Forum Post: Push back against the handouts attack
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 30, 2011, 11:51 a.m. EST by Teacher
(469)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
OWS should make it clear that we are not lazy and we are not begging the system for handouts. No one wants government assistence, people want good paying jobs and a government that represents citizens. We can beat this line of assault if we remain focused on getting the money out of politics and ending corporate welfare.
Many of the largest corporations in this country get the bulk of "welfare" money. Do a search on the top ten corporations that paid no taxes and see how much they got in "refunds". It is scary to say the least.
Technically, its not welfare. Its a tax refund.
If there were no business taxes on income, there would be no loopholes.
Welfare or refund. Call it what you will it is all semantics at some point. If the corporations make billions in profits, pay no taxes, AND get millions of tax payer dollars back it looks a lot like welfare to me. Maybe welfare is the wrong term, theft would be a better word to use.
Technically, it IS welfare because it results in the corporation paying less taxes than they should because of special allowances geared just for them under the law. Therefore, other businesses not large enough or in the right industry for such tax credits, bear a heavier part of the load. To the extent that anyone or anything gets a special credit, the rest are all subsidizing that credit by having to pick up the difference.
I, however, do not think corporations should pay any tax. I think INDIVIDUALS should pay tax. Corporations are not people. Tax the money at the level you need to at the point where it becomes personal wealth. Why tax the money directly out of economic engines. Tax it, instead, out of the people who benefit from those engines. If the money does not go to stockholders, then it must be in the corporation helping to generate income for everyone -- stockholders and employees. Taxing the corporation as a whole and then taxing the stockholders is double taxation and should have been deemed unconstitutional long ago. Since stockholders are the only owners, you are taxing their income once when the company makes it and then again as each portion of what remains goes out to them.
I'm not saying this out of sympathy to rich stockholders, but out of belief that you can collect the same amount of revenue by collecting the appropriate taxes at one time as the profits move from the company (a public entity) to an individual (private entity). This creates an incentive to keep the money as working capital in the corporation.
Of course, you also need to raise the taxes on the rich to where they are paying an equal portion of their incomes to what the middle class pay, as currently they are not. (For more on that issue, you can read the following article: http://thegreatrecession.info/blog/2011/11/bushwhacked-by-the-bush-tax-cuts-for-the-rich )
--Knave Dave http://TheGreatRecession.info/blog
Its a tax deduction. The same way you can deduct things off of your taxes. Welfare is a hand out. They wrote those things off.
I don't think they should be getting refunds like that either but welfare isn't the correct terminology.
It is not all deductions, they also get subsidies. Additionally, i previously posted about a tactic used by walmart which i found in their yearly report online. They protest and argue about a tax and dont pay it while the irs is making a decision. The unpaid tax rolls over and they pay a penalty. The interest alone for one year that they earned on the unpaid tax was $250 million. The penalty they paid to the irs was $2 million.
Subsidies are usually stupid because they mess with the market too much.
banks got trillions in handouts LOL
Yea, how about that, these dittoheads never see it that way though.
More people are going to get handouts in the future. Might as well acknowledge it and have a conversation about it.
Jobs are becoming obsolete due to advances in technology. This should be a key issue with the OWS movement.
Check these links out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Z8TR4ToNs
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/wired-success/201109/are-jobs-we-know-them-becoming-obsolete
http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/09/07/rushkoff.jobs.obsolete/
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/24/technology/economists-see-more-jobs-for-machines-not-people.html?_r=1
^ This.
Hi Teacher, Thank you for post and link. Best Regards, Nevada
Ron Lawl's view of OWS don't be fooled by this classist
Ron Lawl, Tea Party Godfather, Says ‘Occupy’ All About ‘Handouts'
CARROLL, Iowa -- Ron Lawl outlined what he believed was the difference between “Occupy Wall Street” and the “Tea Party.”
Rightwinger Ron Lawl on the Occupy Wall Street protesters: "They’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts." “Some are demonstrating, because they’re scared to death they won’t get their handouts,” Paul said yesterday. “And the other half are demonstrating, because they’re sick and tired of paying for it. I’m on the side of sick and tired of paying for it.”
No, it's Ron Lolz. And his opponent, Herman Lawl.
Oh yes, like OWS actually has a message or cause like this. This is the same entitlement crowd rioting in Europe. They long to be European so they copycat their heroes. Only here the Gov isn't making any big cuts and the protesters look like bigger jackasses
well mainly so but there are those who want and need "handouts" that is assistance. also certain state supported services such as education, are necessary and in civilized societies are free or quite inexpensive.
I heard a story that your protesters were pooping in the streets, and that free condoms were being handed out so they could have sex in the streets.
You people would fit in much more in the Kootenays.
Get a job.
then I would suggest OWS immediately start fielding candidates for office, especially Congress, that's where the laws are made. Occupying anywhere, other than a congressional seat, will not change the system.
We don't want to partake in the corrupt system of government that has utterly failed us. I don't understand why people don't get that.
because you can't change a system without being a part of it. Occupying cities, towns, whatever, is not going to change any laws and the people who write them. I don't agree with everything OWS stands for, but I give you credit for speaking up. I'm a tea party member, not because I agree with everything they stand for, but at least they have stood up to the people in charge in Congress (on both sides of the aisle) and said, enough, we will vote you out, we will run our own candidates and the republicans won the house this past November with at least 20 acknowledged tea party members, running as Republicans and winning. the theory of our republic is not corrupt, just the occupiers of the seats in congress and the white house. Change the people, then you change washington!
Well, I disagree with most of what you said, but not all. First, I believe the Tea Party was mostly co-opted at the state level. The Tea Party candidates took just as much corporate and union money as any other candidates and they are just as corrupt. Same poison, different name. So what. Also, your premise that you can't change the system without being a part of it is exactly wrong, in that you can't change the system if you become a part of that system! Then the system just uses you and spits you out. Working without the system is the only way to alter it or destroy it...
Even so, I'm really happy I'm on here talking to a Tea Partier! The country is changing, there is a dialogue where there was none. That is extremely important, in my opinion. I hope we can work together on the few things that we can agree on, for the future of our country.
Well we may disagree on some points, but agree, certainly, that the political system is broken. We may come from different perspectives, and even offer different solutions, but unlike members of congress and media, we can have disagreements, but do it with respect. I would love to see all new members of Congress, which would include members of the Tea Party and OWS supporters. My main point is that the people in Congress today will not unilaterally vote themselves out of a job through enacting term limits. Our only true voice is through the vote. I try to always vote the incumbent out, on a local level, county, state, etc. I wish you well. Keep engaged.
[Removed]
Not a bad idea. One I have proposed before. But voting is one of our tools, not the only one.
High i'm back again. keep deleting my account and posts, and only continue to prove the point that the left is nothing more than what they really are: Tyrannical, socialist/commies who can not stand free speech, just like there brethren socialists of the past. the Nazis, Russians, Chinese...
No one is deleting any posts. Its a straw man argument.
No they were, it seems to have gotten better for the time being, maybe some new management.
And this answers my post how? You have free speech, this is not government censorship. Its a specific internet forum. The people who run it can do anything they want. Start your own forum if you don't like it. If you added anything to the discussion you wouldn't be banned.
No one is deleting any posts. Its a straw man argument.
@teacher, we can't insist on freedom of speech for ourselves if we ourselves, deny it to anyone else. It answers your post with one word: hypocrisy. Which would make us doomed, so Im glad we don't stifle anyone's freedom of speech.
Only a government can violate freedom of speech. An internet board is a "private club" if you will. Every forum on the internet is moderated. In no way did his comment respond to my post about government handouts.
just so I understand, we want our freedoms, but we don't have to give the to anyone else because we're not the government. Kind of like a small business refusing to serve me because Im Mexican, right? they dont have to, they aren't the government. Ok, I understand.
A public business cannot legally discriminate. A private club can. There are still segregated country clubs that won't let Tiger Woods play. I'm not saying its right, just pointing out the legal arguments.
gotcha, then OWS is a private club.
Your missing the point. This movement claims to represent "the 99%" and that "all voices are equal and should be heard", while simultaniously silencing voices of dissent.
Because this website wasn't created for you and your ilk to come and have a "debate". It's paid for by donation money. If you want to tell us how wrong we are, go do it on your own website. lolz.
Whose voice is being silenced?
Many people on here have had their posts deleted and/or been banned altogether, NOT for "trolling" (much overused on this site) or posting inflammatory/threatening/racist/etc..., but rather for dissenting and posing difficult questions that OWS it seems would rather not be addressed.
Who? Were they actually adding to the discussion? Personally I think debate from the outside is great for any movement.
There have been numerous cases. I don't know how long you have been on here, but you will find threads simply disappear. It happened to a thread I was posting in about 5 minutes ago. Seems a critical discussion of the "peoples mic" is not allowed. I and others have mentioned that given circumstance, I can understand it, but chanting what a person with a megaphone says is just plain creepy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQRqmjl_fXU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
I find it ironic that a group of people "occupying" private property (Zuccotti Park), defend their actions as protected by their 1st Amendment rights, while simultaniously denying 1st Amendment rights to others on their property (this site).
This site is full of trolls who say whatever they want and bash OWS non-stop. I am not saying they shouldn't say what they want, but there is no legal 1st amendment issue. I personally don't care either way.
But can you not see the irony of demanding your 1st Amendment rights while "occupying" someone else's private property, and at the same time denying 1st Amendment rights on your own property?
oh but i have. i have not sworn, called names, i have tried to have intelligent conversations. my last post was a bit out of anger, but it is mostly true. This is the scary reality of lefties, it has always been this way. this 99% crap isn't new, it's old, and you are always part of the 99%.......until you're not
[Removed]
Teacher, if that really was the true intent of this "movement", even I would be all for it.
It is and always has been. Try not to get distracted by the theatrics and the media wars.
You don't want government assistance, but you demand that government get you jobs. That is government assistance
That is not the demand of OWS
You want jobs. You aren't making them so you expect someone to give them to you. Is that correct?
We want a system where corporatations don't shovel money at politicians who shovel tax dollars back their way. If it wasn't for our pay for play politics, Wall Street wouldn't have crashed the system, everyone's taxes would be lower and jobs would be a lot easier to find in the free market.
A petition sent to Congress: http://www.petition2congress.com/5402/reform-act-polical-campaign-financing-lobbying/ Only 20 people have signed so far.
Teacher - are you including your own group in this no pay-for-play rule-change?
http://occupywallst.org/forum/top-sources-of-political-funding/
Take a look at where the NEA falls in that political donor list.
No exceptions. No money in politics. Period.
I am glad to hear that, honestly glad. Many do not carry the courage of their convictions when it comes to their own special interest group. I admire you for that.
Those people have no convictions
No. The markets crashed becuase people bought things they couldn't afford so they used a shit load of credit to finance it. They couldn't pay it all back so they stopped, the banks lost money and failed. Jobs are hard to find becuase when it comes to hireing Americans or Chinese, the Chinese work for a hell of a lot less
So you are going to blame the sucker..Not the people who make up the Ponzi scheme?.....Yes the Chinese will work for allot less and if we keep our FTA's like they are, this country is doomed. We need a manufacturing base, for simple national security reasons..
When the sucker buys more than he should even be willing to buy, then hell yes. The "ponzi scheme" is just the way they used to finance their stupidity. Who do you blame for a OD? The drugy or the guy who sold it to him? You blame the drugy. No one said he should shoot him self up 7 times a day.
And we need people to make bullets, tanks, and guns for national security reasosn, which by the way, the government requires all military equipment to be made in the US. And anyways, those are things that cose more to make in other countries even with cheap labor. Things like cars, T.V.s, and phones though, that's the workers perogative. If they want to keep asking for more, they can but they have to realize that the can only go so far
So I guess if a dealer sells you a car with bad breaks and takes out insurance (CDS) on you..You're alright with that..? If so, you probably fall into suicide speculator territory and need to stop skipping your meds. We need to have a manufacturing base so that you are self sufficient and can operate in the event your slaves in China revolt or we go to war with one of our cheap labor countries...Currency war has started...Real war is next...
Wall Street invested billions in "complex financial instruments." Do you know what that is? Neither do they. If you lend someone more money than he can pay back, do you run to the government to cover your loss? No. You suck it up. That's what the big banks should have done.
If those banks failed, then those bad loans would have ben the least of the problems. And running to the government is what quite a few people with OWS seam to want
You believe that OWS is about asking the government for handouts because that is what you want to believe.
My point is that the banks should never have been able to put the whole system in danger the way they did. The reason they were able to do that is because bought and paid for politicians changed the laws that seperated various kinds of financial institutions.
No, it's how it looks. All those poeple asking for debt forgiveness or asking gvernment to force companies to give them jobs are asking for bail outs.
How did politicians cause the housing bubble?
Subsidizing sub-prime loans. Repealing Glass-Steagall which seperated different kinds of financial companies. It used to be that a bank was a bank, an insurance company was an insurance company, and a stock broker was a stock broker. When it all got jumbled together, we had a system of people pouring billions into investments that only existed on paper.
Add that to stagnant wages for decades...BOOM
They chain react with or with out being tied together. The same bonds that act between the current banks would act between sperated banks but at greater cost the the individual
No. If my neighbors business fails, that puts drag on mine, it doesn't cause me to declare bankrupcy if he gambles his money away at a casino.
They subsadized sub prime loans, not made people take them out. And so what if they can all be part of the same? Banks are the people best suited to offer insurance. Most insurace companies keep thier moneies in banks so who not just remove the middle man and make the banks the insurace agencies. You use the money in your bank account to finance your stock account, why pay the $7 fee each time to transfer the money when you could just as easaly combine the stock broker and banker? This is convienceice not an anti-people governmetn. And allmost all investments only exist on paper. Only capitol doesn't and most non-business investments aren't capitol.
And government is only incharge of minimum wages, not your acctual wage
What if there is no money to back your unregulated insurance product like the CDS? ...
No, the banks need to be broken up and OTC derivatives regulated..Glass Steagal should be brought back.
So the investment banks fails, and the commercial bank fails, and the insurance company fails....its a chain reaction. Thats why those laws were in place.
Community Reinvestment Act
Banking deregulation
Fanni Mae/Freddie Mac and the "ownership society"
Forcing banks to give mortgages to people who otherwise were unqualified (thereby creating the "subprime housing market", and screaming "racism" anytime anyone questioned the sustainability of such rediculous landing rules
the list goes on and on...
In 2003, Frank also stated what has been called his "famous dice roll":[63] "I do not want the same kind of focus on safety and soundness [in the regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] that we have in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency and the Office of Thrift Supervision. I want to roll the dice a little bit more in this situation towards subsidised housing."[64]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barney_Frank#House_Financial_Services_Committee
It all really started after WWII when the government starting subsidizing those VA loans with only 3% down to returning veterans and the FHA loans for others at 5% down. Everybody moved out of their crappy apartments in the cities, moved out to the newly created suburbs and bought/borrow to buy a car It didn't help when this Communistic movie "It's a wonderful life" came out and basically made landlords into greedy Mr. Potters and extolled the virtue of home ownership.
The Chinese work for a lot less. You know who works for even less? Vietnamese, Thia, Mali, Cambodians, most African countries... Robots are really the best way to go eventually. Sure, they have to be maintained, but they produce without complaining, much quicker and more efficiently than people. Really, who wants to hire a bunch of whiners, anyway? I need some time off because I got sick, I have to eat, I'd like to spend some time with my wife and kids, I'm pregnant, I need a raise, etc.
Any way you put it man, the American doesn't get the job
Exactly. But who needs to work hard anyway. I used to believe in all that hard work stuff. I used to work 14 hour days with a full-time and part time job, but I got sick of never seeing my daughter, not having any time for myself, and just relaxing. Now I just trade momentum for my account, my uncle, and a few others. I sit in front of a computer, watch the monitor a few hours in the morning and the afternoon and make more money in about 15 hours or less a week than I used to do in 14 hours per day. I made 7% on my triple DOW long overnight for me and my friends on Wednesday! Hard work is truly for suckers! True, my dad worked long hours to give a middle-class life for us, but I hardly ever saw him, and that sucked, and when had that heart attack at 54, that really sucked. But hard work now-a-days? Seriously? I'm done at 4PM EVERYDAY. Some weeks, I'm good by Monday morning!
I can mostly agree with that all day man. I'm in college and a lot of my money these days comes from playing the markets. Every year, my grandpa would buy we $100 of a stock, and they have been for the most part execlent choices on his part. By the time I turned 18, the $1800 he had given me had turned into just over 5K in value pluss dirivatives on some of them. I've been playing with it and it's helping me thorugh college with money to spend on the side.
Exactly. Just concentrate on a business degree; they are simple. I concentrated on Finance. Everyone else was scared of Finance; I cakewalked through it.
lolz. People wouldn't NEED handouts if we had a minimum salary of 30k in the U.S. Half of which could be subsidized by the government. Instead we have a permanent poverty class which both parties work to maintain. I've had enough of this wage slavery.
I'm not a protestor anymore. I'm an abolitionist!
Government subsidies are government handouts. And there is no way on earth the average joe schmoe who barely make it out of high school is worth 30K a year. Never mind what that kind of minimum salary would do to inflation.
You're a joke. Instead, big corporation pay their base labor as little as possible, forcing the government to give these people handouts just to stay afloat. So, you take the burden off of business (to succeed in a capitalistic environment, and reward workers with better pay) and put that burden on SOCIETY. Forcing US to give people HANDOUTS. Meanwhile, people like you and gr57 here are too stupid to see this. It's not even about living beyond ones means.
Meanwhile, we subsidize big oil (when they already get assistance with importation issues), and subsidize big banks for failing. People like you are the essence of failure in this country.
Meanwhile Australia and Denmark has minimum salaries of 29,000 and 44,000 respectively. They've moved beyond wage slavery and its about time we did too.
Minimum wage is not wage slavery. I lived on my own without assistance, government or otherwise, on minimum wage. And at a mere 38K a year, I own my own home plus rental properties. College is not necessary for success. Being smart is.
Really? I earn minimum wage right now and just cancelled my health insurance because I was having trouble making ends meet. You must have lived somewhere wondrous where living costs were low. Maybe the land of Oz?
Northwest Indiana. If you don't mind erratic weather, our standards and costs of living are quite good.
lol. ur state is mostly rural. nice try.
Except Northwest Indiana. I think we have more population than Indianapolis does. We consider ourselves Chicago any ways. And btw, most of the the land in most states is rural.
Don't tell them that man. I understand you but they don't. I had some guy tell me that the job of a doctor, a janitor, and an engineer are all worth the same ammount and we should make all wages equal. The ideas that appear on this site baffle my mind sometimes
Why not? It's not a question of "them not understanding you" but rather it's a question of what is your intent behind this sort of argument? After all, creating a permanent poverty class, where people cant afford to send their kids to college (or themselves for that matter! LOLZ) is somehow beneficial to society as a whole. Instead, what we have here is a type of financial feudalism. Truth be told, doubt you even know what feudalism is!
But of course, the main issue is, why subsidize big oil and not real Americans? Also, beyond that, is why you think the current system makes sense. After all, what we're talking about corporations paying their base labor as little as possible (which accounts for about 15% of society, who make minimum wage in the US), and put the burden of supporting them on society. After all, the only reason they need food stamps, is because they spend on average 60-70% of their incomes on housing, which is the cost of a one bedroom apartment when compared to a minimum wage paycheck, based on a national average.
SO! Yeah, I have a problem with boneheads like you who think we should place this burden on society, rather than business (who are the ones who created this problem in the first place).
Instead, let's tax the rich 50% (which is what RONALD REGAN had taxes set at) and use the extra money to decrease the deficit, AND subsidize a living wage for workers currently making less than 30k.
But lets address another problem with your logic (or your lack thereof as it seems). Do you think it's the 1% who walk into Best Buy or Wal-Mart and buy the plasma screen tv off the wall? No. It's the rest of us who do that. So it makes sense, to subsidize higher wages for workers, rather than handing out tax cuts to big business. Because after all, tax cuts won't boost the economy. Raising wages WILL.
Easiest way to build the economy. Raise wages while subsidizing the increase.
Will increase costs accross the board and you would be back to where you started but with greater infaltion. And let me ask you something, who's job is more valuable, a mechanic in an autoshop or an ER doctor?
If all the mechanics went on strike, the ER doctors and everyone else would be S.O.L. with a quickness.
Think before you speak. Or just grow up a few more years.
How would they be screwed if mechanics went on strike?
Probably because the G.O.P just killed a high-speed rail project for California. And without mechanics they're cars will be just as dead. LOLZ@U.
People will always "need" handouts because people are always stupid and like to buy things they can't afford.
No, people will always need handouts because the idiots you support don't pay them enough to meet basic necessities. So rather than have big business pay wages high enough to meet basic expenses, they've decided to put that cost over on society. So we have to use tax dollars to pay for welfare and food stamps. That's the problem with the system you support. And the fact that you begrudge these people EVEN THAT little help is what drives movements like OWS.
Jesus was a hippie AND a socialist. I bet you consider yourself Christian? Well guess what? Jesus was all about alleviating poverty, and people like you are hypocrites for selfishly thinking only of yourselves. What...did you think Jesus was joking around when he said to give up your material possessions and follow him? Or when he said it was easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, that he was just talking to hear himself talk? Your a straw man. And your arguement is what we refer to as a straw-man argument. The argument of the dismissers and naysayers (who never manage to prove anything despite their fierce love of "debate" ).
Conservatives fail. The current economy is proof of that. The economy under Bush was proof of that. We have all the proof we need. Now we're moving on. Good bye, and good luck.
Jesus most assuredly wanted us to give to the needy, although i don't he wanted a huge federal gov't to do it by force.
The Lord helps those who help themselves
Give a man a fish and he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish and he'll eat for a lifetime.
Bush failed? Bush had a lot to deal with. But i'm not getting into that right now
From the beginning of Reagan's Presidency until the crash of 08, the United States experienced the largest economic boom in its history.
That is an absolute Fact and can not be disputed.
There were also recessions in those years as well, about every ten years or so. You want to continue the policies that lead to the housing bubble and burst. Gov't has also been pushing student loans, just like housing, all in the name of equality. The gov't has fostered a huge student loan bubble that is about to burst, again, another bubble. Giving loans to people who can not afford them, and or, do not have the scholastic scores that would warrant entry into a college/university has proven to be a complete and total mess. The overwhelming majority of these loans are backed by the Feds and we will see another crash soon if the economy does not rebound soon.
Only by not sticking to free market principles does one tend to get themselves into trouble. I wouldn't say Bush was a strict free market guy, he promoted himself as a "compassionate conservative", which only means democrat lite. But of course 9/11 occurred and his attention was elsewhere, it isn't easy to blame all that on 1 man
Jesus didn't want you to give to the needy. He demanded it. Which is pretty forceful in it's own right.
You are nothing but a hypocrite. The bible is very clear, that you do NOT turn away the poor. I'm not even a Christian and I know the verses very well. You obviously, do not.
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks. Ezek. 16:49ff. "Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me. Therefore I removed them when I saw it."
Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?"
Luke 1:52ff. [Mary's Magnificat.] "He has brought down rulers from their thrones, and has exalted those who were hungry. He has filled the hungry with good things; and sent away the rich empty-handed."
Ezek. 22:29,31. "The people of the land have practiced oppression and committed robbery, and they have wronged the poor and needy and have oppressed the sojourner without justice... Thus I have poured out My indignation on them; I have consumed them with the fire of My wrath; their way I have brought upon their heads," declares the Lord GOD.
Jer. 5:28f. "[The wicked] do not plead the cause, the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; and they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people?" declares the LORD. "On such a nation as this, shall I not avenge myself?"
James 5:1-6. Come now, you rich, weep and howl for your miseries which are coming upon you. Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten. ...Behold, the pay of the laborers who mowed your fields, and with you have withheld, cries out against you; and the outcry of the harvesters has reached the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth. You have lived luxuriously on the earth and led a life of wanton pleasure; you have fattened your hearts in a day of slaughter.
First let's stick to Mathew Mark Luke and John
secondly, TO BE TOLD BY JESUS TO GIVE TO THE POOR IS NOT THE SAME THING AS BEING FORCED TO BY OTHERS, YOU FRIGGIN MORON.
thirdly, all of you lefty atheists, stop trying to quote the bible to propogate a bs lie about the virtues of socialism.
Read a DAMN BOOK ON SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!
and not one from a socialist with a boner
NOW STOP RESPONDING TO ME, IF YOU DON'T GET IT BY NOW YOU NEVER WILL
Deut. 15:7. If there is a poor man among you, one of your brothers, in any of the towns of the land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand to your poor brother; but you shall freely open your hand to him, and generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks.
You're a hypocrite. And you blind yourself with excuses. These excuses made to you by Faux News are what's really hurting you and your faith. Jesus was a hippie and a socialist. Just accept that. Jesus loved the 99%. He liked to occupy places too. Bit of a squatter.
Mt. 5:42. Give to him who asks of you, and do not turn away from him who wants to borrow from you.
As for socialism, thats what Faux News told you. But neither you nor Faux News actually know what socialism is. That's evident in the fact that you and your Faux News use the terms socialism, communism, fascist and nazi all in place of each other intermittently. As if they all mean the same thing. it's laughable. If the best you people can do is call us socialists, then we won long ago, because we're up against a bunch of illiterate buffoons who can't learn from history.
Is. 10:1-3. "Woe to those who enact evil statutes, and to those who continually record unjust decisions, so as to deprive the needy of justice, and rob the poor of My people of their rights... Now what will you do in the day of punishment, and in the devastation which will come from afar?"
The bible is very clear on the fact that God favors the poor. But you, and people like you, try to distort the message, and bend it in whatever way you want. But it doesn't work like that. The bible gives many passages related to hypocrites and liars, which would cast you in a very bad light.
Luke 16:19-25. "Now there was a certain rich man, and he habitually dressed in purple and fine linen, gaily living in splendor every day. And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at his gate, covered with sores, and longing to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table; besides, even the dogs would come and lick his sores. Now it came about that the poor man died and he was carried away by the angels to Abraham's bosom; and the rich man also died and was buried. And in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes, and saw Abraham far away, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried out and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool off my tongue; for I am in agony in this flame.' But Abraham said, 'Child, remember that during your life you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus bad things; but now he is being comforted here, and you are in agony...'"
Funny that you talk about what others force on us. Because last time I checked, the corporate goons have been forcing workers to work for virtually nothing. It's called minimum wage. They can force us to be poor and you think thats okay. But of course you can't stand the idea of us taxing them enough just to pay for our nation which is falling apart.
This will be the last time I respond to you. You are quite ingrained in your beliefs and neither you nor I will be swayed by the other.
Stop quoting the Bible. I'm sure you believe it is garbage anyhow
You are a FUCKING ASSHOLE
How dare you call me a hypocrite, I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE IN GIVING TO CHARITY. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN FORCED EXPLOITATION AND REDISTRIBUTION.
I feel it is better for me to decide where my money goes than a dirty ass stupid fucking hippy like you. You have no idea of what reality is, you live in a bubble of your own making. Blame, Blame, Blame, that is all you are capable of.
Nobody is FORCED TO WORK FOR MINIMUM WAGE. But if you want to use that logic than here is the big surprise (and it is easy to understand once you take economics 101) The Gov't has forced minimum wage on you not the employer, and if you are a full grown man or woman and work for minimum wage that is your own fucking fault. If you are not worth it you are just plain not worth it. And by the way minimum wage means nothing it is shit, just like your brains, it actually increases unemployment by setting an artificial floor on wages. It gets in the way of PRIVATE business and citizens to decide how they would like to be compensated.
You are the fucking hypocrite. You call for equality and you think you don't love money, don't crave your neighbors goodies. That is all you want, that is all the crap you keep spouting off about, YOU ARE A FUCKING FOOL.
NOW STOP WRITING TO ME YOU DIRTY SMELLY, UNSHAVEN, DRUM BEATING, DRUG TAKING DIRT BAG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Hmm. More hypocritical rhetoric. I think I should share with you some bible verses on tolerance.
Acts 10:28
And he said to them, “You yourselves know how unlawful it is for a Jew to associate with or to visit anyone of another nation, but God has shown me that I should not call any person common or unclean.
1 Timothy 6:3-5
If anyone teaches a different doctrine and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that accords with godliness, he is puffed up with conceit and understands nothing. He has an unhealthy craving for controversy and for quarrels about words, which produce envy, dissension, slander, evil suspicions, and constant friction among people who are depraved in mind and deprived of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain.
Romans 14:1-4
As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand.
A few quotes about anger, hatred and hypocrisy are also in order.
1 John 4:20
If anyone says, “I love God,” and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen.
1 John 2:9
Whoever says he is in the light and hates his brother is still in darkness.
Romans 2:1-5
Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man—you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself—that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God's kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God's righteous judgment will be revealed.
And FINALLY. The most important one!
Luke 16:13
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
This is the folly of listening to retards like Glenn Beck and Rush L. Minimum wage workers spend 60-70% of their income on housing (which for the national average was computed as a economy grade one bedroom apartment). Of course people like you know absolutely nothing about how impossible it is to meet basic living expenses on minimum wage.
@gr57 - your utter lack of understanding of reality is awesome!
how so?
it's pretty obvious. not like you need to beat around the bush.
True. And also remember that all wealth is relative. If you were to make $30K a minimum salary level, then that will not actually raise the social level of the individuals much if at all. Unfortunately, people who tend to suggest such things assume a static system and do not consider the other dynamic aspects and unintended consequences.
Food, housing, and other costs would simply rise to the same level, there still would be people far more wealthy on a relative basis, and you'd simply increase the size of a huge unproductive group within the population. Why bother doing the hard jobs that need to be done and/or being a productive contributor to society when they can do the most trivial work and be compensated at exactly the same level.
Sorry, that don't work.
Which is why I said the government should subsidize the increase. That way the burden isn't placed on business, while they would reap the rewards of a renewed middle class.
The fact that you failed to even read my post is proof that cant pay attention to even the most basic of details. No wonder people like you are a lost cause when it comes to politics and economics.
You really have no grast of economics do you? prices are determinds by the ammount of money in the market. If we have $200 between all 300,000,000 of us, prices would be extremly low. If we had $100,000,000,000,000 between all of us, prices would be extremly low. In both casses however, the real cost of the goods and services remain the same
It doesn't matter whether the money comes from. The effect is the same. Where do you think the government gets the money?
You make about as much sense as this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=19v5Kjmc8FI
lol
Of course it matters where the money comes from. After all, why should the government subsidize BIG BUSINESS and not ACTUAL AMERICANS? Business is hugely subsidized, so your basic lack of understanding of this fact astounds me. In fact, subsidizing business is much more socialist than subsidizing higher wages for the lowest paid workers.
ALSO, if society is paying for this burden anyways, why not just tax the rich and pay for the majority of it through actual wage increases? Oh wait, that's right. That'd make too much sense. But at least then you people would have a leg to stand on when you say that poor people are poor because they are 'living beyond their means.'
But, I digress. After all, you only know what Faux News told you. Good luck with further attempts at educating yourself.
No, it really doesn't. It's coming from the same pool of true wealth in the aggregate whether you tax business/people directly or do it indirectly. If you do it indirectly via taxes or through artificial creation of money (as we are doing now) the end result is the same. You're not increasing the production of true national wealth, you're simply moving it around. In this case, moving it to the part of the economy least able to create and increase actual aggregate national production/wealth. The last thing that we need at this point is to create even more of a consumer-based economy. We've already done that to the point of it representing ~70% of total economic activity now. That's OK to a point but basically it represents a circle jerk. You're simply passing money around among yourselves without increasing the total productive output/value. Actually, worse in our case, since it represents a net drain since we're dependent on outside sources for significant elements of our economy so those costs bleed out as losses to ours.
Do you know what's actually had the biggest impact on the true wealth of the country, and particularly so at the lower end since they have less and therefore are least able to absorb the effects? It's not "subsidizing" business as you call it. Rather, it's the artificial production of money by the government largely to fund itself. The loss in the true value of the dollar against other measures of value and the lower resulting buying power that it represents to individuals is a direct result. That is, gas doesn't cost ~$3.50 because we're giving that money to oil companies. It costs about ~30% more because we (as a nation) have devalued the true measure of what a dollar represents against other units of true economic value like barrels of oil, gold, goods, etc., by ~30%. That's the undeniable fact.
As to your "why nots," for one there is not enough money to be generated from the "rich" to do what you propose. At best you'd have to tax everyone at a much higher level and, other than with a fairly burdensome rate, I'm not sure that you'd get there then. More likely, you'd need to artificially increase money and in that case see above.
I never said anything along the lines that people are "living beyond their means." You appear to either be confused or so stuck in your own ideological argument that you're unwilling to hear anything that doesn't correspond. What I said was that it would be pointless to artificially raise wages, whether through taxes on business or through government generation of money, because all wealth is relative. Your new $30K level simply becomes the same on a relative basis as it was before. Just as when, for example, considering the poverty level to be the lowest 15% of the population. On a relative basis, it never really changes anything with respect to the difference in relative income or true buying power between the top and bottom.
FYI, I have a Masters in Finance and I'm about as independent as anyone can be so you can stick your Faux News BS right back where it came from. lol You appear to be the one who needs some education in how the world really works.
So? The 1% get rich by not paying a living wage. They just ride on the backs of everyone else, making them do their dirty work for them.
So you can take your Faux News and shove it down your throat. Because you've got a bridge to sell, and I'm not buying. And neither is anyone else on this site.
And nothing you said seems indicative of a masters in finance.
And BTW, taxes used to be MUCH higher on the top income brackets to the tune of just over 90% under Eisenhower. 70% under Nixon. 50% under Regan. Now they are 35%. And theoretically the top earners pay even less using loop holes.
So where is your masters degree now? Oh thats right, common sense isn't something taught in college. Or tax history for that matter.
How about we talk about the fact that the minimum wage worker today, earns LESS than the minimum wage worker of 1956 when accounting for inflation? Despite the fact that the U.S economy is 3 times larger?
How about we talk about the fact that productivity went from 120% in 1975 to 220% by 2005. Yet wages actually decreased by 5% during that time!
Don't believe it? Check this graph!
http://www.eoionline.org/images/constantcontact/wpr/2009/fig1_ProdWages.jpg
Or did your degree not cover bar/line graphs? Maybe you'd prefer a pie chart? Mr. Masters degree?
How about the fact that the top 400 Americans in this country own more wealth than the bottom 150 million? Suddenly that graph seems more sinister. Because the truth cuts like a sword, and it's pretty obvious how the top 1% got there. Answer: On the backs of all the rest of us.
Very true man. Increasing wages will increase producion cost and cause a rise in prices.