# Poverty



## clemson357 (Feb 7, 2006)

I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty.  On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.

You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse.  Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty.  Prostitution is high among women in poverty....

What the fuck is this about????  Did anyone stop to think that maybe the poverty doesn't cause the criminal, the criminal causes the poverty?  Maybe the reason the dipshit is in poverty is because he is the type of person who would rather pull a gun on someone than put in a hard days work.  Isn't it possible that the reason the dipshit is in poverty is because he would rather smoke crack than go to the gym or to the office.  

I just get sick of it being an excuse for everything.

Today on TV they were trying to say 'people in poverty are less likely to have health insurance, therefore less likely to get tested, therefore more likely to spread the disease unintentionally.'  Maybe its the fact that the guy who is too stupid to put on a condom when he fucks some skank slut was also to stupid to get a decent job.   I mean, I know plenty of people with health insurance who never got tested...


----------



## GFR (Feb 7, 2006)

You, DOMS and I know it's all the "black" peoples fault.


----------



## kicka19 (Feb 7, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty.  On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.
> 
> You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse.  Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty.  Prostitution is high among women in poverty....
> 
> ...




racist


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty. On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.
> 
> You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse. Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty. Prostitution is high among women in poverty....
> 
> ...


 
The best and only way for you to truly find the answer is to personally go into an impoverished neighborhood and do your own unbiased investigation.
See for yourself how some are not given a chance.

I lived on both sides and it's funny how just because you live in the ghetto you are immediattly treated differently.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 7, 2006)

college causes poverty...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

gococksDJS said:
			
		

> college causes poverty...


    
I have 4 kids......


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I have 4 kids......



I know, how come your daughter isn't returning my calls anymore...


----------



## topolo (Feb 7, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I know, how come your daughter isn't returning my calls anymore...




cause you're a fag


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> .....just because you live in the ghetto you are immediattly treated differently.




is it because of where you physically sleep?  or is it because of how you act, how you present yourself?  

does everyone you encounter know where you live?  or do they just assume because you act, dress, walk, talk like you come from the ghetto?


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 7, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> cause you're a fag




I thought maybe it's cause of your grammar...


----------



## topolo (Feb 7, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I thought maybe it's cause of your grammar...




What is wrong with it fag?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> I know, how come your daughter isn't returning my calls anymore...


Probably because her kindergarten teacher refuses to give her the phone.


----------



## GFR (Feb 7, 2006)

I just rubbed one out


----------



## topolo (Feb 7, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I just rubbed one out



Good for you! Now put that little needle away before you poke yourself.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> is it because of where you physically sleep? or is it because of how you act, how you present yourself?
> 
> does everyone you encounter know where you live? or do they just assume because you act, dress, walk, talk like you come from the ghetto?


Oh no, none of that. While I do have a thick NYC accent I don't act "ghetto". I dress to blend and I walk like a normal person.

A lot of people  say that race is an issue but I think income has a lot to do with how you are treated also.


----------



## GFR (Feb 7, 2006)

How did you know about that??


----------



## GFR (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Oh no, none of that. While I do have a thick NYC accent I don't act "ghetto".* I dress to blend and I walk like a normal person*.
> 
> A lot of people say that race is an issue but I think income has a lot to do with how you are treated also.


So are you saying that you are a Vampire???


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

Come here so that I can suck your blood....


----------



## Mista (Feb 7, 2006)

^?


----------



## topolo (Feb 7, 2006)

I just shot a big load all over my desk.


----------



## GFR (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Come here so that I can suck your blood....


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Oh no, none of that. While I do have a thick NYC accent I don't act "ghetto". *I dress to blend and I walk like a normal person.*


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You, DOMS and I know it's all the "black" peoples fault.



It's their own fault, whoever they may be.  Poverty is not a valid reason for doing anything illegal or immoral.  None.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Today on TV they were trying to say 'people in poverty are less likely to have health insurance, therefore less likely to get tested, therefore more likely to spread the disease unintentionally.'



Perhaps they should do something about it other than fuck up royally.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

topolo said:
			
		

> I just shot a big load all over my desk.


I'm glad to assist you.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I'm glad to assist you.



Don't forget to brush your teeth.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>


How dare you!
He's from Jersey and I'm from New York!


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Don't forget to brush your teeth.


 I even flossed.damn Topolo's hairy


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2006)




----------



## clemson357 (Feb 7, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I don't act "ghetto". I dress to blend and I walk like a normal person.




so why are you "immediately treated differently" for living in the ghetto if no one can tell that your from the ghetto?


----------



## Big Smoothy (Feb 7, 2006)

Money is not the solution to poverty and hunger.  Changing the way people do things is. 

And f*ck Bono of U2.  An arrogant moron.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 7, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> so why are you "immediately treated differently" for living in the ghetto if no one can tell that your from the ghetto?


It was while I lived in the ghetto .......one of these days I'll explain it all.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 7, 2006)

Mr_Snafu said:
			
		

> Money is not the solution to poverty and hunger.  Changing the way people do things is.
> 
> And f*ck Bono of U2.  An arrogant moron.




Bono is god.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 7, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Bono is dog.



Dyslexic bitch.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> It was while I lived in the ghetto .......one of these days I'll explain it all.



........

wouldn't expect you to respond in substance...


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty. On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.
> 
> You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse. Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty. Prostitution is high among women in poverty....
> 
> ...


???All classes commit crime. However, the poor experience higher rates of arrest, criminal charges, convictions, long prison sentences and denial of parole. This winnowing process ensures that most rich criminals never see the inside of a prison, while overflowing them with the poor.??? That is why our Nation???s prisons resemble poor houses.

???Crime is an activity common to all classes. Even back in 1968??? (it???s gotten much worse since), ???when the crime rate was over a third lower than it is today, a President's Crime Commission surveyed 10,000 households and discovered that "91 percent of all Americans have violated laws that could have subjected them to a term of imprisonment at one time in their lives." The report also found that 64 percent of all males, and 27 percent of all females, in New York State had committed felonies. Felonies, remember, are serious enough to draw at least one year in prison; most people in prison today are there on misdemeanors.??? 


???But if 91 percent of our society has admitted to committing crimes that would have required prison time, why do our jail-houses resemble the national poor house? After reviewing the statistics, noted criminologist Jeffrey Reiman writes: "For the same criminal behavior, the poor are more likely to be arrested; if arrested, they are more likely to be charged; if charged, more likely to be convicted; if convicted, more likely to be sentenced to prison; and if sentenced, more likely to be given longer prison terms than members of the middle and upper classes." (8) This winnowing process insures that few wealthy criminals ever see the inside of a prison.???

--Source: Steve Kangas


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

I don't see anything in there about people in poverty not commiting more crime.  If they are commiting more crime, doesn't it make sense that they are arrested more often?

Your post levels the playing field between anyone who has ever committed a single crime, and people who commit crimes frequently.  It makes sense to me that if you commit 10 or 100 crimes you are more likely to be caught than someone who commited 1.  Is there any evidence that the poor are getting away with less crime?  

As far as being charged, convicted, and sentenced, I am sure that has a lot to do with the lawyer.  In which case, your only complaint is essentially 'I am a criminal who can't afford the best lawyer.'  My response is you shouldn't have been a criminal to begin with.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> My response is you shouldn't have been a criminal to begin with.





I grew up homeless on the streets of LA and I'm not a career criminal.  Becoming a career criminal is a _*choice*_,  not a obligation.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I don't see anything in there about people in poverty not commiting more crime. If they are commiting more crime, doesn't it make sense that they are arrested more often?. . .
> 
> As far as being charged, convicted, and sentenced, I am sure that has a lot to do with the lawyer. In which case, your only complaint is essentially 'I am a criminal who can't afford the best lawyer.' My response is you shouldn't have been a criminal to begin with.


While we are at it, let's rid the world of lying, war, and potty mouths (look out for DiMaggio). Crimes are committed by a cross section of america according to class/wealth. Justice or punishment is not meted out in a like manner. My post shows that there's a bias at work in the legal system. That bias affects arrest rates, convictions, sentencing and parole. That bias favors the rich over the poor. If you have money or come from money you will not be treated the same as a poor person. That destroys the fundamental assertion that justice is blind. It isn't.

As for poverty 'causing' crime...sometimes the answer to that is yes--you know, stealing food when hungry.

"To see how well the U.S. Criminal Justice System takes care of the rich, consider what happens at the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency charged with keeping Wall Street honest. Researcher Susan Shapiro writes: 

"Out of every 100 suspects investigated by the SEC, 93 have committed securities violations that carry criminal penalties. Legal action is taken against 46 of them, but only 11 are selected for criminal treatment. Six of these are indicted; 5 will be convicted and 3 sentenced to prison." (15) 

Interestingly enough, when the government cracks down on the poor, it's praised for getting "tough on crime." But when it cracks down on the rich, it's condemned for "excessive regulation."" Source Ibid.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> "Out of every 100 suspects investigated by the SEC, 93 have committed securities violations that carry criminal penalties. Legal action is taken against 46 of them, but only 11 are selected for criminal treatment. Six of these are indicted; 5 will be convicted and 3 sentenced to prison." (15)
> 
> Interestingly enough, when the government cracks down on the poor, it's praised for getting "tough on crime." But when it cracks down on the rich, it's condemned for "excessive regulation."" Source Ibid.


Oh, bullshit.  That "46 of them" lose their licenses and their livelihood.  Additionally, it's much easier to get proof that someone robbed a liquor store than it is to prove they committed insider trading.

"93 have committed securities violations that carry criminal penalties"

If only 46 had legal action taken against them, then who decided that the other 47 (93-46) were guilty?  The court and/or SEC didn't think so, so who did?  The author?  So, becuase the SEC only finds anything of substance with 46 out of 100 investigations, they're dropping the ball?  Well, in that case, from now everyone who gets investigated for a crime is instantly guilty.

These sorts of "comparisons" are pure garbage.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Oh, bullshit. That "46 of them" lose their licenses and their lively hood. Additionally, it's much easier to get proof that someone robbed a liquor store than it is to prove they committed insider trading.


That _might_ be true. But you know what, they don't lose their freedom..no time in jail, just a slap on the wrist.



			
				DOMS said:
			
		

> "93 have committed securities violations that carry criminal penalties"
> 
> If only 46 had legal action taken against them, then who decided that the other 47 (93-46) were guilty? The court and/or SEC didn't think so, so who did? The author? So, becuase the SEC only finds anything of substance with 46 out of 100 investigations, they're dropping the ball? Well, in that case, from now everyone who get's investigated for a crime is instantly guilty.
> 
> These sorts of "comparisons" are pure garbage.


Maybe they're dropping the ball, I don't know but I have an idea. And no the comparisons are not pure garbage. It's the best comparison I can draw btn rich and poor criminals. Do street thugs commit securities violations? No, they hold up quicky marts. Do Stockbrokers commit blue collar crimes? No they commit white collar crimes.

The quote I use refers to 100 suspects. So we have 100 people already suspected of violating SEC regulations. Of those suspects, 93 have committed an act which justifies a criminal penalty instead of, oh say, a slap on the wrist. 46 of those people have acted in a manner that has a factual threshhold that merits prosecution. Of those 46 that merit prosecution, only 11 are actually prosecuted--lawyers, usually due to limited resources, go with the strongest cases. And so on w/ only 3 serving time. Don't go overboard, that was the quote of an expert. Here's the source: Susan Shapiro, "The Road Not Taken: The Elusive Path to Criminal Prosecution for White-Collar Offenders," _Law and Society Review_ 19, no. 2 (1985), p. 182 She's stating her conclusion as to statistical trends for white Collar offenders and she's using summary language.

Consider this also:
*Average Average time** sentence & served*
*Crimes of the poor:* 
..............(months); (months) 
Robbery 128.5; 46.5 
Larceny/theft 36.9; 18.3 
Burglary 35.6; 17.9 
*Crimes of the rich:* 
Fraud 27.8; 13.6 
Embezzlement 23.8; 11.4 
Income tax evasion18.3; 10.3

When it comes to hard time, you can't say it's fairly apportioned either.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That destroys the fundamental assertion that justice is blind. It isn't.




you know what, cry me a river.  I get so sick of this 'everythings hard for some people and easy for others' bullshit.

Everyone in this country is given a pretty close to equal shot.  Free K-12 education, higher education grants and loans....etc.  If you don't work hard, you won't be successful.

If you drop out of highschool and take a job at Wal-Mart, that is a conscious and intentional decision; a decision you made of your own free will.  If you take a job at Wal-Mart, you won't be able to afford certain things.  One of those things might be a high-priced attorney.  

What do you suggest we do?  Increase taxation and government spending so that every petty criminal gets the equivalent of Johnny Cochran?  Thats a great idea.

To me, you might as well be arguing that car crashes aren't fair becaues a poor person is less likely to have a working air bag.  Maybe we should give everyone in this country a Volvo.  Sound good to you?

OR, maybe we can except the fact that life isn't fair, and that most of the time you get what you put in to something.  If you spend 8 years of your life after highschool going into debt to become a brain surgeon, studying 60 hours a week without being paid a single penny, later in your life you can afford Johnny Cochran and you can afford a Volvo.  If you get a job at the Quicky-Mart you can't.



One benefit of working at the Quicky-Mart though is that you have an excuse for everything you do for the rest of your life, as if nothing is your fault.  Get arrested for selling heroin to an undercover cop, its not your fault, you were in poverty.  Get arrested for holding someone up at gun point, you were in poverty...


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Consider this also:
> *Average Average time** sentence & served*
> *Crimes of the poor:*
> ..............(months); (months)
> ...



How many times do you think someone has been killed or harmed in the course of a Burglary or Robbery.  How many times has someone been killed in the course of Embezzlement or Income tax evasion?



Of course, poor people can't really get convicted of income tax evasion because they don't pay hardly any taxes.  Yet they get the same government benefits.  Thats fair.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> How many times do you think someone has been killed or harmed in the course of a Burglary or Robbery.  How many times has someone been killed in the course of Embezzlement or Income tax evasion?
> 
> 
> 
> Of course, poor people can't really get convicted of income tax evasion because they don't pay hardly any taxes.  Yet they get the same government benefits.  Thats fair.




Direct deaths versus indirect deaths... hmmmm...


----------



## The Monkey Man (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty. On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.
> 
> You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse. Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty. Prostitution is high among women in poverty....
> 
> ...


 
*BLAME*
*OVERPOULATION!*

*And blame Overpopulation on greed!*

Period!


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Maybe they're dropping the ball, I don't know but I have an idea. And no the comparisons are not pure garbage. It's the best comparison I can draw btn rich and poor criminals. Do street thugs commit securities violations? No, they hold up quicky marts. Do Stockbrokers commit blue collar crimes? No they commit white collar crimes.



Consider this also:
*Average Average time** sentence & served*
*Crimes of the poor:* 
..............(months); (months) 
Robbery 128.5; 46.5 
Larceny/theft 36.9; 18.3 
Burglary 35.6; 17.9 
*Crimes of the rich:* 
Fraud 27.8; 13.6 
Embezzlement 23.8; 11.4 
Income tax evasion18.3; 10.3[/quote]

You're ignoring on simple fact: blue color crimes are more likely to be violent (murder, rape, robbery) or intrusive (burglary) than a white collar crimes.  These crimes are more threatening to society than telling someone about an impending merger or illegally diverting funds to your own account.

It's so much easier to segregate them into rich/poor crimes than violent/non-violent crimes.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> you know what, cry me a river. I get so sick of this 'everythings hard for some people and easy for others' bullshit.
> 
> Everyone in this country is given a pretty close to equal shot. Free K-12 education, higher education grants and loans....etc. If you don't work hard, you won't be successful.


What are you so angry at?

"Everyone gets an equal shot"?
For adults, countless factors other than personal merit (Working Hard) contribute to success. A partial list includes: 

Access to first-rate education
Training opportunities
Personality type
Physical attractiveness
Height
Athletic ability
Inheritance
Nepotism
Prejudice (and not just against race or gender)
Social and business connections
Knowing someone who is successful
Lobbying Congress
Business cycle trends
Fads
Inventions
Discoveries
Wars
Speculation
Gambling
Miserliness
Insider trading
Unfair market practices
And, last but not least, dumb luck -- being at the right place at the right time. John D. Rockefeller once described becoming rich as a 3-step process: "1. Go to work early. 2. Stay late. 3. Find oil."
Jeez, just look at our great leader GWB so that you may know you're operating under a flawed model of analysis. Many people work very hard. These hardworkers may have limited skills intellectually and can advance only so far. Indeed, in the words of Judge Smehls, "The world needs ditch diggers too." and it does. Should those people be consigned to second class citizenship? You seem to think so.

As for addressing the inequality of legal counsel available to the poor, the gov. could increase taxation and pay defense lawyers more to attract better qualified lawyers as per your idea. But I'm open to suggestions.

Yes, you are right...car crashes and the dispensation of impartial justice under our legal system are the same things. I should have seen that before.

No one but you is arguing hard work's role as an advantage for succeeding in life. 

What is poverty? It's the low end of the national Income scale. There're multiple studies showing the effects of income inequality on our poor and middle class:
In 1996, Harvard and Berkeley published separate studies that examined income inequality in all 50 states. (3) According to Bruce Kennedy, the lead researcher of the Harvard study, "The size of the gap between the wealthy and less well-off, as distinct from the absolute standard of living enjoyed by the poor, appears to be related to mortality." (4) Both studies found that states with higher income inequality have all the following social problems: 

Higher death rates for all age groups.
Higher rates of homicide.
Higher rates of violent crime.
Higher costs per person for police protection.
Higher rates of incarceration.
Higher rates of unemployment.
A higher percentage of people receiving income assistance and food stamps.
More high-school dropouts.
Less state funds spent per person on education.
Fewer books per person in the schools.
Poorer educational performance, including worse reading skills, worse math skills.
Higher infant mortality rates.
Higher heart disease.
Higher cancer rates.
A greater percentage of people without medical insurance.
A greater proportion of babies born with low birth weight.
A greater proportion of the population unable to work because of disabilities.
A higher proportion of the population using tobacco.
A higher proportion of the population being sedentary (inactive).
Higher costs per-person for medical care.
Dr. George Kaplan, the lead researcher of the Berkeley study, says: "People might assume that states with higher income inequality have more poor people, and we know that poor people have higher death rates. [But] the evidence in these two studies suggests that the increased death rates in those states are not due simply to their having more poor people. *Income inequality seems to be increasing mortality rates among nonpoor people as well, and we are investigating that possibility.*" Source: Steve Kangas

What does this all mean? It means that the poor (and increasingly lower middle class) don't have an equal opportunity on the same footing as say George W. Bush. It also says that the actions of the upper class necessarily affect the very lives of the people on the low end of the scale. We live in an interdependent society that's greatly influenced by the high rollers. The corporate crime and excessive salaries do have a negative effect on the poor. You fixate on crime associated w/ poor people but gloss over the much more highly destructive and expensive white collar crimes--price fixing, market rigging, pension stealing, anti-trust crimes that affect the whole country for the benefit of a few. Why you do this, I don't know. Money buys influence...sure, apparently justice also.


----------



## GFR (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Consider this also:
> *Average Average time** sentence & served*
> *Crimes of the poor:*
> ..............(months); (months)
> ...


 
I would rater get raped and beat up then have some CEO fuck and his buddies embezzle my 1.4 million life savings. My ass will heal and so will the rest of my body.....But at 70 I don't have time to get my savings back...

The idea that physical violence is worse than financial violence is laughable....just another myth the rich use to keep the bottom 90% on their knees.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> *Income inequality seems to be increasing mortality rates among nonpoor people as well, and we are investigating that possibility.*



So what you're saying is that life is better with more money?  That's crazy talk!

Of all the countries in the world, the US provides more opporotunities for advancement than any other.  But just because those opporotunities are there, doesn't mean that you're forced to take them.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I would rater get raped and beat up then have some CEO fuck and his buddies embezzle my 1.4 million life savings. My ass will heal and so will the rest of my body.....But at 70 I don't have time to get my savings back...
> 
> The idea that physical violence is worse than financial violence is laughable....just another myth the rich use to keep the bottom 90% on their knees.



Maybe you find getting ass-raped more palatable than losing money, but that's your preference, not mine.  No amount of embezzeling is going to give you a chronic disabliity.   You are a very shallow person.

Getting rich (as opposed to having it given to you) revolves around one or more skills that got you there.  Many self-made millionaires have lost their fortunes at least once, if not more, on their way to a stable and wealthy lifestyle.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Consider this also:
> *Average Average time** sentence & served*
> *Crimes of the poor:*
> ..............(months); (months)
> ...


You oversimplify. So all those people that lose their life savings b/c of anothers pump 'n dump or insider trading are aok? What about the pension scandals of some these fine upstanding white collar folk--you know, understating the costs of their co.'s pension plan till settlement is due then dumping the debt on the gov or lying to the consumer about the safety of their products resulting in death and disease or fixing prices to drive competitors out of business and into bankruptcy--like say local farmers...or environmental dumping delivering carcinogens to our water supply (same goes for the air we breath)? There's a hell of alot more where that came from.


----------



## GFR (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Maybe you find getting ass-raped more palatable than losing money, but that's your preference, not mine. No amount of embezzeling is going to give you a chronic disabliity. You are a very shallow person.
> 
> Getting rich (as opposed to having it given to you) revolves around one or more skills that got you there. Many self-made millionaires have lost their fortunes at least once, if not more, on their way to a stable and wealthy lifestyle.


 
If at 65 I gave you the choice of: #1. Me beating the shit out of you or me taking all your money...I think we both know you would take the beat down


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that life is better with more money?  That's crazy talk!
> 
> Of all the countries in the world, the US provides more *opporotunities* for advancement than any other.  But just because those opporotunities are there, doesn't mean that you're forced to take them.




Too bad you didn't take advantage of those "opporotunities."


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> So what you're saying is that life is better with more money? That's crazy talk!....


I'm not drawing that obvious conclusion at all and that's not my statement but the conclusion drawn by the head of the Harvard study: Relative inequality and not absolute inequality of income/wealth is a prime indicator of mortality for the classes.

"A hypothetical example might best describe these findings. Imagine an equal society where everyone makes $30,000 a year, and enjoys a life expectancy of 70 years. Now let's add income inequality to this society, so that it continues to make as much collectively as it did before, but a third now make $20,000 a year, a third $30,000, and a third $40,000. We might expect the average life span to remain at 70 years, since the shorter life spans of the poorest group should be offset by the longer life spans of the richest group. But that is not the case; not only do the poor lose years, but the middle class as well. The new average life span of the whole group may be only 67, not 70. We'll explore some possible explanations for this unexpected result below."

"Dr. Kaplan and his colleagues reported that "income inequality increased in all states except Alaska from 1980 to 1990." Over the decade, they said, mortality declined in all states (due to increases in the absolute standard of living), but those with greater income inequality showed smaller declines in mortality. (8) If this lends comfort to those who still believe in the "growing pie" argument, it should be pointed out that inequality still costs hundreds of thousands of lives per year. Let's consider just _one_ of the many problems in the above list: coronary heart disease. The Harvard team concluded that if the U.S. reduced its Robin Hood index of income inequality from 30 to 25 percent (about where it is in England), deaths from coronary heart disease would be reduced by 25 percent. In 1993, the U.S. suffered 489,970 deaths from coronary heart disease; a quarter of that would have represented 122,493 lives saved for that year alone." Source Ibid.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> You oversimplify.


Why? Because you say so?  One is group of crimes is more likely to be violent than another.  This is a clear, and valid, distinction.  Saying that you wish it wasn't so simple doesn't make it so.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> So all those people that lose their life savings b/c of anothers pump 'n dump or insider trading are aok?
> 
> ...



I never even intimated that.  What I did say was that blue collar crimes tend to be more violent than white collar crimes, and are therefore, two different classes of crime (in a general sense).  

Are you trying to say that more people are injured by the ineptitued or maliciousness of companies than by individuals?  Or are you trying to say that the officers of companies should be held responsible for injuries caused by their products?  If it's the latter, then I agree with you.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> What are you so angry at?
> 
> "Everyone gets an equal shot"?
> For adults, countless factors other than personal merit (Working Hard) contribute to success. A partial list includes:
> ...





your point is that some people have it easier than others?  thats true.  my point was that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.

There is not a single person in my graduating highschool class who couldn't be where I am right now.  They aren't here because they didn't succeed, some dropped out before graduation, some didn't go to college, some dropped out of college, some didn't pick a major in college that would afford them a good job.....

some people have trust funds.  is that your only point?  Well, you are right.  Some people inherit a million dollars, some people are given a job because of their last name, and some people earn what they get.  Anyone can fit into the latter group with a little hard work.  So don't blame things on 'poverty' like it is some mystical and unexplainable phenomenon, people 'afflicted' with poverty having no responsibility for it and having an excuse for everything they do.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> . . .Are you trying to say that more people are injured by the ineptitued or maliciousness of companies than by individuals? Or are you trying to say that the officers of companies should be held responsible for injuries caused by their products? If it's the latter, then I agree with you.


Yes. Yes. and great.  I think everyone here acknowledges personal responsibility.  Like most things in life though painting that picture of the meaning of personal responsibility, crime, and poverty w/ broad strokes doesn't do justice to the true complexity involved in the matter.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Both studies found that states with higher income inequality have all the following social problems...



^ This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.

look, all I am trying to say is that the social problems aren't caused by the poverty, that it is the other way around.  People talk about the gap between the rich and the poor as if you can just take more money from the rich, give it to poor people for free and your problems are solved.  My point is that, for the most part, poor people put themself in the situation they are in.  If the year 2006 began by making everyone's bank balance exactly the same, by the end of the decade the people who were poor before would probably be poor again, and people would again be talking about 'income inequality' like it was some problem caused by injustice.

income inequality exists because character inequality and work-ethic inequality exist


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> your point is that some people have it easier than others? thats true. my point was that everyone has an opportunity to succeed.


That's not my point.



			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> There is not a single person in my graduating highschool class who couldn't be where I am right now. They aren't here because they didn't succeed, some dropped out before graduation, some didn't go to college, some dropped out of college, some didn't pick a major in college that would afford them a good job.....


I disagree. By your own admission some would drop out before graduation thus they did not have the intellectual character that you do. Everyone has different skills, abilities and limitations. There is no 'one way' to success in life. i.e., all the hard work in the world runs into a brick wall for some.



			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> some people have trust funds. is that your only point? Well, you are right. Some people inherit a million dollars, some people are given a job because of their last name, and some people earn what they get. Anyone can fit into the latter group with a little hard work. So don't blame things on 'poverty' like it is some mystical and unexplainable phenomenon, people 'afflicted' with poverty having no responsibility for it and having an excuse for everything they do.


I'm not blaming the poor. I'm blaming the rich that exacerbate the income inequality to the point of feudal times. There will always be poor people and there will always be people unable to rise out of that class.


----------



## GFR (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I disagree. By your own admission some would drop out before graduation thus *they did not have the intellectual character that you do*. .


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> There will always be poor people and there will always be people unable to rise out of that class.



you and I are in agreement, I think, on almost all points except for one.  

your definition of 'unable' has to do with uncontrolable limitations, my definition of 'unable' has to do with character, hard work, perserverance...etc.  

It is entirely possible for someone born in America, raised by a single mother with no economic support whatsoever, to graduate from medical school and retire in the top 2% of economic standing in the country.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> ^ This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
> 
> look, all I am trying to say is that the social problems aren't caused by the poverty, that it is the other way around. People talk about the gap between the rich and the poor as if you can just take more money from the rich, give it to poor people for free and your problems are solved....


I understand what you are saying but clearly I disagree. Look at the top marginal tax rate in the 1950s--largely considered the Golden Age of that century--the top marginal tax rate was around 78% and the middle class was exploding. So yes, you can take money from the rich and give it the poor with astounding results. I believe that was a premise of the New Deal...which brought our country out of the Depression.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> ...your definition of 'unable' has to do with uncontrolable limitations, my definition of 'unable' has to do with character, hard work, perserverance...etc.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> If it ain't in you to be something, all the work in the world won't change that.



so the answer is to not expect them to achieve any measure of success what so ever, drop out, get a job at Wal-Mart, and count on the government to redistribute the wealth in a manner similar to communism....


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> the top marginal tax rate was around 78%....



I am not fluent in tax lingo.  Does this mean that the government took 78% of someones paycheck?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Too bad you didn't take advantage of those "opporotunities."



Did you know that putting two tablespoons of Crystal Drano on your cornflakes will keep the crunchie, even in milk?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Yes. Yes. and great.  I think everyone here acknowledges personal responsibility.  Like most things in life though painting that picture of the meaning of personal responsibility, crime, and poverty w/ broad strokes doesn't do justice to the true complexity involved in the matter.



This is most ceratainly true, but it always comes down to personal responsibility (which you've acknowledged).  

My question to you then is: what's your point?  Yes, access to money provides more opportunities, and yes, the poor suffer more than the rich.  So, life isn't equal for everyone, and it likely never will be, so long as an individual is allowed to be an individual.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> This is most ceratainly true, but it always comes down to personal responsibility (which you've acknowledged).
> 
> My question to you then is: what's your point? Yes, access to money provides more opportunities, and yes, the poor suffer more than the rich. So, life isn't equal for everyone, and it likely never will be, so long as an individual is allowed to be an individual.


My point was to address the question about poverty, crime and individual responsibility.  My overall point is that poverty is a societal condition that can be somewhat ameliorated by societal solutions.  And that personal responsibility and hard work are fairly noble concepts but not conclusive of one's progress and lot in life.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am not fluent in tax lingo. Does this mean that the government took 78% of someones paycheck?


I believe every dollar earned _over_ $250k or so was taxed at a 78% clip. The money below that was taxed at lower rates as the dollar amount went down. It hasn't changed that the US has a graded personal income tax system where the rate increases as the dollar amount increases.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> And that personal responsibility and hard work are fairly noble concepts but not conclusive of one's progress and lot in life.



"fairly noble concepts"  

I know its a foreign idea to some, but those crazy concepts seem to working for me.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It hasn't changed that the US has a graded personal income tax system where the rate increases as the dollar amount increases.



Oh, I am well aware.  I don't remember the exact numbers, but I read somewhere that someone who makes 150K pays 11 times as much money for the same government benefits as someone who makes around 50K.  

Of course, if that number gets reduced to 10.75 times as much, everyone starts screaming about 'tax cuts for the rich.'


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

I agree with your statement.  The problem is that you can't force to rise up in the standards of living.  I should note that redistribution of wealth is not the answer.


----------



## GFR (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Oh, I am well aware. I don't remember the exact numbers, but I read somewhere that someone who makes 150K pays 11 times as much money for the same government benefits as someone who makes around 50K.
> 
> Of course, if that number gets reduced to 10.75 times as much, everyone starts screaming about 'tax cuts for the rich.'


Nope
http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> "fairly noble concepts"
> 
> I know its a foreign idea to some, but those crazy concepts seem to working for me.



No doubt.  I thought that personal responsibility and hard work are an integral part of being successful.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I agree with your statement. The problem is that you can't force to rise up in the standards of living. I should note that redistribution of wealth is not the answer.


I suppose this is where you (& Clemson357) and I part company. Another time we'll start a thread on the merits of governmental redistribution of resources.


----------



## Decker (Feb 8, 2006)

It's Miller time gentlemen.  Have a great night.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I suppose this is where you (& Clemson357) and I part company. Another time we'll start a thread on the merits of governmental redistribution of resources.



Sure.  It worked so great for the Indians. 

Have a good night, pal!  

Just remember: 1 gram of alcohol = 8 calories!


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Nope
> http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html



pretty close,

a head of household making 163K pay 7.5 times as much money as someone who makes 38K.

One person pays apporximately 54 thousand dollars, the other pays 7K.  They get THE EXACT SAME government benefits.  In fact, the person who pays only 7k actually gets more because their children qualify for government educational grants and things of that nature.


----------



## GFR (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> pretty close,
> 
> a head of household making 163K pay 7.5 times as much money as someone who makes 38K.
> 
> One person pays apporximately 54 thousand dollars, the other pays 7K. They get THE EXACT SAME government benefits. In fact, the person who pays only 7k actually gets more because their children qualify for government educational grants and things of that nature.


I agree.....we should drop the tax rate for the 150K+ club to 5%, and 2% for the 350K+ club


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> pretty close,
> 
> a head of household making 163K pay 7.5 times as much money as someone who makes 38K.
> 
> One person pays apporximately 54 thousand dollars, the other pays 7K.  They get THE EXACT SAME government benefits.  In fact, the person who pays only 7k actually gets more because their children qualify for government educational grants and things of that nature.



True Story.

What kind of communist got these tax laws passed!


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

you forget, if we had a flat tax rate someone making 160K would still be paying 4 times as someone making 40K.

It also bothers me that someone who makes $320K pays the exact same percent rate as Bill Gates...  If you are going to increase the rate as income increases, you should increase it past 500K as well.  I mean, what sense does it make to say 'A person who makes 150K can afford to lose a higher percentage of their income than someone who makes 40K, but once you get above 320K all things should be equal.'


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

They tried something like that.  It was called a "luxury tax."  Simply put, if you purchased a rich man's toy, like a yacht, you payed a much higher tax rate than the non-wealthy.  It didnt' work.   Sure, the rich who purchased such items payed more taxes, but then they ended up spending less (they purchased less 'toys.'  So, less yachts were sold, less parts were purchased after market, less mechanical work was needed, less fuel was used, less marinas were rented...and on, and on.

It's not as simple as it sounds.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 8, 2006)

what you are describing and what i described are two completely different things


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> ........
> 
> wouldn't expect you to respond in substance...


 
Don't expect me too, the more I talk the more you find out about me.
I like the animosity the web gives me, I do not have to be worried on how I am judged here.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Don't expect me too, the more I talk the more you find out about me.
> I like the *animosity *the web gives me, I do not have to be worried on how I am judged here.



Uh-oh, Freudian Slip!  Don't worry though min0, I'll still love you anyway.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Uh-oh, Freudian Slip!  Don't worry though min0, I'll still love you anyway.





And min0 will still hate you.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2006)

I meant anonymousness ....I think...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 8, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> And min0 will still hate you.


 
Nah..He's cool.


----------



## brogers (Feb 8, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree.....we should drop the tax rate for the 150K+ club to 5%, and 2% for the 350K+ club


 
How about everyone pays the same dollar amount?  I bet 90% of Americans would immediately become libertarians.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> And min0 will still hate you.





			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> Nah..He's cool.




You can barely speak for yourself BigDyl, so don't try to speak for someone else.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 8, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You can barely speak for yourself BigDyl, so don't try to speak for someone else.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 8, 2006)




----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> How about everyone pays the same dollar amount?


I agree 100%.....as long as they "all" get the same legal and medical support ( no special treatment) , all college is free.....and campaign contributionsare no longer allowed......all done through taxes for all political parties equally. And nepotism is punished by 10-20 in federal prision and a 25% fine of your famlies entire worth.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree 100%.....as long as they "all" get the same legal and medical support ( no special treatment) , all college is free.....and campaign contributionsare no longer allowed......all done through taxes for all political parties equally. And nepotism is punished by 10-20 in federal prision and a 25% fine of your famlies entire worth.


 
hm, my point was the government is overgrown, but since the poor don't have to bear the burden, they don't realize it.  If they did have to pay an equal share, everyone would be crying for cutbacks.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

The poor doesn't bear the burden.  The middle class does.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> hm, my point was the government is overgrown, but since the poor don't have to bear the burden, they don't realize it. If they did have to pay an equal share, everyone would be crying for cutbacks.


I agree 100% lets double the poors taxes.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree 100% lets double the poors taxes.


 
0 * 2 = 0


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> 0 * 2 = 0


*I said poor, not homeless*.. 


these people are the poor.....and they do pay taxes 


http://taxes.yahoo.com/rates.html

the 10% and 15% columns


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> hm, my point was the government is overgrown, but since the poor don't have to bear the burden, they don't realize it.  If they did have to pay an equal share, everyone would be crying for cutbacks.



Maybe if we cutback on the social problems, the poor might do something to make themselves more productive and "less poor."


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree 100% lets double the poors taxes.




I don't understand why you feel the need to be such a snide asshole about everything.  


Do you agree or disagree with his statement, that being 'if the poor were made to bear a larger tax burden, there would be more of an outcry to cut government spending.'


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

Its easy to become the manager of a K-Mart, pull in 37K the rest of your life, pay a mere 4 or 5K in taxes and not give a damn about government spending.  After all, the overwhelming majority of the money getting spent is taken from people who make over 100K.  Why should you give a damn about them, because they make more money they are less deserving of the money they make than you are, right?

It has become so expected in America to take more from someone who achieves more, or is more successful.  What about that is inherently fair?  Why is it an unwritten law that if you never break 40K you expect to pay little to no taxes?


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

I guess I am just especially bitter because I never had unfounded opportunities, I worked my ass off to get where I am, whereas 75% of my highschool graduating class did nothing after graduation even though they had the same opportunities I did.  They have been working for the last 6 years, bringing in positive income, while I have been working 50-60 hour weeks making absolutely nothing, going tens of thousands of dollars in debt.  In the end, society assumes my success is a product of things that were handed to me without any effort, and therefore they feel free to take what they want.

In another decade, I might have my student loans paid off, I will hopefully be making 6 figures, and I will still be hearing a bunch of snide fucking comments by people who run a cash register 40 hours a week and feel they are entitled to every penny they make whereas I am insane for expecting to keep 75% of my income.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I don't understand why you feel the need to be such a snide asshole about everything.
> 
> 
> Do you agree or disagree with his statement, that being 'if the poor were made to bear a larger tax burden, there would be more of an outcry to cut government spending.'


I could give a shit about trying to solve the Countries problems on this stupid thread. You have an agenda and I couldnt care less about it


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Its easy to become the manager of a K-Mart, pull in 37K the rest of your life, pay a mere 4 or 5K in taxes and not give a damn about government spending. After all, the overwhelming majority of the money getting spent is taken from people who make over 100K. Why should you give a damn about them, because they make more money they are less deserving of the money they make than you are, right?
> 
> It has become so expected in America to take more from someone who achieves more, or is more successful. What about that is inherently fair? Why is it an unwritten law that if you never break 40K you expect to pay little to no taxes?


 
I see you have no idea what a K-Mart store manager makes  the assistants make 30-40K...the manager 3x that...depending on the store and the state..

And it is very hard to become the store manager...


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I could give a shit about trying to solve the Countries problems on this stupid thread. You have an agenda and I couldnt care less about it




yet you are still here pestering people who are tyring to have a conversation?  about something you don't care about at all

you must have a really pathetic life.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> yet you are still here pestering people who are tyring to have a conversation? about something you don't care about at all
> 
> you must have a really pathetic life.


I am doing the same thing you are doing......acting the fool


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> And it is very hard to become the store manager...



my buddy was the manager of a chic-fil-a before he graduated highschool.  That might be very hard for some...namely the mentally retarded.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> my buddy was the manager of a chic-fil-a before he graduated highschool. That might be very hard for some...namely the mentally retarded.


 
You said K-Mart not chic-fil-a.....stop spinning your story son. When you learn the difference between a crap management job and a good one let me know. 

And if it's so eazy to become the store manager of a K-Mart then why don't you go do it.....My Brother is one and it took him 10 years hard work and a MBA to get it, now he makes over 100K and only works 40Hrs most weeks.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> You said K-Mart not chic-fil-a.....stop spinning your story son. When you learn the difference between a crap management job and a good one let me know.
> 
> And if it's so eazy to become the store manager of a K-Mart then why don't you go do it.....My Brother is one and it took him 10 years hard work and a MBA to get it, now he makes over 100K and only works 40Hrs most weeks.



I am very sorry I hurt your feelings.  I didn't know you were so sensitive on the topic of managers of K-Marts...

I have absolutely no doubt that if I had started working right out of highschool, by now I could be a manager of some sort making around 40K.  That was my only point.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am very sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't know you were so sensitive on the topic of managers of K-Marts...
> 
> I have absolutely no doubt that if I had started working right out of highschool, by now I could be a manager of some sort making around 40K. That was my only point.


Not personal feelings son, just want you to post facts not the bull shit you make up. I agree with you that you could have become the manager of some little crappy store without a college degree....not hard to do at all.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Not personal feelings *son*, .


 
I am ashamed of you Foreman, I thought you raised your son a lot better.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I am ashamed of you Foreman, I thought you raised your son a lot better.


My entire life is shame


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The poor doesn't bear the burden. The middle class does.


I concur.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My entire life is shame


There, there......it's not your fault you gave your son everytthing a kid can ask for, who would have thought he would grow up to be a spoiled bigot....


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> There, there......it's not your fault you gave your son everytthing a kid can ask for, who would have thought he would grow up to be a *spoiled bigot*....


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> There, there......it's not your fault you gave your son everytthing a kid can ask for, who would have thought he would grow up to be a spoiled bigot....


 
Damn bigots.  Wanting poor people to blame their mistakes for causing them to be poor, instead of being poor causing their mistakes. What a RADICAL idea.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Damn bigots. Wanting poor people to blame their mistakes for causing them to be poor, instead of being poor causing their mistakes. What a RADICAL idea.


Total BS


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My entire life is shame




BANNED! (Reason: Pathetic excuse for a human being!!!!!)


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> It's Miller time gentlemen.  Have a great night.




You must be poor if you are drinking that swill.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Damn bigots. Wanting poor people to blame their mistakes for causing them to be poor, instead of being poor causing their mistakes. What a RADICAL idea.


 
Oh so I see you know about the spoiled bigot, look.....if the poor really bother him so much then do something about, educate them or just shoot them.....get off your damn ass and do something.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> You must be poor if you are drinking that swill.


True story.......just another middle class slave with dreams of being one of the "new rich."


----------



## BulkMeUp (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> look.....if the poor really bother him so much then do something about, educate them or just shoot them.....*get off your damn ass and do something*.


      

Paying lip service never helped solve anything!!


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Oh so I see you know about the spoiled bigot, look.....if the poor really bother him so much then do something about, educate them or just shoot them.....get off your damn ass and do something.


 
Here's what I'd do:  I'd stop the government from stealing from those who work hard and redistributing to lazy, irresponsible idiots (or anyone for that matter).  I'm willing to bet poor people spend more money on lottery tickets than anyone, more on alcohol, more on cigarrettes.

The government is MAKING him "do something" (stealing his money via taxes).  Surprisingly, giving away freebies to people in poverty doesn't encourage people to work.

If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

BTW since we started doing all these retarded social programs the "wealth gap" that every socialist loves to refer to has only increased.  Your solution?  more government involvement.  Great idea, let's take a miserable failure of a program and give it more support.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>


 
intelligent response, from an intelligent person.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> intelligent response, from an intelligent person.




True Story


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Here's what I'd do:  I'd stop the government from stealing from those who work hard and redistributing to lazy, irresponsible idiots (or anyone for that matter).  I'm willing to bet poor people spend more money on lottery tickets than anyone, more on alcohol, more on cigarrettes.
> 
> The government is MAKING him "do something" (stealing his money via taxes).  Surprisingly, giving away freebies to people in poverty doesn't encourage people to work.
> 
> If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.



Let's get real for a second, I am totally against welfare, but that is a drop in the bucket.  If the gov't had a flat tax rate that we all could deal with we wouldn't be able to go invade any country we want like we do now.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

I read the first two sentences and stopped, I fall in the middle class bracket and I don't think the poor should live on easy street but at the same time they could use some help to get them back at there feet...I never realized you were filthy rich Brogers.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Here's what I'd do: I'd stop the government from stealing from those who work hard and redistributing to lazy, irresponsible idiots (or anyone for that matter). I'm willing to bet poor people spend more money on lottery tickets than anyone, more on alcohol, more on cigarrettes.
> 
> The government is MAKING him "do something" (stealing his money via taxes). Surprisingly, giving away freebies to people in poverty doesn't encourage people to work.
> 
> If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.


I agree 100%....but corporate welfare is ok 

http://www.corporations.org/welfare/
http://www.corporations.org/welfare/


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.





If you have no need to change, odds are you won't.

What you _*will *_do is look at those who have more than you and whine about how life isn't fair.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I read the first two sentences and stopped, I fall in the middle class bracket and I don't think the poor should live on easy street but at the same time they could use some help to get them back at there feet...I never realized you were filthy rich Brogers.


 

Right some giving them freebies for being poor is encouragement to not be poor.  Welfare doesn't pay that well, but the hours a great.  Know what I mean?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> BTW since we started doing all these retarded social programs the "wealth gap" that every socialist loves to refer to has only increased. Your solution?* more government involvement*. Great idea, let's take a miserable failure of a program and give it more support.


Well then what do we do? Send them to a penal colony? Justt sweep them under the rug and forget about them?

You seem pretty knowledgable....what's your answer to this problem.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Let's get real for a second, I am totally against welfare, but that is a drop in the bucket. If the gov't had a flat tax rate that we all could deal with we wouldn't be able to go invade any country we want like we do now.


 
I don't think we should invade either, why risk American's lives?  If we are going to attack someone we should be willing to completely obliterate them.  If you aren't willing to do what it takes to win (destroy the enemy) you shouldn't enter a conflict.  And if you're not willing to destroy the enemy, you shouldn't be there.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Well then what do we do? Send them to a penal colony? Justt sweep them under the rug and forget about them?
> 
> You seem pretty knowledgable....what's your answer to this problem.




I have the perfect response to this, but I am not going to say it because it is as offensive as you can get.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Well then what do we do? Send them to a penal colony? Justt sweep them under the rug and forget about them?
> 
> You seem pretty knowledgable....what's your answer to this problem.


 
Socialist bullshit was tried in the 1600's in the colonies and it failed on that miserably small scale. John Smith had it right: "No work, no food."

Welfare is a de facto incentive to NOT WORK. You don't reward failure. You don't give your dog a treat when he shits on your carpet, do you?

EDIT:  I believe the poor should be helped, but it should be through private charities, not the government forcing their burden upon the country.  Not to mention, I think some ridiculously small percentage of money earmarked for "social programs" actually gets to the person in need.  It goes alot more to pay government workers handsome salaries than someone struggling.  The entire thing is inefficient and needs to be done away with.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> intelligent response, from an intelligent person.



That's a typical post from BigDyl.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> That's a typical post from BigDyl.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Welfare is a de facto incentive to NOT WORK.  You don't reward failure.  You don't give your dog a treat when he shits on your carpet, do you?



We are in a system that rewards stupidity.  See Pussification of America, or just browse civil lawsuits for examples.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Well then what do we do? Send them to a penal colony? Justt sweep them under the rug and forget about them?
> 
> You seem pretty knowledgable....what's your answer to this problem.



What you do is be realistic.  You cannot force change on people without striping them of thier basic rights and dignity.  You cannot force someone to be a better person.  The one thing you don't want to do is make them dependent on others for their well being.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> We are in a system that rewards stupidity. See Pussification of America, or just browse civil lawsuits for examples.


 
it's pretty disturbing.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

>





> Boy, you might be legally retarded.


.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

What's all this "might" talk?


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

Funny thread.....we have middle class people bitching about the tiny benifits the poor get.....and ignoring the huge benefits of corporate welfare. Just proves the worship of wealth is more important to some than having legitimate  laws that treat all people equally....LMAO

http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sycophant


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

True Story, I don't have time to write a long winded post right now.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Funny thread.....we have middle class people bitching about the tiny benifits the poor get.....and ignoring the huge benefits of corporate welfare. Just proves the worship of wealth is more important to some than having legitimate  laws that treat all people equally....LMAO
> 
> http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/sycophant




Those "tiny" benefits are counter-productive.

Oh, I'm middle class now, but I grew at the bottom of the lower class.  How did I make the move?  Not through some "Please sir, may I have some more?" social program.  I worked hard and learned well.

What's funny is that you come from a middle (possibly upper class) family, and you're trying to say how life in the lower class should be handled. 

That's rich.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> What's all this "might" talk?



Hey, it was a quote from "Sean Connery."


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree 100%....but *corporate welfare* is ok
> 
> http://www.corporations.org/welfare/


 

I work for a place like that!


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Those "tiny" benefits are counter-productive.
> 
> Oh, I'm middle class now, but I grew at the bottom of the lower class. How did I make the move? Not through some "Please sir, may I have some more?" social program. I worked hard and learned well.
> 
> ...


My post was a challenge to all you sycophants to prove to us that the welfair of the poor costs the tax payers ( the middle class) more than that of the rich.

My family is very rich ( not Trump rich though) and I have seen first hand the privlages of wealth......they are disgusting.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My post was a challenge to all you sycophants to prove to us that the welfair of the poor costs the tax payers ( the middle class) more than that of the rich.


 
Social programs account for 34% of national budget.  Granted, some of that is spent on schools (badly managed), but a large portion of that is spent on social program.  The real cost goes beyond money.  Among the money things that it "costs" us, is the social mire it creates that helps to keep the poor in their current condition.  Along with all the associated crimes, broken families, etc.



			
				ForemanRules said:
			
		

> My family is very rich ( not Trump rich though) and I have seen first hand the privlages of wealth......they are disgusting.



I'm crying on the inside.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Those "tiny" benefits are counter-productive.
> 
> Oh, I'm middle class now, but I grew at the bottom of the lower class.  How did I make the move?  Not through some "Please sir, may I have some more?" social program.  I worked hard and learned well.
> 
> ...




Same here, we had to use both sides of the TP before throwing it in the shitter.  Plus, the toilet had to be 2/3 full of shit before flushing, regardless of smell.  Not that I am complaining, shit flushes better when it has sat in water for 2 days anyway.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Social programs account for 34% of national budget. Granted, some of that is spent on schools (badly managed), but a large portion of that is spent on social program. The real cost goes beyond money. Among the money things that it "costs" us, is the social mire it creates that helps to keep the poor in their current condition. Along with all the associated crimes, broken families, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm crying on the inside.


Post a link that states 34% of the national budget is for welfare


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

all social programs... I thought it was more like 60%


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Post a link that states 34% of the national budget is for welfare



You need to re-read my post.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> Same here, we had to use both sides of the TP before throwing it in the shitter.  Plus, the toilet had to be 2/3 full of shit before flushing, regardless of smell.  Not that I am complaining, shit flushes better when it has sat in water for 2 days anyway.



I think you had it worse than I did!  

I lived in places that had communal toilets.  You could flush as much as you wanted to. It smelled like you wouldn't believe though.  When you live on the street there was always fast food places.

Did you ever have to fry Corn Flakes in butter because it's all you had?  Poverty breeds creativity.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

55% I was damn close.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I think you had it worse than I did!
> 
> I lived in places that had communal toilets.  You could flush as much as you wanted to. It smelled like you wouldn't believe though.  When you live on the street there was always fast food places.
> 
> Did you ever have to fry Corn Flakes in butter because it's all you had?  Poverty breeds creativity.




You should try preserving them with drano.  I hear it makes them extra crispy too.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Did you ever have to fry Corn Flakes in butter because it's all you had?  Poverty breeds creativity.




We couldn't afford butter or electricity, or a spatula to flip them.  Had a pretty nice pan, though.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> You need to re-read my post.


And you mine


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> 55% I was damn close.


try again


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> You should try preserving them with drano.  I hear it makes them extra crispy too.


Dale was right.  Quote or no quote, I'm dropping the "might."




> Boy, you're legally retarded.


.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> We couldn't afford butter or electricity, or a spatula to flip them.  Had a pretty nice pan, though.



Are you joking or being serious?


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 9, 2006)

Just fucking around, but I couldn't play youth football or hockey because we couldn't afford all of the equipment.  A word of note, my father just bought an H3 the other day.  Why that money couldn't be around when I was a youngin I will never know.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> There, there......it's not your fault you gave your son everytthing a kid can ask for, who would have thought he would grow up to be a spoiled bigot....



I would expect no less from you....


Make a commentary on crime statistics, you are a bigot

Make a commentary on unequal taxation, you are spoiled



I guess that I can't really expect more from citizens of this country these days.  It is so commonly excepted that people have no responsibility for their situation they are in that anyone who suggests otherwise is attacked personally.

Of course, its easy to say whatever you want behind the "animosity" of a website.  Especially, from some unintelligent troll with the vocabulary of a fourth grader, who can muster nothing but personal attacks.  You refuse to devulge a single personal trait to anyone, even one as simple as your gender, yet you grasp on to anything you can to attack other people.  Is there a reason you think anyone who is successful is spoiled?  Can you wrap your mind around the concept of an adult coversation and articulate a substantive response, or is that beyond you?


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I would expect no less from you....
> 
> 
> Make a commentary on crime statistics, you are a bigot
> ...


 
Get off your high horse son, when you have one legitimate non racist/non party line political thread we might listen to you.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Get off your high horse son, when you have one legitimate non racist/non party line political thread we might listen to you.



yeah?  what "party" am I in, politically?

what about not appreciating personal attacks constitutes a "high horse?"


Of course, I know I won't get a substantive response....


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> yeah? what "party" am I in, politically? *1.*
> 
> what about not appreciating personal attacks constitutes a "high horse?" *2.*
> 
> ...


1. You are a Republican .......very easy to see that fact son.
2. Don't play the martyr, you are not good at it.  
3. The pot calling the kettle black...LMAO


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> 1. You are a Republican .......very easy to see that fact son.




wrong.  I agree with democrats on many issues.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> wrong. I agree with democrats on many issues.


I can see that by your love for the rich and your hatred for minorities....you are a true Democrat


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I can see that by your love for the rich and your hatred for minorities....you are a true Democrat


 
Robert Byrd, true democrat, loves minorities, wasn't in the KKK.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Robert Byrd, true democrat, loves minorities, wasn't in the KKK.


Pick a guy who isnt a billion years old
Please prove he was in the KKK...


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Pick a guy who isnt a billion years old
> Please prove he was in the KKK...




Pick a white guy that wasn't a billion years old AND in the KKK...you won't find one.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I would expect no less from you....
> 
> 
> Make a commentary on crime statistics, you are a bigot
> ...


.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Pick a white guy that wasn't a billion years old AND in the KKK...you won't find one.


True story


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Pick a white guy that wasn't a billion years old AND in the KKK...you won't find one.



That's just as hard as finding a black male age 18-25 in the LA that isn't in a gang.


----------



## god hand (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> ^ This is EXACTLY what I am talking about.
> 
> look, all I am trying to say is that the social problems aren't caused by the poverty, that it is the other way around.


I disagree 110%

People in america are greedy. People that are rich are looked up to and seen as Gods by some. (I'm not in the mood for typing so....) Its a shame some cant be content with.........okay. Every American women looks for a 7 figure man and for what? So they can lay on their ass happily ever after? Social problems arent caused by poverty, its caused by are culture. Turn on your TV and all you see is this flashy buuulllshit. There's to many people walkin around like they dont piss and shit because they can waste a million dollars on a vacation home. 

If George W. Bush father wasnt a president, do you think he'll be in office right now? Do u think a person in poverty had the same chances he had? 

Point is, dont blame social problems on poor people, blame it on the culture that looks down on them. I doubt someone in China has to deal with this.


----------



## god hand (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> If someone who is poor is busting their ass they won't be poor for long.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

god hand said:
			
		

>


 
More intelligent responses.

I suppose it's a radical idea to think that poor people might be poor because they aren't doing what's neccessary to improve their lifestyle.

Man, what would we do if everyone thought that poor people were simply poor because they didn't care enough to rise out of it?  Would we stop throwing money at them?


----------



## god hand (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> What you do is be realistic.  You cannot force change on people without striping them of thier basic rights and dignity.  You cannot force someone to be a better person.  The one thing you don't want to do is make them dependent on others for their well being.


True story


----------



## god hand (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> More intelligent responses.
> 
> I suppose it's a radical idea to think that poor people might be poor because they aren't doing what's neccessary to improve their lifestyle.
> 
> Man, what would we do if everyone thought that poor people were simply poor because they didn't care enough to rise out of it?  Would we stop throwing money at them?


Was your defintion of poor


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> More intelligent responses.
> 
> *I suppose it's a radical idea to think that poor people might be poor because they aren't doing what's neccessary to improve their lifestyle.*
> 
> Man, what would we do if everyone thought that poor people were simply poor because they didn't care enough to rise out of it? Would we stop throwing money at them?


That is only true for some.....they are 100 steps behind the middle class and 10,000 steps behind the rich.....

Again you show us you live in a dream world.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

It takes effort to become rich.  Most people would rather watch TV than learn a new trade or learn to properly manage money.


----------



## GFR (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> *It takes effort to become rich*. Most people would rather watch TV than learn a new trade or learn to properly manage money.


For very few....but I believe the statistics say that about 50% of all the new rich inherit it.....and many more are set up by family and friends. To become rich you have to be unusually smart and be pointed in the right direction or the child or a rich person......100K a year is not rich..


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

Throwing money at poor people doesn't work, the "wealth-gap" has only widened.  Failed policies should be abandoned.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> For very few....but I believe the statistics say that about 50% of all the new rich inherit it.....and many more are set up by family and friends. To become rich you have to be unusually smart and be pointed in the right direction or the child or a rich person......100K a year is not rich..


   How about becomeing middle class?  The key to being middle class is money management more than anything else.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Throwing money at poor people doesn't work, the "wealth-gap" has only widened.  Failed policies should be abandoned.


  That won't happen.  Social programs are where the Dems get the majority of their votes from.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> .



you proved my point.  have you ever made an intelligent response to anyone?  


the funniest part is that you think you are getting the best of me.  at the end of the day I am the one who is earning a graduate degree, I am the one who is a success, I am the one trying to have an adult conversation.  you are some loser who only comes online trying to annoy people, who hates the opinions of others but lacks the capacity to present an articulate, logical explanation for it.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Throwing money at poor people doesn't work, the "wealth-gap" has only widened. Failed policies should be abandoned.


 
How about a family of 5 whose father decides to hit the road leaving the mother to work at nights earning pennies? Would you deny her and her kids help?


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

I find it amusing that Deckert is the only person who disagrees with me that can explain why.  Foreman and Min0 hate the fact that what I am saying makes at least a little sense.  Their response, pretend like they are above a logical debate, they are to witty to articulate a reason....or is it that they are to intimidated to write something substantive that they actually believe.  At least GodHand tries, but he is falling a little short...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> you proved my point. have you ever made an intelligent response to anyone?
> 
> 
> the funniest part is that you think you are getting the best of me. at the end of the day I am the one who is earning a graduate degree, I am the one who is a success, I am the one trying to have an adult conversation. you are some loser who only comes online trying to annoy people, who hates the opinions of others but lacks the capacity to present an articulate, logical explanation for it.


 
Read in the quotes you dumbfuck, the period was not response.
Your a success? then why do you sound so bitter? 
100 bucks that you'll get your degree and still work at Walmart.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> How about a family of 5 whose father decides to hit the road leaving the mother to work at nights earning pennies? Would you deny her and her kids help?


 
How does that obligate me, you, or anyone to help them out?  Sad situation, shit happens, sorry.  I'd be more than happy to support a charity that works with abandoned families, would much rather them have my money than the government.  Taxpayers are essentially enslaved by the entitlement class.  They are working for them, and receiving no compensation for it (w/e % of the income goes to social programs ~15%).


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I find it amusing that Deckert is the only person who disagrees with me that can explain why. Foreman and Min0 hate the fact that what I am saying makes at least a little sense. Their response, pretend like they are above a logical debate, they are to witty to articulate a reason....or is it that they are to intimidated to write something substantive that they actually believe. At least GodHand tries, but he is falling a little short...


I take it for what its worth, if this were another person I would read it and be on my merry way. You have an agenda and it's called hate.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Read in the quotes you dumbfuck, the period was not response.
> Your a success? then why do you sound so bitter?
> 100 bucks that you'll get your degree and still work at Walmart.



I read it 'you dumbfuck.'  Go to dictionary.com and type 'substantive.'  Then you will understand.  Or maybe not.

I'll break it down for you to a painfully simple level.  'I am toying with you boy' isn't substantive.  Is that clear enough?


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> You have an agenda and it's called hate.



 

go to dictionary.com and look up hate.  a remark about inherent unfairness of government taxing one person 8 times more than another has nothing to do with hate.  I doubt the person making 40K designed the tax system.  I'd go into more detail but that seems to confuse you.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> How does that obligate me, you, or anyone to help them out? Sad situation, shit happens, sorry. I'd be more than happy to support a charity that works with abandoned families, would much rather them have my money than the government. Taxpayers are essentially enslaved by the entitlement class. They are working for them, and receiving no compensation for it (w/e % of the income goes to social programs ~15%).


Charity? Please, you have to be naive to think that money will reach the needy.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> go to dictionary.com and look up hate. a remark about inherent unfairness of government taxing one person 8 times more than another has nothing to do with hate. I doubt the person making 40K designed the tax system. I'd go into more detail but that seems to confuse you.


 
I did and it say's you hate the poor and the blacks.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Charity? Please, you have to be naive to think that money will reach the needy.


  I grew up very similar to your hypothetical situation (single mother, three children).  The only help I ever saw was from private institutions and individuals.  And not a whole lot of that.  My mother didn't want to take any sort of charity and only did it when she had no choice.


----------



## gococksDJS (Feb 9, 2006)

I didn't have enough money for 2 hours at a parking meter this morning, so I jammed a bunch of pennies in the coin slot hoping the meter fags would sympathize with me and not give me a ticket. It didn't work. That's how poor I am.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I did and it say's you hate the poor and the blacks.



min0 is too cool for a real response....


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Charity? Please, you have to be naive to think that money will reach the needy.


 
Ok I'm sorry, I now think you're a complete moron.  You honestly think the government is more efficient than private charities?  Dear God.

I'll have to find some figures but I think of every dollar earmarked for social programs, roughly 10 cents gets to the people (from memory).  It pays the handsome salaries of govt workers, it doesn't get to the poor.

With local charities you have people who are volunteering to help, because they want to.  I trust them with my money 100x more than any govt official.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> You honestly think the government is more efficient than private charities?  Dear God.



The government is the most inefficient and corrupt entity in any society.  It has been that way throughout human history


----------



## section8 (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I trust them with my money 100x more than any govt official.




I don't trust either of them.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I grew up very similar to your hypothetical situation (single mother, three children). The only help I ever saw was from private institutions and individuals. And not a whole lot of that. My mother didn't want to take any sort of charity and only did it when she had no choice.


It wasn't hypothetical, I was one of the 5 kids.

To make a long story short..
My father owned two grocery stores and a restaurant, we had it good.
But then their relationship went sour dad hits the road leaving 5 kids behind me being the oldest at age 9.
He left us no money and my mother felt ashamed to ask people for help so instead she went for food stamps to feed us. She was not proud of it but a mother has to feed her kids and the little money she made was not enough to feed a family of 5 in NYC.

Well we all got back on our feet and we are doing pretty good. My regret is that quit school at a young age  to work full time to help my mother and sisters.....I should have done both.


When dad was around we had everything, all the toys and a color TV (a lot of family's back in the early 70's couldn't afford a color TV) we had a TV in every room...I was spoiled. Then Poof it went all away, I was dirt poor. Eating stale bread, cooking sugar to make it into candy.
Do you know how humiliating it is to have kids tease you about being poor? It hurts more when you had it good.

My mother went to beautician school, got her diploma and started working at a beauty parlor and saved what little money she could save and opened up her own salon.

I love it when people who never had hands on experience talk shit.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> min0 is too cool for a real response....


You don't get one, nerd.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Ok I'm sorry, I now think you're a complete moron. You honestly think the government is more efficient than private charities? Dear God.
> 
> I'll have to find some figures but I think of every dollar earmarked for social programs, roughly 10 cents gets to the people (from memory). It pays the handsome salaries of govt workers, it doesn't get to the poor.
> 
> With local charities you have people who are volunteering to help, because they want to. I trust them with my money 100x more than any govt official.


 
I trust no one. Open your eyes Einstein


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> You don't get one, nerd.



I don't get one, or you can't come up with one?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Do you know how humiliating it is to have kids tease you about being poor? It hurts more when you had it good.



Yes, I do.



			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> I love it when people who never had hands on experience talk shit.



You're not referring to me are you?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I don't get one, or you can't come up with one?


No, you don't deserve one.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yes, I do.
> 
> 
> 
> You're not referring to me are you?


 
No way, that was aimed towards Clemson.
I recall what you went through and I can relate to it.


----------



## brogers (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I trust no one. Open your eyes Einstein


 
you trust the govt to redistribute money, and you trust the poor people to spend it wisely


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 is bitter because he/she/it never made anything of themself.  So bitter you can't fathom the difference between a conversation about what is or isn't fair and a series of insults.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> you trust the govt to redistribute money



thats because they are taking it from you and giving it to min0


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> No way, that was aimed towards Clemson.
> I recall what you went through and I can relate to it.



Yeah, I remember having to sew the tops of my shoes back on to the soles.  Having ratting clothes.  Starving while others walked by with McDonalds (this was the worst).

But the funny things is, I wouldn't change any of it. It's part of what makes me, me.  Otherwise, I would probably be some upper middle class guy talking about being poor like I know what it means to be poor.

As for Clemson, I agree with him to a degree.  Taking money for productive people and giving to non-productive people just doesn't sit right with me.  Then again, not taking care of my fellow American's doesn't sit right with me either.  The problem is that so many people abuse the welfare system.  Welfare was meant to be short-term, but now you have families that have been on it for generations.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> you trust the govt to redistribute money, and you trust the poor people to spend it wisely


No, unfortunatly you have leeches who do suck money from the goverment but there are some who do need it. 

My mother did it to feed us so I think it was spent wisely.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> min0 is bitter because he/she/it never made anything of themself. So bitter you can't fathom the difference between a conversation about what is or isn't fair and a series of insults.


 
Min0 isn't bitter, and for you to say I haven't made anything of myself while your still in school is just stupid.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> thats because they are taking it from you and giving it to min0


I give back to my community and unlike you I help out the needy and not ridicule them.
You should be careful buddy, cause I can imagine when you do  fail in life you'll probably be swinging from a beam.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yeah, I remember having to sew the tops of my shoes back on to the soles. Having ratting clothes. Starving while others walked by with McDonalds (this was the worst).
> 
> But the funny things is, I wouldn't change any of it. It's part of what makes me, me. Otherwise, I would probably be some upper middle class guy talking about being poor like I know what it means to be poor.
> 
> ...


 
In NYC you have a certain group that work in the diamond district, well they live in the Roberto Clemente projects while on welfare and they collect money from the government.....these people are loaded yet they still steal money. They own houses in Florida and the Catskills....that's wrong.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> In NYC you have a certain group that work in the diamond district, well they live in the Roberto Clemente projects while on welfare and they collect money from the government.....these people are loaded yet they still steal money. They own houses in Florida and the Catskills....that's wrong.



I agree.  Who's the "certain group?"


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I agree. Who's the "certain group?"


The Hasidics Jews from Williamsburg, Brooklyn.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

At the time I was living there it was one of the poorest neighborhood in NYC.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 9, 2006)

I have no experience with Hasidic Jews, but I bet that the people who are in charge of doling out the governemnt money are also Jewish.  Jews tend to take care (right or wrong) of their own.

I only met a handful of poor Jews in LA.  Probably because I grew up in poor Mexican neighborhoods.

My two closest friends growing up were Jews, but they were far from poor.  That probably explains why I can cook a mean latke.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 9, 2006)

Like any other race you have your good and your bad.
I do like most of their food, it's different.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> How about becomeing middle class? The key to being middle class is money management more than anything else.


I agree that many of the poor can become middle class....and many of the middle class can become upper class.....becoming very rich is another story .


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I find it amusing that Deckert is the only person who disagrees with me that can explain why. Foreman and Min0 hate the fact that what I am saying makes at least a little sense. Their response, pretend like they are above a logical debate, they are to witty to articulate a reason....or is it that they are to intimidated to write something substantive that they actually believe. At least GodHand tries, but he is falling a little short...


You can pretend you make a good point but most here know that  you don't.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

What I see on this thread is that taxation is stealing and welfare goes to lazy folks and is a disproportionate amount of our Country???s budget. That???s a lot of stuff and much of it is overstated nonsense.

First Taxation: Taxation is not stealing. Taxes are the cost of the social contract. ???Many conservatives and libertarians have argued that the government has no right to tax their money; they earned it, and the government has no right to "steal" it. However, these individuals could not have made a dime on the free market without any of the following government supports of the free market: 
???    Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade. 
???    Public roads. 
???    Rural electrification. 
???    Government subsidized telephone wiring. 
???    Satellite communications. 
???    Police protection. 
???    Military protection. 
???    A criminal justice system. 
???    Fire protection. 
???    Paramedic protection. 
???    An educated workforce. 
???    An immunized workforce. 
???    Protection against plagues by the Centers for Disease Control. 
???    Public-funded business loans, foreclosure loans and subsidies. 
???    Protection from business fraud and unfair business practices. 
???    The protection of intellectual property through patents and copyrights. 
???    Student loans. 
???    Government funded research and development ???of the technology/medical/agricultural etc fields.??? 
???    National Academy of Sciences. 
???    Economic data collected and analyzed by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. 
???    Prevention of depressions by Keynesian policies at the Fed (successful for six decades now). 
???    Dollars protected from inflation by the Fed. 
???    Federal Emergency Management Agency. 
???    Public libraries. 
???    Cooperative Extension Service (vital for agriculture) 
???    National Biological Service. 
???    National Weather Service 
???    Public job training.??? Source: S. Kangas 
To avoid the realities of public goods and services one must move out of the country or become a hermit. It is very selfish to claim that, ???everything I make is by my own effort and is mine!??? Our society has a history built on the accomplishments of all its citizens. No one exists in a vacuum so pay up. 

Welfare: Most people opposed to welfare lump it together with all other entitlement programs to make the final budgetary effect shocking. I will do that too:

Income % of all households % of all benefits
-----------------------------------------------
Under $10,000 16.4%; 17.8%
$10,000 - $20,000 18.8; 21.7
$20,000 - $30,000 17.0; 17.2
$30,000 - $50,000 23.6; 21.8
$50,000 - $100,000 19.1; 15.9
Over $100,000 5.1 ; 5.6
Source: CBO analysis of Census Survey

Notice how the total expenditures of Federal entitlements break down? Does it look like the poor get a shitload more? No.

The General Accounting Office released a report that summarized 100 studies on the effects of Welfare since 1975. The summary conclusion was that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work. The authors of the study concluded that the subjects ?????? do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work. They do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare.??? The welfare payout does not cover the cost of living.

Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that the welfare rolls are filled with a substantial population of sedentary freeloaders who stay on for ten years at a time. Most welfare recipients leave within the first two years: 

Time on AFDC % of Recipients
-------------------------------
Less than 7 months 19.0%
7 to 12 months 15.2
One to two years 19.3
Two to five years 26.9
Over five years 19.6
(Ways and Means Committee Report)

*There will always be a segment of society that requires welfare.* The US normally has an unemployment rate somewhere btn 4-6%. When unemployment drops below that range inflation climbs. The Federal Reserve, through its practices, keeps the unemployment rate btn 4-6% always. You cannot eliminate welfare recipients by having 100% employment b/c it would invite spiraling inflation. Thus we always will have the need for welfare. Still want to eliminate it?

Oh yes, I do prefer Light Beers to that import sludge. But that???s me.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree that many of the poor can become middle class....and many of the middle class can become upper class.....becoming very rich is another story .


You are correct.  Income mobility in the US is moderate at best.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> I agree that many of the poor can become middle class....and many of the middle class can become upper class.....becoming very rich is another story .



My points are that people are not trapped in poverty and you can't force someone to be productive enough to not be poor.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> You are correct.  Income mobility in the US is moderate at best.


Income mobility in the US is among the best, if not the best in the world.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Income mobility in the US is among the best, if not the best in the world.


That's not saying much to me at all.  Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers.  The typical story is the college guy that works in a bookstore for 4 or 5 years and then gets a real job that pays a steady market price for the rest of his days.

As I've shown in my prior post, there will always be a segment of our society that requires welfare--the poor.  I've also shown that there is a great turnover out of welfare conditions and into lower middle class society--income mobility does exist.

So I guess we agree.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> That's not saying much to me at all.  Most people see their incomes rise with age, but at some point they usually hit a plateau in the income distribution, where they fluctuate mildly for the rest of their careers.  The typical story is the college guy that works in a bookstore for 4 or 5 years and then gets a real job that pays a steady market price for the rest of his days.



I'm not just referring to just income as a basic amount, but moving from one class to another.  I was in the lower class, now I'm in the middle class, and am working towards being in the upper class.  I the vast majority of other countries, the class that you're born in is the class that you will die in.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> As I've shown in my prior post, there will always be a segment of our society that requires welfare--the poor.  I've also shown that there is a great turnover out of welfare conditions and into lower middle class society--income mobility does exist.



Yes, there will always be poor, either through choice or misfortune.  What we need is a welfare system that is not so easily abused.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> So I guess we agree.



Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Yes, there will always be poor, either through choice or misfortune. What we need is a welfare system that is not so easily abused.
> 
> 
> 
> Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!


Not by choice or misfortune but by the necessity of a plastic workforce in the maintenance of the US economy. Otherwise w/out that unemployed pool of workers, inflation spirals out of control.

Now, do I hear an emphatic, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssss!!!!


----------



## John H. (Feb 10, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> I am sick of everything being blamed on poverty.  On TV today they were talking about AIDs, about why it was high among people in poverty.
> 
> You always hear about criminal activity being high among people in poverty, like its an excuse.  Drug abuse is high in people afflicted with poverty.  Prostitution is high among women in poverty....
> 
> ...



Hi Clemson,

To better UNDERSTAND poverty you'd have to live under those conditions youself. Kinda like walking in other people's shoes.

Do yourself a real favor - try to find out as much about it as possible  HONESTLY with an open mind and then see what you think.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 10, 2006)

If I'm so damn smart, why do I keep letting myself get sucked into these no-win debates? 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> What I see on this thread is that taxation is stealing and welfare goes to lazy folks and is a disproportionate amount of our Country???s budget. That???s a lot of stuff and much of it is overstated nonsense
> First Taxation: Taxation is not stealing. Taxes are the cost of the social contract. ???Many conservatives and libertarians have argued that the government has no right to tax their money; they earned it, and the government has no right to "steal" it. However, these individuals could not have made a dime on the free market without any of the following government supports of the free market:
> ???    Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
> ???    Public roads.
> ...



I'll completely agree, without these programs most all Americans couldn't even survive, much less prosper.  The point Conservatives and Libertarians are upset about is not these programs.  They are upset by their hard earned tax dollars being taken from them and given to a large group of people who CHOOSE not to work.



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Welfare: Most people opposed to welfare lump it together with all other entitlement programs to make the final budgetary effect shocking. I will do that too:
> 
> Income % of all households % of all benefits
> -----------------------------------------------
> ...



Ummmmm......Yeah, it does.  Looks like the folks in the lower numbers are getting a higher percentage of the benefits.  The only anomaly is the $30-50K group.  I'm in the Over $100K group and everybody else is getting three times as much as I am.  Seems like a big number to me.  Am I reading it wrong?  




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> The General Accounting Office released a report that summarized 100 studies on the effects of Welfare since 1975. The summary conclusion was that "research does not support the view" that welfare significantly reduces the incentive to work. The authors of the study concluded that the subjects ?????? do not turn to welfare because they are pathologically dependent on handouts or unusually reluctant to work. They do so because they cannot get jobs that pay better than welfare.??? The welfare payout does not cover the cost of living..



Excuse me?  They concluded that the reason these people CHOOSE not to work isn't because they're lazy, but because they make better $$$ on welfare.  OK, I'll concede that's a pretty damn good reason to CHOOSE welfare, but it's still a CHOICE!!!  Don't try to sugar coat it as anything else.  It's a consious decision that has been made. 



			
				Decker said:
			
		

> Furthermore, it is incorrect to assume that the welfare rolls are filled with a substantial population of sedentary freeloaders who stay on for ten years at a time. Most welfare recipients leave within the first two years:
> 
> Time on AFDC % of Recipients
> -------------------------------
> ...



That's great.  54% get off welfare after two years.  I'm not worried about them.  They are the reason the system was invented and the reason it still exists.  But that rationalization completely ignores the problem of the other 46%.  To say that just because a very small majority isn't the problem doesn't not eliminate the fact that the remaining very large minority IS a problem.  I completely agree, there will always be a need for welfare.  No, I do not want to eliminate it.  But I do want to find the other 46% and put their asses to work.  Why is there such a "problem" of undocumented workers in this country?  Because 46% of our welfare recipients CHOOSE to sit on their butts instead of going and doing some work.

P.S.  Keep your beer.  I like good whiskey and good tequila.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> Now, do I hear an emphatic, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeesssssssssssssss!!!!



I feel dirty.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I feel dirty.




That's how most people that get owned feel.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> That's how most people that get owned feel.


*sigh*

You really, truly, are an asshat.   I'm past the point of joking.  You add nothing to this forum.  You're not interesting, insightful, or even amusing.

You're to this forum what venereal disease is to sex.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

I saw a bumper sticker on a car some time back. It read:
Work harder. Millions on welfare are depending on you.

Ok, for the 54% that get off welfare and join the workforce, more power to them. 
The other 46% that go for the free ride...that's what i have the problem with.
I was in a super market some time back, getting the office sodas for lunch. Was behind a woman. Evidently, she was pregnant with her 7th child. (She was on welfare since or before the 1st one. (The checker filled me in...she knew the woman)  ok...evidently, this woman has time to fuq...but not work..and is also healthy. She is getting federal assistance...I see a federal workforce.
U want welfare? well...there is garbage to be picked up. graffiti to be taken off buildings. Ditches that need to be dug. 
How about a return on my 'investment'. 
Make welfare something they don't want to be on...also use programs to educate to get basic, decent jobs to get back into the workforce...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 10, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> thats because they are taking it from you and giving it to min0


 
What happened to me as a kid was not my fault, to this day I take pride in not asking anyone for money or help. I do it all on my own, I have a good job and I do a lot of community work. I have kids come over at times when they need food or just to talk. 
*I give....I don't ask for anything kid*


I just hope you don't ever fall on hard times kid cause I frankly don't think you'll make it.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 10, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> I was in a super market some time back, getting the office sodas for lunch. Was behind a woman. Evidently, she was pregnant with her 7th child. (She was on welfare since or before the 1st one. (The checker filled me in...she knew the woman)  ok...evidently, this woman has time to fuq...but not work..and is also healthy. She is getting federal assistance...I see a federal workforce....



I got another one for you.  Not too many years ago, I was home visiting the folks in PA.  While in a supermarket I saw a woman buy almost $200 worth of crap.  And I mean CRAP.  It included every kind of soda made, bags and bags of chips, the highest priced highest sugar content cereal, etc.  She even got CIGARETTES!  Not one single item of real food.  She then proceded to go out into the parking lot and load it all into a brand new Mercedes 450 SL.

No I don't condemn every person on welfare for the actions of a few (46%).  But I also don't think those 46% should be getting off scott free.  Burner's got a damn good suggestion; they're getting paid by the government, let them work for the government.  No work, no pay.  Just like the rest of us.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

I had a good idea?? Who knew???
BURNER FOR PRESIDENT IN '11!


..seen this: McDonald's accepts welfare stamps?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> ..seen this: McDonald's accepts welfare stamps?



If this is true, then good.  It would make a poor kid feal normal by eating at a place where everyone else eats.  Besides, the food is calorie dense.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> *sigh*
> 
> You really, truly, are an asshat.   I'm past the point of joking.  You add nothing to this forum.  You're not interesting, insightful, or even amusing.
> 
> You're to this forum what venereal disease is to sex.




True Story, and you speak for everyone.


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> True Story, and you speak for everyone.




No he doesn't, at least venereal disease can be fun.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 10, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> I had a good idea?? Who knew???
> BURNER FOR PRESIDENT IN '11!
> 
> 
> ..seen this: McDonald's accepts welfare stamps?


 
A hungry kid would appreciate a burger, sure beats sharing boogers with your sisters.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Dale Mabry said:
			
		

> No he doesn't, at least venereal disease can be fun.



I guess I need to apologize to venereal disease.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> sure beats sharing boogers with your sisters.


ppssst...you weren't supposed to tell anybody about that....that was our little secret....


----------



## Dale Mabry (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I guess I need to apologize to venereal disease.




I'll let them know.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 10, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> ppssst...you weren't supposed to tell anybody about that....that was our little secret....


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> First Taxation: Taxation is not stealing. Taxes are the cost of the social contract. ???Many conservatives and libertarians have argued that the government has no right to tax their money; they earned it, and the government has no right to "steal" it. However, these individuals could not have made a dime on the free market without any of the following government supports of the free market:
> ???    Printing the very dollar bills with which people trade.
> ???    Public roads.
> ???    Rural electrification.
> ...



Deckert, I will admit that you are well read on this topic, but I don't really see how your info is pertinant.

Yes, taxes are necessary and the gov't provides things for the citizens.  My point was that the government takes 8 times as much from one person as another, while providing no extra benefits.  Obviously the successful are better able to bear the burden, and I am well aware of the 'bottom dollar theory.'  But people in this country expect it and don't appreciate it whatsoever.  I mean, who can really argue that in ALL circumstances it is fair to tax one person 50K and another 4K?  

Take this scenario:
Two people are next door neighbors, their parents have approximately the same income, they go to the same school, have all the same opportunities.  Bob graduates highschool and gets a job in a retail store, begins working immediately.  Chris finances his own education, goes to college and then to medical school.  Bob starts out making around 20K, and in the 8 years it takes Chris to graduate college and medical school Bob has gotten promoted and now makes 40K.  So Bob has made approximately 240K over the last 8 years.  Chris has worked 40-60 hour weeks making absolutely nothing for 8 years (thats called education).  He financed his own education, and went to average schools, so he in around 120K worth of debt.  

At this point Bob is effectively $360,000 richer than Chris.  Chris gets a great job after all that investment, he is now making $120K.  The government promptly begins taking around 45K a year from him, and continues to take about 5K from Bob.

Is that fair?

Not to mention the substantial risk there is involved in getting an education.  Suppose Chris got through 4 years of undergrad in psychology, went 50K in debt to do it, and he happens to have a bad day on the day the MCAT is given. He can't get admitted to Med school.  Now because of one bad day he has wasted 4 years and gone 50K in the hole and he has an undergraduate degree that is practically worthless without a graduate degree.  His salary cap is practically the same as Bob's....


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

ok...my disclaimer:
I don't know tax law...full structure, etc. I claim ignorance.
So...with that being said.. 

I don't know what would be better. The tier'd system we use now (make more more, higher tax bracket) or flat taxes.
Now...the wealthy do get taxed more....but aren't there more 'loop holes' they can use to to be taxed less if they know about them? Sort of a balance?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 10, 2006)

It's Decker


----------



## DOMS (Feb 10, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> but aren't there more 'loop holes' they can use to to be taxed less if they know about them? Sort of a balance?



The rich are taxed less not just because of tax brackets, but because they actually use the system.  Those same loopholes are open to pretty much anyone, but are useful _*only if they use them*_.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

So less than 1/2 of the people on welfare are on it for a period exceeding 2 years.  Yes, there are people like that in society that have trouble working whether they don't work b/c they are slothful or they're incapable b/c of some psychological shortcoming, or whatever the reason, they just do not have meaningful employment. These people are inconsequential in terms of gov. payments on their behalf. 
Federal AFDC Expenditures as Compared to Federal Spending in Other Areas 

Agency         $ billions
--------------------------
AFDC               12
Medicaid           76
Medicare          131
Defense           281
Social Security   305

I'm more concerned w/ high-end shenanigans like losing 1 billion dollars in Iraq--just unaccountable--or the almost 6 billion/month we're spending in Iraq or paying $800 for a hammer by the DOD or other price gouging efforts by our well scrubbed movers 'n shakers in our country to wring out as many dollars out of the gov. system as possible.  Socialize the cost of doing business but privatize the profits.

ALBOB you are reading that table wrong, you are not getting 3x less than the poor and lower middle class.  You also assume that the only reason people are on welfare is b/c they're lazy...I'm betting a few are and a few aren't.  welfare does not cover the cost of daily life and is not comparable to minimum wage earnings..about 70% of every dollar earned in a min. wage job.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> ..about 70% of every dollar earned in a min. wage job.



and approximately 0% of the work...sounds like a bargain


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I guess I need to apologize to venereal disease.


Just for the one you gave me and my cat


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

...true- we are spending a LOT of $$ in Iraq. However, I think we are setting up for future positive relations with them = trade with them for oil.
True- some companies are bilking the situation for millions/billions of profit. However, they are also providing hundreds/thousands of jobs to Americans, which stimulates our economy.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Deckert, I will admit that you are well read on this topic, but I don't really see how your info is pertinant.
> 
> Yes, taxes are necessary and the gov't provides things for the citizens. My point was that the government takes 8 times as much from one person as another, while providing no extra benefits. Obviously the successful are better able to bear the burden, and I am well aware of the 'bottom dollar theory.' But people in this country expect it and don't appreciate it whatsoever. I mean, who can really argue that in ALL circumstances it is fair to tax one person 50K and another 4K?
> 
> ...


I was writing the 'taxation as theft' bit b/c brogers said as much. as far as the fairness of a progressive tax system is concerned, I would expect those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting. Those that earn the most pay more than those that earn less. Adam Smith thought it was a good idea. I do too.

As for your example, I see no unfairness. Bob is working his low paid job and paying the taxes and expenses customary to someone of his income group. Chris worked and paid taxes and went to school. He made a calculated choice that he'd get into med school and he did not. (Clearly he lacks self awareness if this happens but that's another story and an education is never a waste). He got what he paid for (higher education) and he lost at the chance he took (med school).

Chris suddenly gets a great job and is paid an amount that puts him in a higher tax bracket. All that is evident to me by your example is that 2 people took different paths to making a living. And in the long run, Chris will make a shitload more money than Bob....just not in the short run.

I don't think anything in your example shows an inherent flaw in a progressive taxation scheme. Now if you argued that taxes should be flatter that's fine. I disagree with that.

I think that the rich should pay more b/c they have more than the poor. You don't have your mother move your barbells to the attic b/c that represents the fair/pro rata allocation of work to be done. You move your own barbells.

Damn work keeps interfering w/ my posting.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> ALBOB you are reading that table wrong, you are not getting 3x less than the poor and lower middle class.



Me reading the table wrong is entirely possible.  But, if I am, what's it saying when read correctly?




			
				Decker said:
			
		

> You also assume that the only reason people are on welfare is b/c they're lazy...I'm betting a few are and a few aren't.  welfare does not cover the cost of daily life and is not comparable to minimum wage earnings..about 70% of every dollar earned in a min. wage job.



That's not at all what I'm assuming.  I've already acknowledged that there are those individuals who are on welfare for very good reasons.  Some of them are on it for a short amount of time and others for a great deal longer amount of time.  Again, I am not targeting those people.  I AM targeting the people who are on welfare for more than two years and who's only reason for CHOOSING that route is because they make more $$$ by being on welfare and/or it's just plain easier than working.  I don't care one single iota how small that group is, it needs to be erradicated.  And to say, "Look, they're only costing us a small amount of money compared to these other programs" does NOT make me feel any better.  They're costing money, that's it.  Any money is too much.  I vary rarely speak in absolutes, but on this I stand steadfast.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> I was writing the 'taxation as theft' bit b/c brogers said as much. as far as the fairness of a progressive tax system is concerned, I would expect those with the strongest arms do the heaviest lifting. Those that earn the most pay more than those that earn less. Adam Smith thought it was a good idea. I do too.



In this context, define "lifting".  Are we talking percentages or actual dollars and cents? 

I don't mind at all paying my fair share, but my fair share as defined by me is a great deal different than that defined by some folks of a more liberal bent.

If the taxation was a flat PERCENTAGE across the board I'd be paying a great deal more actual dollars and cents than someone making far less than me.  I have no problem with that.  It's when the PERCENTAGE goes up in conjunction with my paycheck that I start to get steamed.  I'd be made to pay a higher percentage when I USE a lower percentage is what this would amount to.  (As evidenced by your earlier chart.)  That's not fair in any way, shape or form.


----------



## Burner02 (Feb 10, 2006)

what he said.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> In this context, define "lifting". Are we talking percentages or actual dollars and cents?
> 
> I don't mind at all paying my fair share, but my fair share as defined by me is a great deal different than that defined by some folks of a more liberal bent.
> 
> If the taxation was a flat PERCENTAGE across the board I'd be paying a great deal more actual dollars and cents than someone making far less than me. I have no problem with that. It's when the PERCENTAGE goes up in conjunction with my paycheck that I start to get steamed. I'd be made to pay a higher percentage when I USE a lower percentage is what this would amount to. (As evidenced by your earlier chart.) That's not fair in any way, shape or form.


We are talking about graded scales for taxing. The more you earn the more you pay.
Hypothetical:
0-$10,000 no tax on income
10,001-30,000 10% 
30,001-50,000 15%
50,001-75,000 20%

Say You earn 75,000. For your earnings btn 0-10,000 you pay nil, 10001-30000 you pay 10% and so on. You are not paying 20% on all the money you make, just the dollars earned above the 50,001 threshhold. So, in a sense, you are paying the same rate as someone earning less than you. But that's also a no win argument as far as sympathy goes--I earn more and dammit I pay more in taxes too. Those that are capable of paying more do pay more and those that are not capable don't. You give what you can in the common interest. It's not a perfect system but it works.

Taxation is one of those topics that seems intractable to me. Either one sees the implications a certain way or one doesn't. 

"Why shouldn't the American people take half my money from me? I took all of it from them." 

Edward Albert Filene (1869-1937) 


Oh yes, you and I agree on the Scotch. I do miss Scotch whiskey. I had to quit drinking the last year and that is the one spirit I really miss.


----------



## Decker (Feb 10, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Me reading the table wrong is entirely possible. But, if I am, what's it saying when read correctly?


 It's saying that based on total federal entitlement expenditures, every income class is receiving about the same amount. The poor get more though...but not much.





			
				ALBOB said:
			
		

> ...I AM targeting the people who are on welfare for more than two years and who's only reason for CHOOSING that route is because they make more $$$ by being on welfare and/or it's just plain easier than working. I don't care one single iota how small that group is, it needs to be erradicated. And to say, "Look, they're only costing us a small amount of money compared to these other programs" does NOT make me feel any better. They're costing money, that's it. Any money is too much. I vary rarely speak in absolutes, but on this I stand steadfast.


Nobody likes freeriders ALBOB. I don't. The system is imperfect but the alternative is not an option. Welfare is necessary both economically in terms of inflation and morally. 

The vast majority of people on welfare are young white single mothers and I'm in no hurry to boot them into the streets. 
Having my tax dollars go to support them is not keeping me up at night. The corporate welfare handed out at an amount 10X that of AFDC is what bothers the shit out of me.  That offends me deeply my fellow free marketeers.


----------



## ALBOB (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> You are not paying 20% on all the money you make, just the dollars earned above the 50,001 threshhold. So, in a sense, you are paying the same rate as someone earning less than you.



Apparently I'm having a mental block here.  (Please allow me to add my own ignorance of tax law to that of Burner.)  That just seems like a blatant contradiction.  Fine, I'm not paying 20% on all my money, but I AM paying extra on money I make over and above a certain threshold.  That, by definition, means I'm paying a higher PERCENTAGE than people making less than me.  I've alreay expressed my disapproval of that so I won't waste your time with a recap.  

I think taxes are going to fall very close to opinions.  We've all got them and they all suck.


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> Apparently I'm having a mental block here.  (Please allow me to add my own ignorance of tax law to that of Burner.)  That just seems like a blatant contradiction.  Fine, I'm not paying 20% on all my money, but I AM paying extra on money I make over and above a certain threshold.  That, by definition, means I'm paying a higher PERCENTAGE than people making less than me.  I've alreay expressed my disapproval of that so I won't waste your time with a recap.
> 
> I think taxes are going to fall very close to opinions.  We've all got them and they all suck.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 10, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> ...
> As for your example, I see no unfairness. Bob is working his low paid job *and paying the taxes and expenses customary to someone of his income group*...
> 
> ...
> I think that the rich should pay more b/c they have more than the poor. You don't have your mother move your barbells to the attic b/c that represents the fair/pro rata allocation of work to be done. You move your own barbells....


Decker, you have to admit that your above explanation is essentially saying "It is fair because that is the way it has been done before."

I agree with your argument about 'they knew the risks and rewards.'  Thats true.  They knew the risks and rewards of a system which is inherently unfair, they lacked the power to change that system, so they went along with it.



As for your analogy, its an interesting one.  However, I think it is flawed.  I would carry heavy object before letting my mother do it because I am a man and I am genetically more capable of lifting heavy object.  Plus I am polite.  

The more appropriate analogy, IMO, is this:
I have genetic twin brother.  He likes watching TV and sitting on his ass, I like exercising and lifting weights.  He asks me to carry something heavy for him.  Now, it is true that I am could do it very easily and it would take a lot of effort from him.  However, because there was nothing to stop him from lifting weights and growing strong, I tell him to fuck off and struggle with it himself.  Why should I do work that is rightfully his to do, just because it is more convenient for him?


----------



## brogers (Feb 10, 2006)

A progressive tax system, even a PERCENTAGE tax system is penalizing success. The more you make, the more you pay. Sounds alot (exactly) like the tenants of a communist society, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

Regarding welfare, classifying it as anything other than theft and/or slavery is just plain wrong. Someone is receiving the money of another without compensation. How about someone on welfare mows all the lawns in my neighborhood? How about they clean my house? Do my laundry?


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> A progressive tax system, even a PERCENTAGE tax system is penalizing success. The more you make, the more you pay. Sounds alot (exactly) like the tenants of a communist society, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
> 
> Regarding welfare, classifying it as anything other than theft and/or slavery is just plain wrong. Someone is receiving the money of another without compensation. How about someone on welfare mows all the lawns in my neighborhood? How about they clean my house? Do my laundry?


Wow your brainwashing was very successful


----------



## brogers (Feb 10, 2006)

> Welfare: Most people opposed to welfare lump it together with all other entitlement programs to make the final budgetary effect shocking. I will do that too:
> 
> Income % of all households % of all benefits
> -----------------------------------------------
> ...



Actually they do get a shitload more.  The over $100,000 group pays probably well over 90% of taxes in this country.  The bottom groups pay a paltry amount, yet still gets roughly the same benefits as those in groups paying exponentially more taxes.


----------



## brogers (Feb 10, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Wow your brainwashing was very successful


 
Brainwashing huh.. Brainwashed, like believing somehow that taking someone's hard-earned money under penalty of law and giving it to someone else is ok?

edit:  btw do you have any argument, or just a dumb comment?


----------



## GFR (Feb 10, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Brainwashing huh.. Brainwashed, like believing somehow that taking someone's hard-earned money under penalty of law and giving it to someone else is ok?
> 
> edit: btw do you have any argument, or just a dumb comment?


I agree with you 100% we should stop all taxes now....


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers, I hope you don't dislike us because we disagree. We can't always agree on everything.
Yours truly
The Moron


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> edit:  btw do you have any argument, or just a dumb comment?



wait until they decide they dislike you personally, then they'll say extremely intelligent things like "dur, ummm, you hate poor people....durr..." or "duhhh...your a spoiled bigot"


but take comfort in the fact that it is only becuase they can't form an original, coherent thought


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> wait until they decide they dislike you personally, then they'll say extremely intelligent things like "dur, ummm, you hate poor people....durr..." or "duhhh...your a spoiled bigot"
> 
> 
> but take comfort in the fact that *it is only becuase they can't form an original, coherent thought*


Like your KKK propaganda


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> wait until they decide they dislike you personally, then they'll say extremely intelligent things like "dur, ummm, you hate poor people....durr..." or "duhhh...your a spoiled bigot"
> 
> 
> but take comfort in the fact that it is only becuase they can't form an original, coherent thought


 
I call it as I see it.  I don't see anything wrong with what Brogers posts but you just love to put the blacks and the poor down.
If you are going to do this at least admit you dislike them.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> If you are going to do *this* at least admit you dislike them.



by "this" you mean posting actual crime statistics and trying have a conversation about pros and cons of the progressive tax scheme.....

yeah, I see exactly what you mean


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> by "this" you mean posting actual crime statistics and trying have a conversation about pros and cons of the progressive tax scheme.....
> 
> yeah, I see exactly what you mean


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> by "this" you mean posting actual crime statistics and trying have a conversation about pros and cons of the progressive tax scheme.....
> 
> yeah, I see exactly what you mean


Another Pathetic post


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Oh poor me, I just happen to post about the Negroes and the degenerate poor and all of the sudden I am attacked....woe is me.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> did you know poor people are more likely to rent than own their own home?





			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> WHY DON'T YOU JUST ADMIT YOU HATE THEM!!!  It is clear by the hateful things you are saying that you just despise poor people.  At least admit it you hateful spoiled bigot...





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> well that largely has to do with the down payment and loan systems, and contributes to the problem because the poor cannot build equity





			
				clemson357 said:
			
		

> Yeah, I see what you are saying but I think if they tried really hard most people would be able to save up a down payment and finance their own home...





			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> you are such a fucking bigot clemson.  you are so spoiled.





			
				Decker said:
			
		

> It also has a lot to do with popular culture, and the glorification of the flashy, live for the moment life style.  Most people don't even understand the concept of equity.





			
				clemson said:
			
		

> I agree.





			
				min0 lee said:
			
		

> you are the stupidest, most hate filled person ever clemson





thats what a conversation is like when one party is too unintelligent to form a logical response...


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

The serial killer statistics -​
The USA has 76% of the worlds serial     killersgland has produc​

84% of American killers are *caucasian.* 



*Do a thread about that you fucking tool*


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 - "you can't understand until you live in the ghetto, you are automatically treated differently"

clemson - "do you really think it is because of where you live, or is it because your actions and mannerisms reflect where you live?  That making it, in a sense, how you present yourself"

min0 - "No, its because of where you live.  I don't act like that at all"

clemson - "So every person you encounter knows exactly where you sleep at night merely by looking at you, and it has nothing to do with your appearance?"

min0 - "Umm....durrr.....uhhh....  I like to remain anomisity...or anonymous...uhh.....you just don't get it"

clemson - "well, I'd like for you to explain to me why everyone treats you different for being from the ghetto, if they can't tell your from the ghetto by the way you act, and they don't know where you live..."

min0 - "your just a spoiled bigot..."


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> thats what a conversation is like when one party is too unintelligent to form a logical response...


 
I don't understand why a you would need to go back a edit posts to make it look like I typed that crap? 
That is so childish that even I would do that.

It looks like your parents wasted their money sending you to college.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> The serial killer statistics -​
> The USA has 76% of the worlds serial     killersgland has produc​
> 
> 84% of American killers are *caucasian.*
> ...


actually, that is in my thread you fucking tool.

In reference to the American double standard, how it would be perfectly fine for me to say your statistics, but if it is a statistic about a minority you are suddenly labeled a bigot.

and you two bumbling morons proved my point perfectly, you are still proving it.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

What is your problem Clemson?

Did a black guy face rape you when you were young?

Or is it the fact that your mother left your dad for a poor black man?

Tell me, i'll understand.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> actually, that is in my thread you *fucking tool*.
> 
> In reference to the American double standard, how it would be perfectly fine for me to say your statistics, but if it is a statistic about a minority you are suddenly labeled a bigot.
> 
> and you two bumbling morons proved my point perfectly, you are still proving it.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I don't understand why a you would need to go back a edit posts to make it look like I typed that crap?
> That is so childish that even I would do that.
> 
> It looks like your parents wasted their money sending you to college.



It was an illustrative example, not a misrepresentation.  looks like you could have used a little more education...


and yeah, my engineering degree was a huge waste of money.  especially for my parents, who paid practically nothing for it because of my scholarships.  but I had so much more opportunity than you right?  thats why you didn't succeed.  my massive opportunities, going to a public highschool in a state which is 47th in the country for education....


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> actually, that is in my thread you fucking tool.
> 
> In reference to the American double standard, how it would be perfectly fine for me to say your statistics, but if it is a statistic about a minority you are suddenly labeled a bigot.
> 
> and you two bumbling morons proved my point perfectly, you are still proving it.


No retard your stupid thread ( like all of them) was a sophmoric attempt to be clever about your racist beliefs. Very few people here are stupid enough to fall for your lowbrow attempts to package your racism and hate in intelligent dialog...


Pathetic


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

You really need to update your Avatar Clemson...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

Damn, whats taking this jerk so long....I wonder if he's looking through his books to come out with a witty remark.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> You really need to update your Avatar Clemson...


Thats alright min0.  I don't hold anything against you.

Just keep telling yourself that you are not responsible for anything in your life.  Anyone who did better than you was handed their life on a silver platter.  If thats what it takes to make your life liveable, then I won't take that away from you.  

There is no such thing as hard work and high achievement by your own merit, and thats why it didn't happen for you.  

Anyone that wants to have a real world discussion about race or crime or poverty or any of the problems in this country is a bigot if they disagree with you.  If they stray from the liberal political correctness, we can always just attack them personally rather than address the topic in substance.  after all, it only takes the intelligence of a fourth grader to insult someone's mother, and we wouldn't want to exert our brains past fourth grade.  We wouldn't want to try to articulate our actual opinion.  That might make us smarter, and we all know smarter means nothing in America because everyone's life is already decided for them.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

hey min0, your mother is so fat, she wears a VCR as a beeper


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

hey min0, your mother is so fat, she sat on a dollar and made four quarters.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> hey min0, your mother is so fat, she sat on a dollar and made four quarters.


 
I can link you to more "your mother'' jokes but you have to say "you mama"
But that would be too black for you.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> I can link you to more "your mother'' jokes but you have to say "you mama"
> But that would be too black for you.





yep, too black for me.  because all blacks speak ebonics right?

hey min0, your mother so big, to have sex with her I just slap her ass and ride the waves in...


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Thats alright min0.  I don't hold anything against you.
> 
> *Just keep telling yourself that you are not responsible for anything in your life.*  Anyone who did better than you was handed their life on a silver platter.  If thats what it takes to make your life liveable, then I won't take that away from you.
> 
> ...




My daddy touched me in the bad place when I was little.  I always told myself it was my fault.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Thats alright min0. I don't hold anything against you.
> 
> *Don't lie!*
> 
> ...


.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> yep, too black for me. because all blacks speak ebonics right?
> 
> hey min0, your mother so big, to have sex with her I just slap her ass and ride the waves in...


 
Hey Clemson, your OK. 
I just ask you to not read into stats all the time, they can be very misleading.


----------



## GFR (Feb 11, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> My daddy touched me in the bad place when I was little.  I always told myself it was my fault.


Thats hot!!!! tell us more


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

John H. said:
			
		

> Hi Clemson,
> 
> To better UNDERSTAND poverty you'd have to live under those conditions youself. Kinda like walking in other people's shoes.
> 
> ...


 
 

Do you disagree with his post Clemson?


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Thats hot!!!! tell us more


You said he was your son also, how many bastard sons do you have around here?


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Hey, I wan't some of the ethnic action:

Yo' momma's so fat, that 'n high school she sat next to e'rybody.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 11, 2006)

min0 lee said:
			
		

> Do you disagree with his post Clemson?



  Now we want to have a substantive conversation?


Hey min0, your mother is like a bag of potato chips: Frito-lay


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> Now we want to have a substantive conversation?
> 
> 
> Hey min0, your mother is like a bag of potato chips: Frito-lay


 
I tried having one with you before on another thread but you were too consumed with your essay posts.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

*Yo Mama So Stupid*

told her drinks were on the house...so she went and got a ladder...

she make Homer Simpson look like a Nobel Prize winner

she took the Pepsi challenge and chose Cif.

she noticed a sign reading 'Wet Floor'...so she just did!

it takes her two hours to watch 60 Minutes.

when you were born, she looked at your umbilical cord and said, "Wow, it comes with cable too!"

she asked for a refund on a jigsaw puzzle complaining it was broken.

she got locked in the Quickie Mart and nearly starved to death.

she sold her Car for Petrol cash!

she reckoned a Quarterback was a refund...

she once attempted to commit suicide by jumping off a Kerb.

she leaves tell tales signs she's been using my computer - white out (tipp ex) is on the screen.

she took a job cutting grass on an Oil Rig.

I found her peaking over a glass wall to see what was on the other side.

it took her 2 days to make Microwaveable Pot Noodles.

she invented a silent car alarm.

that when you stand beside her you can actually hear the ocean

she really thought the cinema was selling Free Willies...

she watches The Three Stooges and takes notes.

she was born on Halloween and can't remember her birthday.

she thought Morning Dew was a New York radio station.

she lost her shadow.

she went to a Whalers game to see Kiko.

she somehow got fired from a Blow-Job

she thought Hot Meals were stolen food.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

*Yo Moma So Poor*

that your family ate Cornflakes with a fork to save milk.

they put her photo on food stamps.

when I visited her trailer, 2 cockroaches tripped me and a Rat tried to steal me wallet.

she waves an ice lolly around and calls it Air conditioning.

burglars break into her home and leave money.

when I told her about the last supper she thought the food stamps had run out.

the building society repossed her cardboard box.

she watches television on an Etch-A-Sketch.

each night she goes to KFC to lick other folk's fingers

she can't even afford to go to the free clinic.

when I saw her kickin a can down the road I asked her what she was doing....'Moving' she replied.

I caught her trying to use food stamps in the Gobstopper machine.

when I rang her doorbell, SHE said 'Ding-Dong'

I asked her where the 'facilities were' and she replied - "Pick a corner...ANY corner..."

I visited her house, tore down the cob webs and she screamed - "Who's tearing down the drapes!!!!"

I walked into her home, asked if I could use her toilet, and she said "Sure thing, it's 4th tree on your right..."

only time she smelled Hot Food was when a rich bloke farted...

when I saw her wobbling down the street with 1 shoe, I hollered - "Lost a shoe?", and she said - "Nope...just found one..."

she hangs the Toilet paper out to dry.

closest thing to a car she owns is a low-riding Shopping trolley....with a box on it...

she had to take out a second mortgage on her cardboard box.

I went into her 'living room', stepped on a Fag butt and she shouted - "Oi, who turned off the heater!"

I once threw a stone at a garbage can, and out she popped saying - "Who knocked???"

I went through her front door and tripped over the back fence.

she does drive by shootings on the school bus.

when she asked me over to dinner I took a paper plate from the kitchen and she groule - "Don't use the good china"


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

*Yo's - So Poor...*

You're so poor even Beggars give you money.

Yo Grannie so damn poor she bounces food stamps.

Your Teachers so poor she can't even afford to pay attention.

Yo Priest so poor he uses cardboard and ribena as bread and wine substitutes.

Yo Doctor so poor, he uses chewing gum as a bandaid.

You family so poor you's live in a 2-story Cracker Jack box.

Yo sister is so po...shit, she can't even afford them last 2 letters!

Yo Dentist is so poor she uses white-out/tippex as your tooth filler.

Yo' Cleaner so poor she can't afford a mop - she stands on her head in order to mop the floor...

Yo Poppa so poor his idea of Desert was to go outside and collect the 'yellow snow'...and yo loved it, didn't ya!

You Star Wars friend so insanely poor that I walked into his house, asked to use the bathroom, and he handed me a shovel saying: "May the force be with you."

Yo Father so poor that when I aks him what for dinner, he take off his shoelaces and says - Spaghetti!

Yo older sis getting so poor she's planning on getting married...just so she can get the rice at the wedding.

Your lecturer so poor he uses his cardboard box as a blackboard.

Yo' so poor, you get more government handouts than an English farmer

Yo' best friend so poor he have to fart just to get a scent (cent).

Yo Gossiping wife so poor she can't even afford to put her two cents into this conversation...

Yo Grannie so poor that when I asked her what's for dinner, she tried to throw ME in the oven!

Yo' Mommy so poor I went over for dinner, saw 3 beans on the table...took one and she said - "Don't be greedy!"

You Auntie's so poor she gotta live in a 2-story Dorritos bag...

Yo big brother so freakin poor I stepped on his old banged up skateboard and he yelled - "Get off my F****in CAR"

Yo Computer geek friend so poor he uses a Commodore 64 to surf the web.

Your pimp so poor he just bought an _imitation_ of a fake Rolex

Yo Reverand so poor the congregation run over animals outside the church just to help with food...

Yo Gardener's so damn poor that when I pissed in his yard he thanked me for watering the lawn...

Yo Mama's so damn poor, her front porch matt says 'Wel'...

You so piss poor...hold on, you don't have a pot to piss in or even a window to throw it out of...

Yo Uncle so poor I went into his house, swatted a pesky firefly and he screamed - "Who turned out the lights?"

Yo Nana so sickenly poor I walks into her house, asked to use the toilet and she hand me 2 large sticks. I ask what they're for and she says: "Use one to hold up the ceiling...use the other to fight off the cockroaches..."

Yo half-sister so damn poor even the Republicans were willing to give her welfare.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

*Your Mama So Fat*

when she step on the Weight Scales it says...'to be continued'...

she once went on a seafood diet...whenever she saw food she ate it!

folk exercise by jogging around her!

when she bends over, we enter Daylight Saving Time.

she sat on a Nintendo Gamecube and it turned into a gameboy

she make Kiko the Whale look like a Smartie

NASA plan to use her to shore up the hole in the Ozone layer

she was measured at 38-26-36 and that was just the left arm...

small objects orbit her.

she make olympic sumo wrestlers look anerixic.

when I tell her to haul ass, she gotta make two trips.

when she farted she launched herself into orbit.

she lost a game at Hide&Seek only cos I spotted her...behind Mount Everest.

when I had to swerve to avoid hitting her on the road I ran out of Petrol!

she could be the eighth continent.

she nearly put Safeway out of business

the only thing that's attracted to her is gravity.

her Uni graduation photo was an aerial

when she auditioned for a part in Raiders of the Lost Ark she got the part of the big Rolling Ball.

she make Jabba the Hutt look anorexic.

her fave food is seconds.

her belt size is Equator.

she eats Desert out of a Trash Can lid

she wears an 'X' jacket and Copters attempt to land on her

she shows up on radar.

she needs a map to find her butt.

she fell into the Grand Canyon....and got stuck!

she wears an asteroid belt.

her Passport photo says 'Picture is continued overleaf'

she has TB ... 2 bellys.

she's once, twice, three times a lady.

she was in the Daily Record last week on page 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9.

the circus use her as a trampoline

stunt agencies use her as an air mattress

when she opens the Fridge it says - 'I give up...'

she got a new gig at the Cinema...she works as the screen

she once told me 'I could eat a horse'...believe me, she wasn't kidding!

she deep fries her toothpaste.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

*Yo's - So Fat...*

Yo Grannie so damn fat, that if she was an Aeroplane, she'd be a Jumbo Jet.

Yo Grandpa so fat that he's half Scottish, half Irish and half American

Yo Wife so fat she fell off a boat and the Captain yelled, "Land Ahoy!!!"

Yo Priest so fat, when he bungee jumped he went straight to hell...

Yo Doctor so fat, that when her Beeper goes off folk think she's backing up.

Yo Auntie so fat when she goes to Gap the only thing she can fit into is the Dressing Room

Yo Bookie so fat he gotta buy clothes by the furlon

Yo Dentist so fat that when he burped he blew out all yo mamma's teeth...that why she so ugly!

Yo Papa's so large when you climb on top of him your ears pop.

Yo Father so fat that when he sat on a Rainbow skittles fell out.

Yo Sister so fat that even Richard Simmons can't help laughing

Yo Sis so Monstrous she uses Soccer balls for earrings.

Yo Father so fat he can't even tie his own shoelaces

Yo Mama so huge that God created her...and on the seventh day rested.

Your Kid Sister so fat the Japanese Sumo Wrestling squad had to turn her down.

Yo Star Trek fan so fat he make Riker's beer belly look 2 atoms thick

Yo Lawyer's so fat...we're inside her right now.

Yo' Baker so freakin fat he masturbates when reading cookbooks

Yo Auntie so fat that Weight Watchers threw her out for breaking the scales.

Yo Boss so fat that when she calls a board meeting she has to pull herself up a Sofa.

Yo Air hostess so fat that on a scale of 1 to 10 she a 747.

Your boyfriend so fat he hasn't seen his feet for 10 years

Yo Bro so fat that when he farted, Mars came out...and I ain't talkin bout the 'sweetie'

You Nana so fat that when she went for a swim in the ocean she caused a 60 foot tidal wave.

Yo Music teacher so freakin Fat that she whistles Bass

Yo Postman so fat he got his very own Post Code

You cousin so fat she's on Both sides of the family.

Yo Girlfriend so fat I ask her to go get a Curry and she bring back 80 pounds of gravy.

Yo kid brother so fat he sat on 4 quarters and made a dollar.

Your Mom so fat she uses a bed mattress for a maxipad

Yo wife so fat she got more nooks and Crannies than a Ploughman's pastry

Yo Sister so fat she got a new job DJ'ing for the Ice Cream Van.

Yo Momma so fat all chairs in the house have their own seatbelts.

Yo Dog so fat that when you take it 'walkies' it don't know whether it walking or rolling

Your Mommas so fat, when it says All you can eat it still ain't enough.

Yo' Astronomer so fat she plays pool with Venus....and Neptune...and pluto...and...


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 11, 2006)

OK, it's out of the way now.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 11, 2006)

Yo mammas so stupid, she thought that Manual Labor was the President of Mexico.


----------



## John H. (Feb 13, 2006)

Burner02 said:
			
		

> I saw a bumper sticker on a car some time back. It read:
> Work harder. Millions on welfare are depending on you.
> 
> Ok, for the 54% that get off welfare and join the workforce, more power to them.
> ...



Hi Burner,

Don't forget now - the "other 46%" you speak of ALSO PAID taxes that go into the pot that partially goes to those finding it necessary to be on welfare.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## John H. (Feb 13, 2006)

ALBOB said:
			
		

> I got another one for you.  Not too many years ago, I was home visiting the folks in PA.  While in a supermarket I saw a woman buy almost $200 worth of crap.  And I mean CRAP.  It included every kind of soda made, bags and bags of chips, the highest priced highest sugar content cereal, etc.  She even got CIGARETTES!  Not one single item of real food.  She then proceded to go out into the parking lot and load it all into a brand new Mercedes 450 SL.
> 
> No I don't condemn every person on welfare for the actions of a few (46%).  But I also don't think those 46% should be getting off scott free.  Burner's got a damn good suggestion; they're getting paid by the government, let them work for the government.  No work, no pay.  Just like the rest of us.



Hi ALBOB,

There are many things you can NOT buy unless YOU pay CASH for the item. Cigarettes, etc.  Do youself a favor and go to the Welfare Office and ask them for an application and READ IT - at least EIGHT PAGES of questions they ask you (I did that myself JUST to see FOR MYSELF - I pretended I needed help   - they (Welfare Office) do not want the general population to know what someone applying for Welfare has to go through - they would not let me take an application WITH me to fill out (I was going to show others who criticize people on Welfare what they have to go through to be placed on Welfare - it is NOT easy) - I was supposed to fill it out in their office, I could not take it with me and then return it later.... And also SEE what is allowed to be purchased on food stamps and what is not.

Take Care, John H.


----------



## Decker (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Actually they do get a shitload more. The over $100,000 group pays probably well over 90% of taxes in this country. The bottom groups pay a paltry amount, yet still gets roughly the same benefits as those in groups paying exponentially more taxes.


They do not get a shitload more. Those that pay income taxes pay the exact same rates for the same pay earned???only if one earns more does the rate increase for that amount. But that is beside the point re AFDC expenditures.

For instance, the working poor and rich pay the exact same rate of payroll tax which funds AFDC. They pay the exact same rate for every dollar earned. Although the rich pay more in absolute terms???b/c they earn more???in relative terms they pay the same 12.4% of earned income. The graded income tax scale has nothing to do with AFDC expenditures.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

> Those that pay income taxes pay the exact same rates for the same pay earned???only if one earns more does the rate increase for that amount.



Did I say rate, ever?  No.  I was speaking strictly of dollar amount.  As if even that can be justified.  The more you make, the more they take.  Great incentive to work hard.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Did I say rate, ever?  No.  I was speaking strictly of dollar amount.  As if even that can be justified.  The more you make, the more they take.  Great incentive to work hard.


So go on welfare then son.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> So go on welfare then son.


 
no.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> no.


Then quit crying bitch


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Then quit crying bitch


 
I will right after everyone pays an equal portion of federal government's bill.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> I will right after everyone pays an equal portion of federal government's bill.


That will never happen, the top 1% pay 0 taxes and never will.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> That will never happen, the top 1% pay 0 taxes and never will.




true story


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

http://www.allegromedia.com/sugi/taxes/images/whopays_top10detail.gif

The Top 1% of taxpayers pay 29% of all taxes. 
The Top 5% of taxpayers pay 50% of all taxes. 

Talk about a "gap."

2000 census numbers.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

Look dummy, my father is rich and he pays less in taxes than your middle class ass does....................why?????? because he is fucking rich and knows how to avoid all that shit.  estate taxes ??????
*
Year      Exempt Amount*
1998     $625,000
1999     $650,000
2000,2001     $675,000
2002,2003     $700,000
2004     $850,000
2005     $950,000
2006 and after     $1 million


Guess what..........................0 is the real number as long as you know how to play the system......and to do so you need to be rich and have conections......sorry to say it but the dumb fucks making 50-150K are paying all the taxes, the rich sure as hell are not son....wake up.


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

some more recent numbers.

"The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent."


http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=18402


----------



## brogers (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Look dummy, my father is rich and he pays less in taxes than your middle class ass does....................why?????? because he is fucking rich and knows how to avoid all that shit. estate taxes ??????
> 
> *Year     Exempt Amount*
> 1998     $625,000
> ...


 
Let's make it a set dollar amount then?  No loopholes.


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> Let's make it a set dollar amount then?  No loopholes.


You and I do not have the power to change anything.


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 13, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole...



Naw dude, thats fair.  Thats perfectly fair.  And if you don't think so you obviously hate poor people.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

Actually... Foreman is right....


With wealth comes power, and the ability to avoid taxes....


So numbers don't mean anything..


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

BigDyl said:
			
		

> Actually... Foreman is right....
> 
> 
> With wealth comes power, and the ability to avoid taxes....
> ...


Bottom line is you have young poor guys who dream of wealth ( guys who make 40K) ................................and most of then think 150K a year is wealth they have no idea what it is to be in the world of the top 1%.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> Bottom line is you have young poor guys who dream of wealth ( guys who make 40K) ................................and most of then think 150K a year is wealth they have no idea what it is to be in the world of the top 1%.




I need some money...


----------



## clemson357 (Feb 13, 2006)

ForemanRules said:
			
		

> they have no idea what it is to be in the world of the top 1%.



approximately $680K per year in the late 1990's


----------



## GFR (Feb 13, 2006)

clemson357 said:
			
		

> approximately $680K per year in the late 1990's


And???????


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> They do not get a shitload more. Those that pay income taxes pay the exact same rates for the same pay earned???only if one earns more does the rate increase for that amount. *But that is beside the point re AFDC expenditures.*
> 
> For instance, the working poor and rich pay the exact same rate of *payroll *tax *which funds AFDC.* They pay the exact same rate for every dollar earned. Although the rich pay more in absolute terms???b/c they earn more???in relative terms they pay the same *12.4% of earned income. The graded income tax scale has nothing to do with AFDC expenditures.*


The text that I put in bold is not correct in reference to AFDC. AFDC is paid out of general revenues of the gov. and from SS/payroll taxes only to the extent that the two are comingled (thank you Pres. Johnson--asswipe). 

I did not write the stuff in bold. Yesterday my computer died. I wasn't able to get another till the afternoon. At around 4:20 my business partner (our defacto computer guy) came in to set up the drives and my e-mail and install some software. I'd left the forum open and my statement unsubmitted and left to pick my wife from work and that friggin icehole added the stuff in black. 

Why? I was hired to help design retirement plans integrated w/ Soc. Sec.; I've written a law review article on privatization and have been quoted in the state paper on the same. This bus. partner (boss's son) thought, and still claims, that payroll taxes fund Welfare and we have had an ongoing war over it. He's partially right (see above) but claims too much. Anyway, that's the last time I leave any message unattended.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> some more recent numbers.
> 
> "The Internal Revenue Service has released data on tax year 2003 that show the top 1 percent of taxpayers, ranked by adjusted gross income, paid 34.3 percent of all federal income taxes that year. The top 5 percent paid 54.4 percent of the whole, the top 10 percent paid 65.8 percent, and the top quarter of taxpayers paid 83.9 percent."
> 
> ...


 
The top quarter pays more b/c they earn more money. Let's see I complain b/c I pay more taxes b/c I make more money. The real topic is that these top income earners want to keep more of the money they make. Who doesn't. The problem with that is that in a graded tax scheme, the different grades of taxation are applied in an equal indiscriminate matter: If anyone earns X amount of income, then they pay X amount in taxes. Now, loopholes and exemptions are other matters.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

brogers said:
			
		

> The Top 1% of income earners (comprising about 1 million families) earn about 15% of the total income earned by all wage earners in the United States, yet they pay almost 30% of all individual income taxes.


The top 1% make most of their income in capital gains: stocks, sale of property, businesses etc. Capital gains are taxed differently than earned income.  The top income earners do not have to be the top 1% w/ respect to wealth, in fact many in the top 1% take token salaries from the corp. boards they preside over to show what good guys they are.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Decker said:
			
		

> The top 1% make most of their income in capital gains: stocks, sale of property, businesses etc. Capital gains are taxed differently than earned income.  The top income earners do not have to be the top 1% w/ respect to wealth, in fact many in the top 1% take token salaries from the corp. boards they preside over to show what good guys they are.



The top 1% are also smart enough to incorporate and enjoy a better tax rate.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> The top 1% are also smart enough to incorporate and enjoy a better tax rate.


Yes, those that are successful are generally intelligent too. It is in most cases smart to incorporate...Incorporation...the act of creating a fictional business entity with the same constitutional rights as living person...but more: They are infinite in life, they can recreate themselves through reorganization, they can avoid US taxes by creating themselves offshore, they don't feel pain or need clean air or water but they sure as hell can pollute for profit and best of all they can socialize their own costs of doing business through the gov. and privatize the profit.

I just fell off my soapbox.  Got workd to do.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Ah, the evils of the corporation.  I agree with quite a few of your points, but like most liberal, you over do it.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Ah, the evils of the corporation. I agree with quite a few of your points, but like most liberal, you over do it.


Exactly which statement about corporations is overdone? 

But like most traitorous diabolical liberals, I can't help myself...I guess.


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Ah, the evils of the corporation.  I agree with quite a few of your points, but like most liberal, you over do it.




Watch the movie called "The Corporation."  Best movie ever, and you will have a new outlook on them afterwards...


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

Everyone one of the abuses that you stated are committed by some, not all, corporations.

That's like saying that because some people are murderers, that all people are murders.  

Even then, not every abuse is committed by a corporation that commits any given one.

That like saying just because someone lied on their tax returns they've also committed the crime of drug trafficking.  We do not live in an all or nothing world.


----------



## Decker (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> Everyone one of the abuses that you stated are committed by some, not all, corporations.
> 
> That's like saying that because some people are murderers, that all people are murders.
> 
> ...


By showing that corporations don't need to breath, eat or drink, or feel pain or be imprisoned, or need health care or retirement benefits etc, I was merely illustrating that corp.s enjoy superior constitutional rights w/out the existant limitations you or I have.

That leads to an accretion of power that you and I do not have.  Under the constitution, We The People govern ourselves...Not we the corporations.


----------



## DOMS (Feb 14, 2006)

I completely agree.


----------



## 33ecooks (Feb 14, 2006)

Hey man it isn't something you can simply reply to or explain in a forum or an essay and not everybody that lives in poverty are criminals. But living in impoverished areas can create an air of hopelessness without any positive role models or strong family support you can fall into criminal ways as a means to take care of yourself.. In reality you got to be there to understand man..


----------



## BigDyl (Feb 14, 2006)

DOMS said:
			
		

> I completely agree.


----------



## min0 lee (Feb 14, 2006)

33ecooks said:
			
		

> Hey man it isn't something you can simply reply to or explain in a forum or an essay and not everybody that lives in poverty are criminals. But living in impoverished areas can create an air of hopelessness without any positive role models or strong family support you can fall into criminal ways as a means to take care of yourself.. In reality you got to be there to understand man..


 
I agree, that's what irks me about Clemson. He plays the numbers game without knowing first hand how it is.


----------

