality check: it takes two to tango and the banks are every bit as culpable, again whether you are prepared to admit to this hard fact or not. And you're right - no tax payer should have to shoulder this burden: the failed banks should die for their misguided golden goose milking.lowing wrote:
I am saying, the people were wrong for getting into loans they could not afford. Is it wrong for a car dealer to sell you a car you can not afford or probably do not need? Nope, it is your choice. Is it wrong for a Store to sell you a 65' big screen TV on a credit card when you probably can not afford it? Nope. We are responsible for our own stupidity and irresponsibility, no one else. I will say that the resolution of this personal responsibility crisis should be between the loaner and the borrower. the tax payer should not be burdened with it.
Wow. Way to pull something I never said out of my mouth. This is why it's pointless debating with you. You just make random shit up. Total black and white blinkers. People are where they are in life THROUGH A MIXTURE OF THEIR OWN ENDEAVOURS AND THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCE. Wow you're incapable of treating things in a non-binary fashion!lowing wrote:
I see Cam, so basically, yourwhole argument is people are where they are at in life, not because of decisions or choice, but because of and chance and luck.
Untrue again. Some are rich through hard work and endeavour. Some are rich through birth/circumstance. Some are rich through opportunism in business.lowing wrote:
The rich are rich because, well, they are just luckierthan the poor, they did not EARN it or work for it, or risk anything for it, they are merely lucky.
Again making completely erroneous statement. The poor need to work to get out of their predicament. They have to work far harder than either you or I do right now. They are far more susceptible to economic downturns than you or I. They are far more affected by interest rate hikes than you or I. They are far more affected by inflation than either you or I. They have control and opportunity, but they suffer a far greater deal of risk in life than either you or I.lowing wrote:
and the poor, they are just the unlucky who have no control over their lives lives or their decsions.
Where did I say anything of the sort? GET OUT OF THIS IMBECILIC PATTERN OF BINARY THOUGHT. Sheesh. Chance may have dealt them shitty cards but yes there are things they can do to improve themselves, although it won't be anywhere near as easy as it is for us.lowing wrote:
Chance has dealt them shitty cards and there is nothing they can do to improve themselves....
I believe in decisions and responsibility on both a personal and social level. I despise spongers as much as you - I'm not referring to spongers: I speak of the plight of those on the breadline, who have a far more turbulent time economically speaking than either of our middle class asses.lowing wrote:
Basically you believe in luck and chance, I believe in desicions and responsibility. Yet you insist I am of a fantasy land.. Don't look now Cam, but my verbs are of this word unlike luck and chance.
Who are my 'precious liberal party'? For the record I despise both the Democrat and Republican party with a passion. It amazes me that a country of 300m people has only two choices in government. Perhaps that's where you get your binary mindset from.lowing wrote:
The banks helped people get loans t oafford the American Dream, just like your precious liberal party demanded from Bush. The end result of this is clear.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-14 16:09:02)
1.. I am not pulling anything out of the air you said " Erm, because of circumstances that are no fault of their own? No responsible parents to educate them, broken homes, etc. are, whether you pretend otherwise or not, an impediment to progress. They will have to try about 100 times harder than people born into more fortuitous circumstances to get even a fraction of the distance others will in life. I don't suppose you might understand that concept either - the fact that many have to work far harder than others and are far more at risk of failure through circumstance. Your magic land where everything always works out is exactly that: magic land." This does not mention personal choice or responsibility anywhere. All it speaks of is circumstances and all the examples followed. Hence my response that points out you do not mention decision making or responsibility...................Uhhhhhh until now, as a complete after thought.CameronPoe wrote:
Wow. Way to pull something I never said out of my mouth. This is why it's pointless debating with you. You just make random shit up. Total black and white blinkers. People are where they are in life THROUGH A MIXTURE OF THEIR OWN ENDEAVOURS AND THROUGH CIRCUMSTANCE. Wow you're incapable of treating things in a non-binary fashion!lowing wrote:
I see Cam, so basically, yourwhole argument is people are where they are at in life, not because of decisions or choice, but because of and chance and luck.Untrue again. Some are rich through hard work and endeavour. Some are rich through birth/circumstance. Some are rich through opportunism in business.lowing wrote:
The rich are rich because, well, they are just luckierthan the poor, they did not EARN it or work for it, or risk anything for it, they are merely lucky.Again making completely erroneous statement. The poor need to work to get out of their predicament. They have to work far harder than either you or I do right now. They are far more susceptible to economic downturns than you or I. They are far more affected by interest rate hikes than you or I. They are far more affected by inflation than either you or I. They have control and opportunity, but they suffer a far greater deal of risk in life than either you or I.lowing wrote:
and the poor, they are just the unlucky who have no control over their lives lives or their decsions.Where did I say anything of the sort? GET OUT OF THIS IMBECILIC PATTERN OF BINARY THOUGHT. Sheesh. Chance may have dealt them shitty cards but yes there are things they can do to improve themselves, although it won't be anywhere near as easy as it is for us.lowing wrote:
Chance has dealt them shitty cards and there is nothing they can do to improve themselves....I believe in decisions and responsibility on both a personal and social level. I despise spongers as much as you - I'm not referring to spongers: I speak of the plight of those on the breadline, who have a far more turbulent time economically speaking than either of our middle class asses.lowing wrote:
Basically you believe in luck and chance, I believe in desicions and responsibility. Yet you insist I am of a fantasy land.. Don't look now Cam, but my verbs are of this word unlike luck and chance.Who are my 'precious liberal party'? For the record I despise both the Democrat and Republican party with a passion. It amazes me that a country of 300m people has only two choices in government. Perhaps that's where you get your binary mindset from.lowing wrote:
The banks helped people get loans t oafford the American Dream, just like your precious liberal party demanded from Bush. The end result of this is clear.
And also ftr: the banks knew exactly what they were doing - the credit ratings were there fall all to see. I find it really weird that you harp on about personal responsibility but give banks and corporations a free pass on responsibility.
Here's another one biting the dust: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7615712.stm. Who will protect them from those vicious people the banks sell the mortgages to? lol
At the end of the day you believe in 'a nation for me' rather than 'a nation for us'. I can respect your view but I'm afraid I could never share it. I recognise the increased difficulty in life for those earning far less than me. I am not going to begrudge some extra taxation if it means those beneath me in the pecking order can catch a break, perhaps helping them up into my tax band so that they can repay the favour.
You are pulling shit out of the air. You are taking one comment and ignoring all others, despite both sets of comments not being mutually exclusive. You do it very regularly. It's very boring and is making me rethink the pointfulness of bothering replying to you.lowing wrote:
1.. I am not pulling anything out of the air you said " Erm, because of circumstances that are no fault of their own? No responsible parents to educate them, broken homes, etc. are, whether you pretend otherwise or not, an impediment to progress. They will have to try about 100 times harder than people born into more fortuitous circumstances to get even a fraction of the distance others will in life. I don't suppose you might understand that concept either - the fact that many have to work far harder than others and are far more at risk of failure through circumstance. Your magic land where everything always works out is exactly that: magic land." This does not mention personal choice or responsibility anywhere. All it speaks of is circumstances and all the examples followed. Hence my response that points out you do not mention decision making or responsibility...................Uhhhhhh until now, as a complete after thought.
Not in my opinion. FTR, I'm a tax payer in the upper band here in Ireland.lowing wrote:
2. As far as why the rich are rich, none of your examples are any of your business, as should not entitle you to their money.
Again, not in my opinion.lowing wrote:
3. This NOW, I will agree with, however it does not make it the richs responsibility. The govt. should not be in a postion to DECIDE when a rich guy has made enough and it is time to scrape off his excess earnings for redistribution.
Very few. Our unemployment rate is similar to that of the US. Among Irish people employment is almost total although a downturn is currently in progress. Those who are uneducated are those of a lower ability level - they don't hand out degrees to idiots. The people who work the shit jobs are mainly from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Who do I expect to take care of them? Primarily them, with nets provided by those who can, in the interests of the nation.lowing wrote:
4. I am middle class because I refused a breadline and worked my ass off for my achievments, and my failures. Let me see, you have free college in Ireland and STILL have people uneducated and unmarketable? Now, who exactly do you blame for that? and who exactly do you expect to take care of them? Don't answer that last one, I already know.
I'm actually a free market capitalist with a social conscience and an appreciation for how difficult it is for those starting out in life and having to work themselves up from the precarious realms of the breadline. And I reiterate my despisal of the Israel-loving democrat party - a bunch of 'intellectuals' peddling an image of being out for the interests of 'the working class'.lowing wrote:
5. YOu are a socialist, liberals are socialists, you love socialism, liberal love socialism....I drew a straight line right to you.
lol. When a credit rating essentially says 'Do not lend money to this person' I think it's fair to say that the bank had it coming.lowing wrote:
6. I do not blame the banks, I blame the people that signed PROMISARY NOTES to repay the money...It is on them. Again, I do feel it is up to the banks to collect or go under. It should not fall on the tax payer.
A nation for me, then. I'm glad you clarified that.lowing wrote:
7. No Cam at the end of the day, I spelled out a few pages ago EXACTLY what I expect from my govt. You are free t ocomment on it if you like. I do not want a "nation for me". I want a nation that protects me while I FREELY seek my fortune in life, and you FREELY seek yours. I do not want anything for myself that I don't expect for all Americans.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-09-15 02:38:17)
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.Spark wrote:
Lowing, I don't think you get it.
Not only is completely ignoring the lower brackets at a governmental level crass and incompassionate to the extreme, it's also dangerous socially and creates economic deadweight. I assure you the vast majority of those on welfare would like to get their stable job, own house etc. like the rest of the middle class, but they can't because it's not easy to break out of your own level.
WHat we are discussing is not nation specific.FEOS wrote:
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.
But it must be, as welfare and other social policies are specific to a given nation. There's no cookie-cutter model or solution. What works in a tiny European country may not work in a tiny South American country...or a large North American country...or a large European country.CameronPoe wrote:
WHat we are discussing is not nation specific.FEOS wrote:
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.
You're right about different countries, especially different sizes of countries, having an impact on the validity or suitability of various measures. I am speaking in broad brush principles terms.FEOS wrote:
But it must be, as welfare and other social policies are specific to a given nation. There's no cookie-cutter model or solution. What works in a tiny European country may not work in a tiny South American country...or a large North American country...or a large European country.CameronPoe wrote:
WHat we are discussing is not nation specific.FEOS wrote:
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.
I seriously doubt life in the working class in the US is markedly different from working class here.FEOS wrote:
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.Spark wrote:
Lowing, I don't think you get it.
Not only is completely ignoring the lower brackets at a governmental level crass and incompassionate to the extreme, it's also dangerous socially and creates economic deadweight. I assure you the vast majority of those on welfare would like to get their stable job, own house etc. like the rest of the middle class, but they can't because it's not easy to break out of your own level.
Last edited by Spark (2008-09-15 03:32:59)
I wouldn't know and wouldn't presume to know...I don't live there.Spark wrote:
I seriously doubt life in the working class in the US is markedly different from working class here.FEOS wrote:
Interesting how those of you who don't live in the US know so much about what it's like to live in all the various US income brackets.Spark wrote:
Lowing, I don't think you get it.
Not only is completely ignoring the lower brackets at a governmental level crass and incompassionate to the extreme, it's also dangerous socially and creates economic deadweight. I assure you the vast majority of those on welfare would like to get their stable job, own house etc. like the rest of the middle class, but they can't because it's not easy to break out of your own level.
EDIT: I presume you (= everyone) mean Western countries only.
After all of this Cam it boils down to one thing......Like it or not, YOU are a socialist, YOU expect to be taken care of by your govt. YOU expect your govt. to protect you from failure. YOU expect the govt. to make choices for you. I expect freedom in my life. I do not want my govt. deciding for my when I should be charitable or "NEIGHBORLINESS" or nice. I do not want the govt. deciding for me how much I make is too much so they will just steal the rest and give to those that opt out of earning for themselves. You can have it if you want it, you are welcome to it.CameronPoe wrote:
You are pulling shit out of the air. You are taking one comment and ignoring all others, despite both sets of comments not being mutually exclusive. You do it very regularly. It's very boring and is making me rethink the pointfulness of bothering replying to you.lowing wrote:
1.. I am not pulling anything out of the air you said " Erm, because of circumstances that are no fault of their own? No responsible parents to educate them, broken homes, etc. are, whether you pretend otherwise or not, an impediment to progress. They will have to try about 100 times harder than people born into more fortuitous circumstances to get even a fraction of the distance others will in life. I don't suppose you might understand that concept either - the fact that many have to work far harder than others and are far more at risk of failure through circumstance. Your magic land where everything always works out is exactly that: magic land." This does not mention personal choice or responsibility anywhere. All it speaks of is circumstances and all the examples followed. Hence my response that points out you do not mention decision making or responsibility...................Uhhhhhh until now, as a complete after thought.Not in my opinion. FTR, I'm a tax payer in the upper band here in Ireland.lowing wrote:
2. As far as why the rich are rich, none of your examples are any of your business, as should not entitle you to their money.Again, not in my opinion.lowing wrote:
3. This NOW, I will agree with, however it does not make it the richs responsibility. The govt. should not be in a position to DECIDE when a rich guy has made enough and it is time to scrape off his excess earnings for redistribution.Very few. Our unemployment rate is similar to that of the US. Among Irish people employment is almost total although a downturn is currently in progress. Those who are uneducated are those of a lower ability level - they don't hand out degrees to idiots. The people who work the shit jobs are mainly from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. Who do I expect to take care of them? Primarily them, with nets provided by those who can, in the interests of the nation.lowing wrote:
4. I am middle class because I refused a breadline and worked my ass off for my achievments, and my failures. Let me see, you have free college in Ireland and STILL have people uneducated and unmarketable? Now, who exactly do you blame for that? and who exactly do you expect to take care of them? Don't answer that last one, I already know.I'm actually a free market capitalist with a social conscience and an appreciation for how difficult it is for those starting out in life and having to work themselves up from the precarious realms of the breadline. And I reiterate my despisal of the Israel-loving democrat party - a bunch of 'intellectuals' peddling an image of being out for the interests of 'the working class'.lowing wrote:
5. You are a socialist, liberals are socialists, you love socialism, liberal love socialism....I drew a straight line right to you.lol. When a credit rating essentially says 'Do not lend money to this person' I think it's fair to say that the bank had it coming.lowing wrote:
6. I do not blame the banks, I blame the people that signed PROMISARY NOTES to repay the money...It is on them. Again, I do feel it is up to the banks to collect or go under. It should not fall on the tax payer.A nation for me, then. I'm glad you clarified that.lowing wrote:
7. No Cam at the end of the day, I spelled out a few pages ago EXACTLY what I expect from my govt. You are free t ocomment on it if you like. I do not want a "nation for me". I want a nation that protects me while I FREELY seek my fortune in life, and you FREELY seek yours. I do not want anything for myself that I don't expect for all Americans.