@averagejoe1 saidUBIs do not make people lazy. You are just like Nixon. You want to believe that it does despite evidence to the contrary. Just like liberals confronted with inconvenient facts you are in denial as well.
It is hilarious that not only do you keep writing about Trump, with all the Biden Hell going on which we will be paying for, should be getting prepared.......You write about Nixon?! and Ike? How far back do you go to shower the Forum with all of this. A history lesson, is it? It is what it is, live with it, move along.
Thanks for proving republicans are just as dogmatic as democrats. I was starting to think democrats were the only fact deniers. Republicans don't want to be confused with facts either.
@averagejoe1 said"Easy on the Christianity and while we are at it, morality. I do both"
Easy on the Christianity and while we are at it, morality. I do both, quite heavily, we have diff definitions, esp of morality. Morality to you is for rich people to spread the wealth they earned while other people were not earning wealth. Like when I say, some work harder than others.....that is why some have more than others, and libs just cannot get that concept.
...[text shortened]... t want to impute a certain duty that one may have for another, and usually someone they do not know.
You do neither. You're a pharisee.
"Morality to you is for rich people to spread the wealth"
Yes, just like Christ said. The guy you're supposed to be a follower of.
"while other people were not earning wealth"
Some don't value wealth as much as you. Some don't value their worth in wealth earned.
"Like when I say, some work harder than others......that is why some have more than others"
Some do work harder. The nurse keeping people alive, working long shifts, works a thousand times harder than the billionaire CEO sitting in 2 meetings each month, sending some emails then going golfing. And her hard work doesn't translate into having more .
"and libs just cannot get that concept..
We get why you believe that . You're dumb. You believe that you can become that billionaire.
"And you seem to think Christianity is a vehicle for you to use to force your thinking on us."
Nope, just to mock your hypocrisy. Maybe shame some of you who aren't complete sociopaths.
"to the extent that I could even understand it. "
A susprise to nobody you couldn't understand something. A little surprising you admit it.
@AverageJoe1
How are you defining "socialism"? How far can we widen the safety net without being socialist? Or without removing incentives to work?
2 edits
@zahlanzi saidHere you go again. And so angry, esp at me for some reason.
"Easy on the Christianity and while we are at it, morality. I do both"
You do neither. You're a pharisee.
"Morality to you is for rich people to spread the wealth"
Yes, just like Christ said. The guy you're supposed to be a follower of.
"while other people were not earning wealth"
Some don't value wealth as much as you. Some don't value their worth in wealth earn ...[text shortened]... and it. "
A susprise to nobody you couldn't understand something. A little surprising you admit it.
Whatever, mr angry man, but if I value wealth different than you do, what in the world does that have to do with anything? The obverse of your saying that is that everyone should value wealth the same? Or, are you saying that I should value wealth exactly like you do? What in hell? What are libs saying all the time? What?
Next, some work harder than others. If you and I are waiters and I work harder, I will take home more money. To my mind, you would think you are entitled to part of my earnings, given your Marx logic. Do you think that is fair? How can you, Zajhlanzi? You will not answer this question.
Yes if a CEO is running huge hospital, he prob shjluld make more money than the nurses and the janitor and ambulance driver. What are you saying? Can you tell us what you want to do in the way of kneecapping the CEO? Give him a 'living wage'? (which has never been defined) What if he leaves? Can a nurse run a hospital? Jesus. Over here we pay people more money if they do bigger things. You know...indispensable.
I think I covered the basics here. You are a piece of work. How many cars are you allowed to own over there? What freedoms/choices do we have here that you don't have there, if you want to just get right to it. How much money can a guy like Elon Musk make if he really can put deals together,....over here, the sky is the limit. Can your citizens reach for the stars like we can? Geez
@averagejoe1 said"Here you go again. And so angry, esp at me for some reason.
Here you go again. And so angry, esp at me for some reason.
Whatever, mr angry man, but if I value wealth different than you do, what in the world does that have to do with anything? The obverse of your saying that is that everyone should value wealth the same? Or, are you saying that I should value wealth exactly like you do? What in hell? What are libs saying all ...[text shortened]... ether,....over here, the sky is the limit. Can your citizens reach for the stars like we can? Geez
Whatever, mr angry man, but if I value wealth different than you do, what in the world does that have to do with anything?"
It speaks to ones values. Some people don't want to be millionaires if they have a nice house, their needs are met, their children are comfortable and have access to most opportunities. They shouldn't be punished by being forced for starving wages because they dreamt of being nurses when they grow up instead of CEOs
"If you and I are waiters and I work harder, I will take home more money"
What is this 1st grade magician trick? Are that stupid to think we can spot the switcheroo? We're not talking about waiters making more than each other we are talking about a CEO making several hundred times more than a worker. We are talking about the unfairness in the system and your ludicrous claim that if you work harder you will get ahead.
What the fuk do I care that I make a few pennies more than the poor schmuck next to me on the assembly line. We both going to starve and one of the reasons is the CEO being paid millions
"To my mind, you would think you are entitled to part of my earnings, given your Marx logic"
You've been told, again and again, that no socialist wants to take from the poor and give to another poor. It was stupid when you claimed that nonsense then and after it was explained to you and you kept repeating it the conclusion is that you're a lying sack of excrement in addition to being stupid.
"Yes if a CEO is running huge hospital, he prob shjluld make more money than the nurses and the janitor and ambulance driver."
Sure. I can agree to that. How many more times more? 4 times? 10 times more? 50? surely not 100 times more, right?
The budget stays the same. If you double the manager salary that means all that money will not be used to hire more nurses, janitors, ambulance drivers. It means (among many other things) that an ambulance drive to the hospital costs 3000$ in that capitalist hellhole you call US.
"Can a nurse run a hospital? Jesus. Over here we pay people more money if they do bigger things. You know...indispensable."
There you go. You reached the real conclusion. A nurse isn't paid less because she works less hard, like you sociopaths keep saying (being poor is a personal choice and failing ). A nurse is paid less because alone she is replaceable. You value a nurse taking care of you and loved ones less than the guy deciding how many jobs to lay off and move overseas. That's the American hero in your eyes
That's the failing of unregulated capitalism. "How little can I pay you before you leave". Take away the means to leave (low unemployment benefits, high cost of education, high cost of housing, one's healthcare being tied to the employer) and the answer to that is "inhumanely litte"
." here we pay people more money if they do bigger things"
That's true everywhere, dumbass. It's the scale that's preposterous in the US and the fact that people doing things that are considered "smaller" aren't being taken care of. That they are punished for not being CEO of something. Because a nation of only CEOs and not enough garbage collectors, janitors, nurses, teachers, etc is going places.
You can ceo each other. In a huge ceo circle jerk.
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidServility to those with power has always been the defining point of right wingers; the term right wing itself derives from where the supporters of the monarchy sat in the French Assembly.https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
Here you go again. And so angry, esp at me for some reason.
Whatever, mr angry man, but if I value wealth different than you do, what in the world does that have to do with anything? The obverse of your saying that is that everyone should value wealth the same? Or, are you saying that I should value wealth exactly like you do? What in hell? What are libs saying all ...[text shortened]... ether,....over here, the sky is the limit. Can your citizens reach for the stars like we can? Geez
In a modern, capitalist State this bent for aristocracy worship as transfigured to the bizarre notion that without the wealthy the rest of society would be useless and idle; they "give us jobs" after all. So from that starting point flows the obvious conclusion that the wealthy should get the vast benefits of our economic system and the majority should be happy with whatever crumbs are generously doled out to them.
@no1marauder saidLet’s say you are right. Then you stop there . The next obvious step, by your simple logic, is that the wealth of which you speak should be spread around .
Servility to those with power has always been the defining point of right wingers; the term right wing itself derives from where the supporters of the monarchy sat in the French Assembly.https://www.history.com/news/how-did-the-political-labels-left-wing-and-right-wing-originate
In a modern, capitalist State this bent for aristocracy worship as transfigured to the biza ...[text shortened]... nomic system and the majority should be happy with whatever crumbs are generously doled out to them.
Is that what you are saying? Equality of sorts?
@athousandyoung saidJoe, who always whines that people haven't answered his questions when they have already done so (just in a manner he didn't like), wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.
To hire politicians?
@averagejoe1 saidNo, exact equality is not required.
Let’s say you are right. Then you stop there . The next obvious step, by your simple logic, is that the wealth of which you speak should be spread around .
Is that what you are saying? Equality of sorts?
Poverty and want should be eliminated though and a more equitable distribution of resources would be good for economic growth and stability even if we must remain in a capitalist system. See https://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/[WORD TOO LONG]. Esp. the section on "The price of inequality".
@no1marauder saidSo how much more do you and Zahlanzi want? Enough to cause the fleeced rich guy just to walk away? See how that works out. Kill the golden goose. You fellers know little about economics , you want rich guy’s money andyou want it now. Kick his ass! Shut him down. Cancel all the jobs, tell employees to go get jobs from poor folks. Find comfort with your decisions through Marx. BTW. How did his philosophy work out? Anything implemented anywhere ? Can we move there, I want a place where everyone is equal,
No, exact equality is not required.
Poverty and want should be eliminated though and a more equitable distribution of resources would be good for economic growth and stability even if we must remain in a capitalist system. See https://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/#:~:text=Inequality%20and%20Unearned%20Income%20Kills%20the%20Economy%20The,hi ...[text shortened]... ing%20standards%20to%20all%20sections%20of%20society. Esp. the section on "The price of inequality".
@no1marauder saidMarsuder is the man with the answers, it appears. Why has no economist ever I thought of this?
No, exact equality is not required.
Poverty and want should be eliminated though and a more equitable distribution of resources would be good for economic growth and stability even if we must remain in a capitalist system. See https://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/#:~:text=Inequality%20and%20Unearned%20Income%20Kills%20the%20Economy%20The,hi ...[text shortened]... ing%20standards%20to%20all%20sections%20of%20society. Esp. the section on "The price of inequality".
@averagejoe1 saidUhuh. Not-a-one, eh?
Marsuder is the man with the answers, it appears. Why has no economist ever I thought of this?
@no1marauder said? We do hire politicians. Don’t we? Watchootalkinbout?
Joe, who always whines that people haven't answered his questions when they have already done so (just in a manner he didn't like), wouldn't touch that one with a ten foot pole.
@no1marauder saidWhat is meant by ‘equitable distribution of resources ‘? Is there a standard established definition of same?
No, exact equality is not required.
Poverty and want should be eliminated though and a more equitable distribution of resources would be good for economic growth and stability even if we must remain in a capitalist system. See https://evonomics.com/joseph-stiglitz-inequality-unearned-income/#:~:text=Inequality%20and%20Unearned%20Income%20Kills%20the%20Economy%20The,hi ...[text shortened]... ing%20standards%20to%20all%20sections%20of%20society. Esp. the section on "The price of inequality".