What you're talking about is theft. You couch it in terms of "social welfare", but stealing is what you're talking about. You play the race card beautifully, without even mentioning race. Unfortunately, it's still crap. For your reading pleasure:

Your position completely contradicts this position.

If you truly believe this, I feel very, very sorry for you.

Although it's obvious you need no illustrations, I'm sending you this one anyway.
Perhaps you will find it useful in dealing with people who are determined to spend your money.

"A Republican and a Democrat were walking down the street when they came
to a homeless person. The Republican gave the homeless person his
business card and told him to come to his business for a job. He then
took twenty dollars out of his pocket and gave it to the homeless person."

"The Democrat was very impressed, and when they came to another homeless
person, he decided to help. He walked over to the homeless person and
gave him directions to the welfare office. He then reached into the
Republican's pocket and gave the homeless person fifty dollars."

"Now you understand the difference between Republicans and
Democrats."

I will be happy to point out your deliberate misstatements if I see the slightest interest expressed by someone else in this thread. I've already saved them, though, so it won't do any good to go back and edit them.

But it's rather off-topic to document the things like your confusion/contradictions about where you've lived.

Would you expect this, too?

http://www.reclaimamerica.org/pages/...asp?story=2228

Most Charitable States Coincide with Voting Patterns
Wednesday, November 17, 2004

By Sam Kastensmidt


Each year, the Catalogue for Philanthropy determined the nation’s most charitable states. To determine which states are most charitable, the organization used 2002 federal income tax returns. The results show a clear correlation with the 2004 Presidential election.

The Methodology

The Catalogue’s generosity index is computed by the following equation:

The state’s average income ranking / the state’s average charitable contribution ranking

The Order of Most Charitable States

1) Mississippi – Bush
2) Arkansas – Bush
3) Oklahoma – Bush
4) Louisiana – Bush
5) Alabama – Bush
6) Tennessee – Bush
7) South Dakota – Bush
8) Utah – Bush
9) South Carolina – Bush
10) Idaho – Bush
11) Wyoming – Bush
12) Texas – Bush
13) West Virginia – Bush
14) Nebraska – Bush
15) North Dakota – Bush
16) North Carolina – Bush
17) Kansas – Bush
18) Florida – Bush
19) Georgia – Bush
20) Kentucky – Bush
21) Montana – Bush
22) Missouri – Bush
23) New Mexico – Bush
24) Alaska – Bush
25) Indiana – Bush
26) New York – Kerry
27) Iowa – Bush
28) Ohio – Bush
29) California – Kerry
30) Maryland – Kerry
31) Illinois – Kerry
32) Maine – Kerry
33) Delaware – Kerry
34) Washington – Kerry
35) Vermont – Kerry
36) Oregon – Kerry
37) Hawaii – Kerry
38) Virginia – Bush
39) Arizona – Bush
40) Nevada – Bush
41) Pennsylvania – Kerry
42) Michigan - Kerry
43) Colorado – Bush
44) Connecticut – Kerry
45) Minnesota – Kerry
46) Wisconsin – Kerry
47) New Jersey – Kerry
48) Rhode Island – Kerry
49) Massachusetts – Kerry
50) New Hampshire – Kerry

It would look more favorable to the Kerry camp if a way were devised to report how much of OTHER people's money the Kerry crew likes to "donate."

I haven´t read throught the whole thread but:
-Isn´t the relative poverty line defined at the lowest 20% earners in a country, therefore you will always have 20% poor people.
-You can´t increase wages unless you increase efficiency, if you force raised wages for a larger group of people these(the raises not the people) will be eaten away by a raise in living costs.

Short and sweet: Nobody is forced to work a low-income job but most often it´s better than all other alternatives avalible to you. I myself work a low-wage job and I recognise the whining fom my co-workers that we are payed to poorly and work too much and I can tell you that considering what we do (working as a train conductor) we are payed way to much and I´m pulling of studing economics at a university at the same time so I guess we aren´t working to much either.

From post 66 YOUR words Daswig:
Think you just proven yourself a liar in regards to your attack on me.

Either way this thread for me is done, not once did I get a solid answer to how to chnage things from the opposition, all they do is point fingers, throw blame and attack personally.

Maybe if you ask the wrong question you don´t get the right answers. You made a statement and asked for justification, opposition thought your statement was wrong and therefore felt they didn´t need to justify it but intead pointed out the wrongs.

What was your solution again? Oh, yes, it was was a rewording of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Now that you're spending less time on the computer, maybe you should consider a second job.

Wait, that solved the problems of two people you disagree with!

On second thought, you should just engage in dishonest business practices. By his own admission, that works for Manx. He didn't care to hear about people who improved their lives by, for example, hard work.

ENOUGH
 

Here we go again.

Please keep the debate civil....no personal attacks.

I hate to do this to you and get into parsing words, but you said: I didn't say you were "bailed out all your life", I said, as you quoted: "I'm glad you have parents with money. It must be nice to have a cushion to bail you out when you keep failing." You're misreading what I said. Please try again, but with carefully reading what I actually wrote, and what you say I actually wrote. If you're intellectually honest, you'll see that they are two different things. And I'll accept your apology for calling me a liar whenever you wish to tender it.

You're not going to get an apology.

In fact, if you look directly above your post, you'll notice that a moderator said in polite terms as possible to quite childishly bickering with people attempting to have what began as a mature discussion.

3.....2......1...........
 

and i've got his back...

The bottom 20% is referred to as the lowest quintile.

Relative poverty is defined as making less than half the median wage.

If the value of the dollar isn't constant, why would one have to increase productivity just to keep earning the same approximate wage over time?

Of course I would. Misrepresentation and off-topic responses are required in order for your opinion to have any weight.

How about if I ignore your attempt to paint me as a racist simply because you fail to grasp the affects of ongoing generational oppression upon large groups of people.
I'll also go ahead and ignore your misplaced sense of pity simply because you are so desperate to believe in the honesty of man when ALL evidence demonstrates there is no honesty in capitalism.

And there's honesty in Communism or whatever system you're advocating??? Tell that to the folks that died in the Gulags. As for my failure to "grasp the affects (sic) of ongoing generational oppression upon large groups of people", well, hate to tell you this, but I'll take the guy who said this: over your opinion on race relations any day. History has judged him, and it was 4.0s all the way.

There is no honesty in man. And most certainly not in capitalism. But nice attempt at deflecting yet again.
Nonsense. Your continued efforts to discount generational oppression on the psyche by ignoring it completely are entirely without basis. Your delusion of equality is founded on nothing whatsoever.

Speaking of misrepresentations:

I'm not sure whether this was directed to Daswig or sob, but the above is a blatant misrepresentation of what they said.

Their point was that they invested HARD work to overcome difficulties.

I guess your philosophy of being dishonest is quite a bit easier.

Oh, I understood the point about the charitable states, too. Perhaps this post will put it in context for you:

I understood very well what their point was - they did "hard" work, which is actually easy because "anyone can do it" to be successful.

That is most certainly a misrepresentation on their part.

It's nonsense.

You have a very active imagination.

I'll apologize if Daswig says that hard work is easy.

I know I didn't.

Then you wouldn't expect everyone to be able to accomplish it.

Which is it? Hard work which not everyone can do on their own or "Hard" work which is easy enough for everyone to do on their own?

Don't know how my solutions were a rewording of anything. You must truly not have read what I wrote. And just made assumptions.

I do believe in hard work, but at the wages paid and people struggling to make a living, you don't get truly hard work you don't inspire advancement, you get resentment and a "Let's stick it to the man" attitude. Have worked enough of those jobs to see it. High turnover, low morale and uncaring work ethics.

Pay a man an honest wage allow him to feel like he is achieving something and he works harder has more loyalty and does what it takes to help the company. Pay a man a barely liveable wage treat him like dirt and you get someone looking for a reason to leave, to sue (look how many wage lawsuits Wal*Mart has been having) and anger.

In other words you get what you pay for, in merchandise and in employees.

But I do have to admire the way you make personal attacks instead of addressing the issue and staying on it with your solutions. You teach me how not to debate issues and how to deflect everything onto my opponent while not offering anything of substance, but trying to make me feel far suprerior.

Closed...