Why you should thank the poor

[True Realist]

Without the poor doing the all menial work the rich could never get rich.

If the poor and working class were to one day disappear off the face of the earth, the rich wouldn't know what to do!

[NYURepublican]

The rich get rich because they worked hard, not because of the poor. Who do you think is more responsible for the success of America's economy: the janitor at the local McDonald's, or the CEO of the corporation that keeps him and thousands of other people employed?

Quote:If the poor and working class were to one day disappear off the face of the earth, the rich wouldn't know what to do!

And if the rich were someday to disappear off the face of the earth, liberals wouldn't know what to do because they'd have nobody to pay for the costs of the enormous government they love so much. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/15/03 10:42 am

________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[wtbenjamin]

"The rich get rich because they worked hard, not because of the poor." Oh, Jesus, that's insightful. I won't call you on sounding like an @#%$, because I don't think you mind that.
But... people are rich or poor in proportion to how hard they work? You know, to address you on the level at which you're obviously thinking: try to account for those who work ghty hours a week and remain poor because thr parents were poor. I think even you can understand what I'm saying.
But, more to the point, although I'm guessing I might lose you here: exactly what do you think money is? Exactly how can we make totally different commodities commensurable in an abstract way (i.e., how can we set a general price on commodities)? I'll use an example-- literally apples and oranges. When we say that 2lbs of apples cost $1.50 and 1lb of oranges costs $1.50, what do two pounds of apples and one pound of oranges have in common that makes them equal? Again, it's literally apples and oranges, so you can't say it's something inherent in the commodities themselves. And outside a barter market, you can't say it's the value of those amounts of those fruits to the purchaser-- these are abstract prices. If you talk about abstract prices (I'm telling you the answer now) you're talking about the labor that goes into producing commodities. Money is labor. Real productive labor. Wealth is generated by the poor. That's been evident to all economists since the ghteenth century.
Take another example. Through shuffling commodities around, those who have enough capital to get into the game can become even richer. You move money around, and after a while, you get more than you started with. An entire economy can work this way. The rich sit, mostly stagnant, on top of society, investing, buying, selling, and more money seems to be spontaneously generated out of the system. To people who don't like to read books, to people who admire the rich for all thr hard work, to Republicans, this must look like a magic trick. You can't get something from nothing. Remember the principle of the conservation of matter from high school? It's analogous. The reason that money's bng generated is because, while the rich play thr investment games, becoming richer all the time, the poor are producing wealth. Because money IS ABSTRACT HUMAN LABOR. The poor support the rich, not the other way around.

[Marx is dead]

Money is not "abstract human labor." Money is a convenient mode of exchange. Instead of exchanging your labor for apples, you exchange it for money. Instead of exchanging apples for oranges, you exchange money for them. There is nothing about money that ties it inherently with labor.

Labor does not exist in a vacuum. It has no inherent "worth" in and of itself. It only has worth as it exists to create something that someone wants.

An increase in wealth does not appear "magically." It does not spontaneously appear as the fruit of labor. It happens when supply and demand are matched most efficently. A person can work as hard as they can, but if no one wants the fruit of thr labor, it is not "worth" anything. On the other hand, if the fruit of thr labor is in great demand, thr labor will be worth more. Also, quality plays a part. Someone who build shoddy wagon wheels will not see thr labor have as much value as someone who writes innovative computer code.

This is where "the rich" make thr money in many cases. They are able to pair supply and demand at thr optimal levels. This ability makes them in great demand, so thr labor is worth a lot. People get rich not only working hard, but also by making the product of thr work valuable.

World Class Athletes make a lot of money because there are very few people who can do what they do at that level and there are lots of people who want to watch them do it. Digging ditches doesn't pay as much because there are lots of people who can do it, so the price for the product of that labor is relatively low.

I would recommend the book Basic Economics by Thomas Sowell. It could help you get past the outdated Marxist model you seem to be stuck on.

[Mylezylez]

This is quite a meaningless conversation, and I'll tell you why.

All of you are trying to speak in generalizations. NYURepublican seems to be asserting that ALL rich people gained thr wealth by working hard for it. It's very easy to see the flaw in that logic. People have or don't have money for all sorts of reasons. How about the Enron CEO who made himself richer by defrauding the people of California (not to mention numerous other shady Enron deals).

Or how about the person who works 70 hours a week, and still doesn't make enough to live on. Are they NOT working hard enough? Are you going to sit there and tell all those people what they're doing wrong? Do you think you can judge anyone's life but your own?

Anyone who's worked in the corporate field can tell you how unfair it is to employees. At most big retailers, if the company doesn't meet it's profit goals, the first thing management cuts is payroll. They reduce everyone's hours, until some people are forced (or "motivated") to quit. That's how companies make money these days, but cutting costs. I've seen this happen dozens of times, and heard of it from dozens more people.

So, can you read that, and understand it, and STILL think the Republican plan of giving rich people more taxes back (despite rich people already having plenty of tax loopholes) at the expense of programs that 90% of the country use, I think you need your head examined.

The question of these threads are who we should thank more, the rich or the poor. I think that question in general is bogus. We ALL live in this country, and we all pay for it according to how much we make. Are you telling me that the money I pay for taxes is worth less than the money YOU pay, just because you pay MORE?

There's a word for that
________
Coach handbags (http://icoachhandbags.com/)

[Nattydread]

..I'll still tell you that in the end those in the upper 10 -5 % of wealth in America INHERITED IT!!

And that book ..like most books..thinks America is color-blind..a BAD ASSUMPTION TO MAKE in AMERICA!

What Fu#@ng kind of labor did bush have?

His hardest job was staying alive during birth..once he passed that test...because of his inherited wealth...everything else was easy!
________
SexualControl (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/SexualControl/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:Or how about the person who works 70 hours a week, and still doesn't make enough to live on.

You just made the perfect argument in favor of cutting taxes!!!

Quote:..I'll still tell you that in the end those in the upper 10 -5 % of wealth in America INHERITED IT!!

Again, Mylez, I know this is a difficult lesson for you to learn, but just because you say something doesn't make it true. In fact, the majority of the very wealthy earned thr wealth, as John Wcher as a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute and a visiting scholar at the Federal Reserve Bank, wrote in this February 13, 1997 Washington Post Op-Ed, "Most of the rich have earned thr wealth... Looking at the Fortune 400, quite a few even of the very richest people came from a standing start, while others inherited a small business and turned it into a giant corporation."

You can also check out this Thomas Sowell article: "If you are talking about working full-time, 50 or more weeks a year, then there are more people doing that in the top 5 percent of households than in the bottom 20 percent."

Ah, facts...the bane of liberals everywhere.


________
AmericanStyle_ cam (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/AmericanStyle_)

[Nattydread]

Again I ask..what kind of labor did bush have?

Did your book talk about the plight of some black innovators during the 90's? Remember the internet boom? There was a series of articles in the WSJ that chronicled this insurmountable hurdle black faced when trying to start up thr business. They would have an innovative idea but needed funding..when they present thr ideas to THOSE WITH MONEY..they declined stating it was not a good idea. A few months later..there is your idea online or getting ready to go public!

What should they do..sue? I bet the courts will get right on that in the next 10 years or so..in the meantime you need to put food on the table.

Again you naively believe that the rich will share thr money with you! You are in a fantasy world!
________
xxSOPHIExx (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/cam/xxSOPHIExx/)

[Mylezylez]

"Get your hands off of MY money! I worked for it, and no stinkin Mexican is gonna profit from my hard work!"

Is that about right?

________
Mary Jane (http://maryjanes.info/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:Again you naively believe that the rich will share thr money with you!

I believe no such thing; I would never believe, or expect, the rich to share thr money with me personally. They do however, indirectly and under governmental coercion, share thr money with all of us because of the confiscatory tax rates levied upon them. This one of the pitfalls of having a "progressive" (read: socialist) tax structure, as we do in America. The government punishes productivity and success by making you pay more for earning more. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/15/03 3:57 pm

________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

So then you reject the notion that the government exists to benefit it's people?

So what then is the role of government? To punish you for breaking the rules?
________
Granny hardcore (http://www.fucktube.com/categories/653/hardcore/videos/1)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:So then you reject the notion that the government exists to benefit it's people?

The government exists to keep its people secure, and aside from that, to stay the hell out of thr business. It certainly doesn't exist to arbitrarily take money from some people and give it to others, or to hold our hands and provide everything for us from the cradle to grave.
________
Live sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Lots of atrocities have been committed in the name of "security". Not to mention how easily manipulated people's insecurities are.

But here's the flaw in your logic: Civilization requires MONEY. How do you think the schools are funded, the roads are built, public restrooms maintained, etc. These are all things EVERYBODY pays for, but suddenly the ruling class of this country has decided they pay too much. So basically, since they have most of the wealth, they have the resources to rearrange the system to benefit THEM, as opposed to the rest of us who will basically be screwed.

I mean, that child tax credit that REPUBLICANS removed from the recent tax cuts (behind closed doors) is just plain mean! Tom DeLay, the Republican majority leader if you didn't know, said that tax credit was "not important". I guess tax breaks on SUVs are more important.

On that subject; if you want a good example of a supremely corrupt politician, look no further than Tom "I'm the Majority Leader and I want more Seats" DeLay.
________
LovelyWendie99 (http://www.lovelywendie99.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Nice to see that you think all Republicans characterize Mexicans as "stinkin'".

The Republican mindset is more like this: Yes, we want our money left alone, because we worked for it; but nther do we expect anyone to give us a handout. Many of us choose to donate a portion of what we earn to charitable causes. However, this charity is a private, personal decision. We reject the government acting as a charity, forcibly taking money from some and giving it to others, because this is nther fair nor effective. Giving away your own money to help others is a virtue; forcing other people to give away thr money is extortion.

There's a great quote, and I forget the author of it, but it goes something like this: "A liberal is someone who feels a great debt to his fellow man, and wants it to be repaid using your money." Is that about right? Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/15/03 4:53 pm

________
The Cliff Condominiums Cosy Beach (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[Mylezylez]

Well, I distinctly remember Tom DeLay talking about how unnecessary the Child Tax Credit was. It was the Republican party who removed it, in favor of bigger tax breaks for themselves and thr SUVs. I mean seriously, whatever you call it, the child tax credit would've helped people who needed it. And the Republicans claim it's not as important as getting THR money back.

You see what I mean, the self-ish always overrides the selfless with the Republican party.
________
NEVADA MARIJUANA DISPENSARY (http://nevada.dispensaries.org/)

[Mylezylez]

Well, I distinctly remember Tom DeLay talking about how unnecessary the Child Tax Credit was. It was the Republican party who removed it, in favor of bigger tax breaks for themselves and thr SUVs. I mean seriously, whatever you label it (and you're big on using labels to discredit things), the child tax credit would've helped people who needed it. And the Republicans claimed it's not as important as getting THR money back. Good thing enough people got pissed off. But then again, DeLay would only agree to put it back in if he got ANOTHER tax cut for the upper class. Haven't you been reading this?

You see what I mean, the selfish always overrides the selfless with the Republican party.
________
No2 vaporizer review (http://no2vaporizer.net)

[NYURepublican]

Don't worry Mylez. The spineless Congressional Republicans have already caved in and passed an additional CTC. My hope is that this welfare program guised as a tax cut dies in conference.
________
Live Sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:Civilization requires MONEY.

I will not argue that point with you. I am not saying that there should be zero taxes; obviously the government needs some money to provide for things like road upkeep, national defense, etc. It's when the government oversteps its mandate and starts demanding money for all manner of ill-concved social programs that I take exception.

And while your mind has wandered onto another subject: the Child Tax Credit (an income tax refund for people who don't pay income tax) wasn't removed by Republicans, because it was never in the original bill. Get your facts straight. The CTC was a not a tax cut, it was a spending program, and since the born-again deficit hawk Democrats refused to vote for a bill that cost more than $350 billion, it could not be included. Then, less than a week later, you've got Blanche Lincoln and all these other hypocritical liberals screaming that it's outrageous the CTC was never in the bill, but meanwhile, they all voted against the bill in the first place because they thought it cost too much money. You can't have your cake and eat it too, people. If you're gonna bitch that we're spending our way into a deficit, don't cry foul when spending programs aren't included in a tax cut bill. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/15/03 5:42 pm

________
Live sex (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Why do you oppose that tax credit? You don't think the families that qualify for that would appreciate the extra money back?

Or wait, if you don't work for it, it's communism. I wonder how the stock market works in that ideology?
________
Zoloft Settlement Information (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/zoloft/)

[Mylezylez]

Nattydread's words, but I found them very intelligent.

<<<Your perception about what it entails to be rich ..again is clouded. We see those story in the movies regularly...boy born in a poor family and work his way up to be a millionare.

More and more the real story of those behind the rich is..boy born in rich family..boy grow up rich in rich family. That old 'walk-both ways uphill to school story' is less the case today.

My point is you can earn a decent wage and life in America today. But the system is so staked against you today that getting rich is not based entirely on hard work. Many poor..and barely making it people work hard in America!

I've worked at several places in this country ..and in all cases..the talk is..you will never get promoted if you get saddled with the reputation at bng the guru at 'making the donuts'.

If you ever get known to be 'the expert' you'll forever remain a worker bee..with 5 managers reporting on your performance! Those managers are making more than you.

You even see this in sports today..remember when you had to put togather a few back-to-back good seasons to get the big payoff? Now we see guys getting rich before playing a single game! This occurs at the expense of the hard working steady players on that team?

How many times do we see failing companies richly reward the CEO's? Do you really believe that most CEO's should make 500 times the salary of the average college educated worker today? In my estimation ..less than 5% are worth so much.

The point I'm trying to make here is that as the disparity grows between rich and poor the system is rigged to increase the degree of difficulty getting rich. And it is rigged by people like bush who was born rich..and based on this inheritance is in the position he is in today!

For example we all know bush bought his way into an IVY league college. But many hard working average guy also made it there and graduated with him also. Bush got a 'C' average..some of those hard working guys got 'A"s. How many of those hard working guys are doing as well as bush today?


Another thing you failed to learn is..the RICH WILL NOT SHARE THR MONEY WITH YOU! Most rich would rather spend millions on a fence to keep you out than to give you a few dollors to go away..thats the mentality..thats what comes with a capitalist society! but wait a minute..he'll first call his rich contracter buddy to build the fence. The rich contracter guy will then pay you $5/hr to erect the fence, so they both stay rich.

Pay Labron James $100M to wear a shoe..but oh the horror..if you should ever pay more than minimum wages to the people who actually make the shoe! It would not make sense to give Labron $50M and give the workers in those sweat shops overseas a $5 raise!

It is why blacks feel entitled to reparations ..right or wrong. They understand that the wealth in America is mostly inherited and no amount of hard work will ever get it back for them.

I don't want a hand out..but I'm against a system that help widen this divide. And in this case its all about creating an economy with jobs. Let people have access to DECENT PAYING jobs first. Otherwise tax cut, interest rate cuts are meaningless. I remembered how Regan created $5/hr jobs and reduced unemployment. We were really working hard then..because many of us had to work 2 jobs to get by. Thats what will happen if things are left up to RICH GUY.

Yes it is still possible to start your own business and make money for yourself. We hear stories of that everyday..but what they don't tell you is the 1,000's who have worked hard and failed. Getting rich should'nt be easy, and despite the odds we owe it to ourselves to try. But while I'm trying..I could do without someone out there making it harder for me! >>>
________
KOHLS GIFT CARD (http://bestfreegiftcard.com/kohls-gift-card/)

[PEACEOFWAR]

"The government exists to keep its people secure, and aside from that, to stay the hell out of thr business."

If this is true NYC...

What the @#%$ IS BUSH DOING RIGHT NOW!



HEllo! Don't You see him TEARING UP OUR BILL OF RIGHTS!

SToping womens rights! Stoping privacy! restricting what we CAN SAY! HELLO MAN Snap out of Republican Lies.


As for your comment about "70 hours a week" Bng a surport for A tax break! LOL ITs bull @#%$. My mom works 80 hours a week Just to keep a roof over our head, And Guess what we see of that money bush gave out? If we luck out 400 bucks, 400 @#%$ bucks that is going towards Morgage anyway. So ARE WE BUYING A new tv or something for the economy? NOpe just trying to survive, Oh mean while Bill gates gets another 23 million from this tax break. YA IM sure he will use that to buy House hold items, And keep us afloat. NOpe He has 400 million in his bank acount, He dont need 23 million more, conedering the current money is just sitting there, he wont spend more, or get more items, He may open a new bank account.


Give Us the bucks 20,000 the adverage millionare is getting, Give us that money and guess what! WE WILL SPEND IT FOR THE ECONOMY! NOT JUST ADD IT TO A BIG BANK ACOUNT LIKE MILLIONARES!

[NYURepublican]

Quote:You don't think the families that qualify for that would appreciate the extra money back?

What "money back"? "Money back" implies that you paid money in the first place. The people who qualify for the CTC don't pay income tax as it is, and many of them even have thr payroll tax liability wiped out, sometimes more than two times over by the Earned Income Tax Credit. Details on this here, if you're interested.

"As a result of the TC, the child tax credit and other tax cuts, the percentage of those with no income-tax liability has risen to 30 percent of all tax filers, according to the Tax Foundation. The combination of TC and the child credit offsets 100 percent of the income-tax liability for almost all families with incomes below $30,000. And because of refundability, 100 percent of the payroll tax is also offset for those with incomes below $20,000. Those with earnings below $10,000 pay no income taxes and get a check from the government for 2.6 times thr payroll-tax liability." Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/15/03 10:39 pm

________
Laguna Bay II Condo Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[The Truth Hurts]

"..I'll still tell you that in the end those in the upper 10 -5 % of wealth in America INHERITED IT!!"

This is just plain false. And since you have been told it is false, that means that when you repeat it you are just plain lying.

Most of the most wealthy do not inherit thr wealth. The vast majority of people do not stay ther wealthy or poor all thr lives. They move through different quintiles over the course of thr lives. Most of the people who are the most rich today were not in that category 10 years ago and will not be there in another 10 years. The same holds true for the people who are the most poor now.

I could cite the studies that show you wrong, but you would just dismiss them since they do not agree with the conclusion you are not willing to give up- no matter what the facts really are.

You are the one who needs to get in touch with the real world and give up these lies that you use to justify your greed, anvy, and anger. You would find yourself much happier that way.
________
Live sex webshows (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[MisterEd]

Quote:I could cite the studies that show you wrong, but you would just dismiss them since they do not agree with the conclusion you are not willing to give up- no matter what the facts really are.

OK, reality check. It's actually you guys who do that, not us.

Quote:The vast majority of people do not stay ther wealthy or poor all thr lives

WHAT? Call me Alice, because I seem to have arrived in Wonderland.
________
marijuana pictures (http://trichomes.org)

[Mylezylez]

NYURepublican,

do you EVER see people as individuals, or is it just easier to refer to the very vaguely defined classifications of "liberal" and "conservative"

May I remind you what the two terms mean

Liberal:
A) Not limited to or by established, traditional, orthodox, or authoritarian attitudes, views, or dogmas; free from bigotry.

B) Favoring proposals for reform, open to new ideas for progress, and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others; broad-minded.

C) Of, relating to, or characteristic of liberalism.
Liberal Of, designating, or characteristic of a political party founded on or associated with principles of social and political liberalism, especially in Great Britain, Canada, and the United States.


Conservative:
A) Favoring traditional views and values; tending to oppose change.

B) Traditional or restrained in style: a conservative dark suit.

C) Moderate; cautious: a conservative estimate.

D) Of or relating to the political philosophy of conservatism.

E) Belonging to a conservative party, group, or movement.

F) Conservative Of or belonging to the Conservative Party in the United Kingdom or the Progressive Conservative Party in Canada.

G) Conservative Of or adhering to Conservative Judaism.

H) Tending to conserve; preservative: the conservative use of natural resources.


So basically, Conservatives are grumpy old men complaining abotu the younguns, while liberals are free-spirited, and more open minded. Agree?

________
Avandia injury lawyer (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/avandia/)

[NYURepublican]

Mylez, I realize that you'd rather argue semantics than substance, but take a look at the last line of what you've just posted, and then decide whether you're qualified to give me a lecture on the evils of stereotyping.


________
Paxil injury lawyer (http://www.classactionsettlements.org/lawsuit/paxil/)

[Mylezylez]

Okay, can I attempt to get to the bottom of this?

So in general, you think I'm wrong. It that because the facts contradict things I say? I'd be careful answering that one.

I mean, you're basically saying that under Bush, things are basically okay in this country. I'm quite aggressively saying that things are WORSE. I mean, I don't think any president has had more to cover up than this one, and that's including Nixon (of course, much of Nixon's cabinet is back in office at the moment)!
________
XL175 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Honda_XL175)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:I could cite the studies that show you wrong, but you would just dismiss them since they do not agree with the conclusion you are not willing to give up- no matter what the facts really are.

Actually, I already posted such evidence on income quintile mobility in my "why you should thank the rich thread", and the liberals did just that. Facts bounce off these people like bullets off Superman. Notice how MisterEd devotes his time to verbally attacking myself personally and conservatives generally, rather than attempting to refute the stats I posted. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/16/03 6:33 pm

________
WEB SHOWS (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[Mylezylez]

Well actually, there HAS been some terrorist attacks since 9/11. I seem to remember some anthrax that was made in the good old USA that was circulating in the mail for a while.

But are you honestly going to attribute the lack of another 9/11 to George Bush's leadership? Nothing the Bush administration has done will even deter "terrorists", who have nothing to lose anyway. What we ARE doing is killing thousands of innocent people, which I guarantee will create more animosity towards America. You only need to look at Iraq right now to see this. The citizens of Iraq seem to really want America to leave. One of the more obvious signs of imperialism is the occupier's refusal to comply with local demands, which is what's happening right now.

And the nutty thing about your analysis of Bush's spending, is that you left out where a VAST majority of your tax dollars go
________
Brunette Webcams (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/brunette-girls/)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:It that because the facts contradict things I say? I'd be careful answering that one.

Not only because the facts contradict things you say, but when they do, because you're generally (not always, but generally) unable or unwilling to offer facts of your own to support your position.

Quote:I mean, you're basically saying that under Bush, things are basically okay in this country. I'm quite aggressively saying that things are WORSE

Look, I don't think Bush is a saint. You seem to think that I worship the man as some kind of infallible dty. I don't. If anything, I'm pissed at about 60% of what Bush does because lately, the man has been acting like a liberal. He let Teddy Kennedy write the education bill. He's spending out of control, and hasn't bothered to veto Congress once when they've come up with bloated spending bills like the farm subsidy. He's sending troops to Liberia. He praised the Supreme Court for defying the 14th Amendment and upholding affirmative action. And now he's ready to sign off on the largest expansion of a federal program in American history, the Medicare entitlement, that our children's children will have to work overtime to pay for.

BUT...in spite of everything that Bush is doing wrong (which, ironically, are probably the things you think Bush is doing right), I continue to support Bush for several reasons. One, aside from the spending (and Congress also bears the blame for that), his economic policy is good. The American people are getting thr taxes returned to them for the first time in years. Two, I strongly support the way he has prosecuted the war on terror. The fact that we haven't had any terrorist attacks in this country since 9/11, in spite of all the liberal doomsayers' predictions, is a testament to the way he is handling the situation. And finally, and most importantly, I don't trust the Democrats to do any better. They have nothing to offer; no real ideas or alternatives, just complaints, naysaying, and the same old class warfare rhetoric they've been pushing for 50 years. And as liberal as Bush is behaving right now, a Democratic president could only be worse. National security alone is enough of a reason for me to support Bush. It just ain't safe to vote Democrat.

So in conclusion: do I think everything is "okay" under Bush? Far from it. But do I think we are safer from terrorism because of him, and will I defend him when disgruntled liberals try to dredge up lies and accusations against him in a desperate bid to regain thr power in this country? You bet your life on it. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/16/03 9:09 pm

________
Jenny_Couture (http://camslivesexy.com/cam/Jenny_Couture)

[Nattydread]

there is a book about why blacks are poor ..there is a book about why blacks are rich...there is a book about why you are depressed...there is a book about why you are happy....

At some point you have to start thinking for yourself..those books were written by people just like you and me. And the underling reason they are written is to make money!

People don't need a stinking book to tell them when they are suffering because of an ill economy!
They don't need a book to tell them jobs were easier to come by in the 90's. They don't need a stinking book to tell them medical insurance is costing them more today....they don't need a stinking book to understand that the tax and interest rate cut did them no good because they do not have a job!

They don't need a book to tell them that while they suffer some people are living it up..they can see you as you pass by in your $60K car!

Can you understand that..or do you need to research it?
________
Housewives Cam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/housewives/)

[The Truth Hurts]

Translation of Nattydread's posts:

"My mind is made up. Don't confuse me with facts."

How ironic that he urges others to look at the "real world" when he refuses to look any farther than the tip of his nose.
________
bald pussy Webcam (http://www.girlcamfriend.com/webcam/shaved/)

[Nattydread]

That is what you are ..I refuse to read the quoted drivel you guys post from your right wing authors and websites. Nther do I consult democratic publications..people who do that you eventually become INDOCTRINATED!

A mindless person only capable of repeating the ideological non-sense most of the time out of context!

Thas the essence of most of your ridiculous quotes..mis-applied meaningless crap!

________
Washington Medical Marijuana Dispensary (http://washington.dispensaries.org/)

[The Truth Hurts]

When Nattydread says, "I refuse to be indoctrinated" the real meaning is "I refuse to be educated."

It is not opinions that have no effect on your positions, it is facts that have no effect.

You do not think for yourself, simply because you do not think. You merely spout what you feel, with no reflection or thought involved.

When facts show you wrong, you just do the virtual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shout "La, la, la, I'm not listening."

You have shown yourself incapable of gathering facts, assessing them, and then drawing conclusions from them. The whole process of critical thought seems to be very threatening to you.

Then you ironically accuse those who do go through that process of bng "mindless."

It is sad, really.
________
LIVE SEX (http://livesexwebshows.com/)

[MisterEd]

Quote:Mylez, I realize that you'd rather argue semantics than substance, ....

Coming from the person who dedicated a whole thread to Mylez's way of debating... There is a name for this type of person. (see subject of post)

And about your so-called facts about the poor not staying poor and the rich not staying rich. I'm willing to accept them, but strangely enough this only seems to happen to people I don't know, because all the rich people I know today were rich 20 years ago and all the poor people I know have been struggling for 20 years too. All these people who are constantly changing quintiles must all live down south.

I always find it odd when the "facts" on paper seem to contradict everything you see in everyday life.

But then again, if you have to believe Shrub, we're in so much danger right now from so many different people, we'd better not leave our houses ever again. Which is probably what he'd like.

Quote:When facts show you wrong, you just do the virtual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shout "La, la, la, I'm not listening."

And you guys call them biased and ignore them too. There is a name for this type of person. (see subject of post)

Quote:The whole process of critical thought seems to be very threatening to you.

Great statement. Certainly coming from you. No one can deny that Bush has made mistakes, that some things have gone wrong or could at l have been handled better. But even on the little details, you keep defending Bush without the smalles amount of critical thought. I thought that the pathetic and utterly moronic "Bring them on" statement would even have a lot of conservatives thinking that this was not a smart thing to say, but no, they even try to defend that. There is a name for this type of person. (see subject of post)

No one is perfect, apart from Bush, because he apparently has never, ever done anything wrong. Even his addiction is defended, because it helped him "see the light" and turned him into the fine, upstanding Christian he is. (Well, if you forget about that "Thou shalt not kill" commandment)

He apparently has never heard of secular leadership. It has worked fine for the last 200 years, but no, he has to keep mixing religion and politics, where in other parts in the world, this is deemed the cause of extremism. But this is another discussion which has already taken place in another thread.
________
Willys Jeep Wagon history (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Willys_Jeep_Wagon)

[NYURepublican]

Quote:No one is perfect, apart from Bush, because he apparently has never, ever done anything wrong.

And with that statement, you reveal how utterly closed your mind is and how blind you are to my position.

If you'll take the time out from your pointless ranting to scroll up this page just a bit, you'll see that I just devoted a healthy amount of criticism to Bush's policies, followed by my explanation of why, in spite of all his flaws, he is still worthy of my support. So, you can ther roll out screed after screed wailing about how myopic and hypocritical I am for not "thinking critically" (i.e. not thinking exactly like you), or the next time you feel like delivering a diatribe like that, you can do so while looking in the mirror.

Quote:And you guys call them biased and ignore them too

Please show me an example of when/where someone has shown me a source, and I've called it simply called it biased without producing any facts to the contrary. You're brought out this shibboleth so many times, it's time that I finally call you on it. Quite frankly, MisterEd, I'd be happy to give a reasonable, fact-based critique of any kind of factual information you have to support your opinions...if and when you ever get around to producing any, which you haven't so far. All you've produced so far is your willingness to label anyone who disagrees with you a "hypocrite", ad nauseum. Edited by: NYURepublican at: 7/17/03 6:05 pm

________
thai property in Pattaya (http://pattayaluxurycondos.com)

[MisterEd]

You really seem to think that you're providing objective links and sources all the time which consist solely of the truth and the real facts, don't you? And do you really think that providing some link to an article that more or less says what you claim, proves anything? It doesn't work when we do, so why should it work for you?

And if you like scrolling so much, you might notice that another poster was talking about critical thought. Maybe, just maybe, I was talking about him? Or about behaviour in general? This might be hard to swallow and you'd better sit down, but not everything is about you.

(Just the first part concerned you, about accusing Mylezylez of preferring semantics over substance, when you dedicated a whole thread to attack Mylezylez's use of.... semantics. You may not like it, but that DOES indeed make you a hypocrite. And thinking everything is about you proves something I mentioned in another thread: that you seem to think very, very highly of yourself. That actually was about YOU too)
________
buy scale (http://www.vaporshop.com/scales)

[jlanthripp]

(Coming in very late to the thread, having stumbled across it in a Google search for something else altogether)Quote:I'll still tell you that in the end those in the upper 10 -5 % of wealth in America INHERITED IT!!And you'll still be wrong. Here are the figures:

Among Americans 15 years old or older, those who had a total individual income for the year 2001 of $90,000 or more are in the top 4.98%. Those with a total individual income of $65,000 or more are the top 10.43%. Those above $100,000 make up the to 3.93% of the population. The poor working sap who makes just $35,000 a year is in the top 31.61%. That's 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, at about $16.85 per hour - roughly union scale for a journeyman carpenter in the city of Chattanooga, where I live. A convenience store manager in Atlanta can expect to make around $27,500 a year, putting him in the top 39.66%. An entry-level software developer making $50,000 a year is in the top 18.02% in the nation.

* Source - the US Census Bureau, Table PINC-01 (Selected Characteristics of People 15 Years and Over, by Total Money Income in 2001, Work Experience in 2001, Race, Hispanic Origin, and Sex). This table can be found at ferret.bls.census.gov/mac...01_001.htm - I put that data into a spreadsheet to get the percentage figures.

So, if my income was, say, $90,000 for the year 2000 (Hah! In my dreams!), then I'm among the super-rich? I just sit around and shuffle commodities back and forth? I'm one of the privileged few who, to borrow a phrase from the left, get fat on the backs of the proletariat?

Warning - mandatory anecdote below:
My father was born in 1950 in semi-rural Tennessee, where he grew up with his parents and 2 brothers. He had no indoor plumbing until 1964 - defecating on a winter night entailed putting on shoes and an overcoat. Roof leaks were patched with Prince Albert cans that they pounded flat and nailed to the roof because they couldn't afford shingles or tarpaper. His father was a carpenter who was laid off about 4 months out of every year. They also never applied for nor recved a penny in government aid. Would you agree that he was born into a poor family, and didn't inherit wealth? And do you still stand by your assertion that all people in the wealthiest 10% inherited thr wealth? Let's see just how valid and compatible your assertion is.

After high school, he married my mother, worked 3 jobs and attended college part-time. He quit college at the end of his junior year because he was physically unable to continue working 90-100 hours a week and studying and going to classes and raising 2 children. Eventually he was promoted to foreman at his main job in the machine shop of Combustion Engineering in Chattanooga (among other things, they build components for electrical power plants). He was then able to trim it down to 1 job, where he worked an average of 60 hours per week. He changed jobs a few times, finally ending up at Louisiana Power & Light, where he worked as a maintenance mechanic at a nuclear power plant.

At that job, he sometimes worked 12 hours a day, 7 days a week, especially during maintenance outages. As a maintenance mechanic job, he also worked in something called the "steam generator", a job which he described to me as:

"I put on a plastic suit and an air tank, heave about 100 pounds of tools and parts on my back, and go through an airlock into an area where it's 130 degrees and steamy. I work in there for 45 minutes, then go back out for a mandatory 15 minute break, when I pour the sweat out of my boots and drink as much water as I can stand. After 15 minutes, it's back through the airlock."

In 1987, he made about $58,000 - putting his income well within the top 20%. In 1990, the last full year he was alive, his adjusted gross income was $72,532.00 according to his IRS Form 1040. That placed him solidly in the top 10% for that year.

He died in January 1991 from a gunshot wound. The police theorized that he'd been robbed and killed on his way to work - someone must have thought they were more deserving of the cash in his wallet (probably less than $100 - he almost never carried more than that) than he was.

Now, would you like to explain again exactly how my father didn't work hard for his wealth? Or insist again that he inherited it? Do you care to tell me again about how it's impossible to become well-off if you were born into a poor family?

Of the people I know, I can think of several off the top of my head who worked thr way out of poverty. I also know several people who were born to wealthy parents but pissed it all away, ending up poor. The difference between the two groups is that one made good choices in life and worked hard, while the other just didn't care, made bad choices, and didn't work at bng successful.

I assert that a person's wealth is determined by a person's actions in life rather than by the wealth of his/her parents, but I'm willing to seriously consider any argument to the contrary that is supported by verifiable sources.