Poverty in the richest country in the World.

Originally posted by ANOK
reply to post by Divinorumus
I don't really care about paying someone the minimum you can get away with so as to increase your own profits. I cannot and will not except and support such an unfair exploitative system.

Well then, you've never started a business from scratch then, risking everything you own, including your reputation. Try it sometime, you might change your mind about "profits."

Wages work just like anything else sold and purchased. Have you ever scored a deal on eBay, but paid them twice your winning bid because you thought they deserved more profit? Have you ever had your car fixed by a mechanic and paid them an extra couple hundred dollars despite what it says on the bill, because you believe the mechanic was entitled to more profit and your money?

There are employee owned businesses that operate according to the ideals you support. Nobody is forcing another to work for a privately own business. BTW, a job is not a right (if it were, who's responsibility is it to fulfill that right for everyone else? Yours? Mine?)

If someone has issues with working for another at whatever wage was offered, it's only their fault if they accept it. Nobody says anyone must work for another or some big so-called greedy corporation. Heck, I've not worked for another in the last 12 years BECAUSE of the reasons you rebel against. Never did I think though I had the right to tell another human they had to provide me a job at the rate of pay I was demanding they pay me and how they should run their business. That's wrong. That's a dictatorship.

Cooperative work places, where everyone is part of the running and the profit of the business, are the only fair way to run things imo.

Okay, you do that then. You start your business and run it that way if you want. But don't think you have any right to tell others they should run their businesses in the same way. You have no more a right to expect that from someone else and their business than they have a right to tell YOU how your business should be run.

In a free nation, both kinds of businesses should be allowed to flourish. And, everyone can accept what job and pay is being offered by others that started a business of their own, or you can go work for yourselves.

This should not be so hard to understand. A job is not a right.

reply to post by Divinorumus

I don't think we can expect a mentally retarded, or even a paraplegic individual, should be held to the same standards of expectation as the rest of us.

You don't have to be "retarted" to not do well in school. You don't need to be "paraplegic" to have a physical hinderance that limits your potential for work.

And just like Forrest Gump didn't need any help from anyone, there are some "smart" people that do.

The government was not meant to be anyones mommy and daddy or career motivator.

You're right, this government was meant to secure a haven of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They have failed to do so. I want my money back.

If you think an unmotivated undereducated floor sweeper should be making $50 an hour, you hire one and pay them that much.

I think any uneducated floor sweeper should be paid enough that they don't have to turn to the government for supplement to keep them from starving on the streets.

Furthermore, you obviously know little about the labor market these days. In most places "floor sweepers" as you like to call them, actually hold a coveted position now. One of the last jobs one can get with a yearly raise, benefits and a pension. The only way you get a job as a custodian around here, is if you know someone.

THAT is what is suppose to happen when you try to raise a family of seven on a floor sweepers salary.

What about the family of four who's mother and father just got tossed from Bear Stearns, or a folded-up airline, or a plant that just shut down? Or how about the family who lost their home in a flood?

reply to post by Divinorumus

A job is not a right.

Then get off the stolen land so we can hunt and farm our food.

Originally posted by Divinorumus
Well then, you've never started a business from scratch then, risking everything you own, including your reputation. Try it sometime, you might change your mind about "profits."

No I wouldn't change my mind because I wouldn't start a business that was based on making money in the first place.

You are just trying to justify a system I don't agree with, so you're not going to convince me of anything.

A job is not a right? When the means of production, and everything you need to live, are monopolised by the few, who exploit the many, they better be giving us jobs! That or preferably give the workers the right to own the means of their own production. But then you wouldn't be able to 'own' a business would you?

Do they owe us a living? Of course they do!

Originally posted by jackinthebox
What about the family of four who's mother and father just got tossed from Bear Stearns, or a folded-up airline, or a plant that just shut down? Or how about the family who lost their home in a flood?

Oh boo hoo. That's NOT my problem, I have my own self to take care of and my own problems to deal with. Anyhow, when this happens, you pick yourself up by your bootstraps and carry on and do the best you can do to deal with it ~ on your own. Or, you can sit and wait until the cows come home for someone else to come along and take care of YOUR problems for you. I've lost jobs, and a house too. Raised 3 kids on my own with no help or support from their mother. Boohoo for me. But I dealt with it all on my own the best I could, and that's the way it was and is. My problems are nobody else's (aren't you glad?).

Why is any of this someone else's problem anyhow? Well, it isn't!. This isn't a commie socialist nation (thankfully), yet. Again, a job is not a right. Bad things happens to everyone now and then, that's life. Deal with it people. Or, sit there (like they did in New Orleans) and wait until your personally assigned human slave saviour comes to help you with YOUR problems for you . . . if that's your choice. I really don't care ~ I've got my own life to take care of so "I" don't become a burden on your back some day.

It's all relative.

One country's poverty can be another country's gold mine.

What other country can the poverty stricken souls claim to own a television and a vehicle?

reply to post by Alxandro


I don't care how poor people are in another country. Hungry is hungry. Homeless is homless. Either poverty is the fault of the individual, or it is the fault of the system that controls the resources we all need to survive. Take your pick.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
Then get off the stolen land so we can hunt and farm our food.

Okay, you have a good point there. I do believe every human upon this planet should be entitled to stake a claim (of limited size) to exist upon. It is not our fault we were born here, thus we should not have to PAY to be here. And neither should our claim be subject to property taxes, as that still enslaves us. I would enjoy nothing better than to stake a claim and live off the land and mind my own business. We can't do that though, because the tax jack man would demand we tithe the king every year, and I'm sure he wouldn't accept a few pounds of home grown instead of that funny slave money he prints and demands we play with, ha.

You want to beat THE MAN, stop playing with his funny money.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Ever heard of "living within your means" and "doing without"?

reply to post by Divinorumus


Well, we seem to have taken the long way around to meet the same conclusion. The Dollar is slave money.

EDIT to add: We wouldn't need the "jack tax" if we had the means to survive on our own.



[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by Alxandro


Sure, and plenty of Americans do.

reply to post by jackinthebox


Still feeling sorry for your self I see.

I suppose you feel people should be FORCED to fork out some cash to help the homeless and poverty stricken?

reply to post by Alxandro

I suppose you feel people should be FORCED to fork out some cash to help the homeless and poverty stricken?

We wouldn't have to if we weren't forced to make handouts to support corporate welfare. This country hands out trillions to keep the wealthy working and living in the lap of luxury long after they have deliberately run their companies into the ground. Why not help out the real working man a little? In fact, feed the masses first.

EDIT to add: I would much rather see a stimulus package for small businesses than any corporate bailout.


[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

reply to post by ANOK


Success is an entirely subjective term. Success isn't necessarily acheived when your bank account reaches a certain amount, nor are you successful just because you have 19 kids. Its up to the individual to judge for themselves whether they are successes or not.

I fail to see how a minority group of people holds sway over society's means of survival and production. Are you speaking of corporations, or just of the ultra-wealthy individual? Regardless of either, most of the machinations that enable survival (subjective term) and production are publicly held companies, or involve the Federal Govt, neither of which are beholden to only a small group of ppl. If you alluding to some conspiracy theory, ie Bildeburgs, then its impossible to debate such a point.

In all honesty, having gone through the system that allowed me to become successful (IMHO) allows me to understand in a more intimate way than someone who hasn't. My success was not contigent upon someone else failing (excluding someone else having the jobs I've held, or taking up the exact some positions on certain transactions). Capitalism will always have an impoverished class; its not because it creates it, really, but rather because there will always be people who simply cannot compete on the same level as others. The kids who drop out of HS are not going to go on and work for Goldman Sachs. As long as there has been civilization, there have been poor people. The *only* way to eliminate poor people is to take away the ability of people to become mroe financially successful than others, and pay everyone the exact same amount of income, regardless of what they do. Of course, this would destroy the nation entirely, and any incentive for people to work harder and excell. Why should they? Goodness of their hearts? Rather hard to put food on the table with warm sentiments.

Warren Buffet is not responsible for the existance of poor people. There's plenty of money out there, practically a sea of it, for the taking. Working hard is not the complete answer; Work hard and work smartly, and you will go far in life.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
The Dollar is slave money.

It certainly is. And I'm totally against using any form of currency medium that has no intrinsic value to itself. Valueless currency allows the bankers and slave owners to SCREW with your net worth and value. When I was younger, a dollar could buy a gallon of milk. Today I need 4 of them dollars to buy a gallon of milk. Why? Is milk 4 times scarcer than back then? Or do prices rise because the Feds keep devaluing the dollar every time they willy nilly magically create some more?

Funny money that isn't backed up by any valuable commodity is actually a SLAVE Certificate, backed up by our enslaved labor, and the cheating bankers and governments have the power to determine what that is worth. It doesn't even matter if you score the perfect job paying you $100 an hour to sit on your butt. Joe banker can fix your wagon simply by printing up more of that crap money, thus diluting and devaluing your hourly pay, and the next thing you know lunch will cost you a $100 tomorrow. Bastard cheating funny money bankers, backed up by scum sucking government gangsters and robbing hoodlums.

Of course this stinking economical mess isn't the complete fault of cheating banks and governments and greedy corporations. The average Joe 6-pack home owner is just as much to blame. How many people buy big expensive fancy homes, thinking "gee, after this sucker doubles and triples in value, I can unload it for a nifty profit?" Just who are THEY trying to screw over with this mentality? Their descendants? Your children any my children? We can thank our greedy parents and grandparents for this current real estate collapse ~ them that came before us are the ones to blame for homes costing a quarter of a million dollars and why it takes two incomes to afford them. Thieving bastards, ha. It shouldn't take 30 years of slavery to pay for a home that took a few other slaves a couple of months to build.

The dollar MUST crash, and we all must do our part to help make this happen. Homes and property values must be deflated to the point where anyone with a job can afford them, and they should be be affordable enough where they can be paid for in 3 to 5 years. This idea that a (deteriorating and temporary) wooden structure should inflate in value as it gets older is insane. And wrong. And immoral.

If you want big economic change, you must do your part to make it happen. If you want to take back your freedom and earning power, you're going to have to tip over the current monopoly board and crash the world economy and start over and NOT use CRAP FUNNY MONEY ever again. And "credit" should be made illegal (no more risky cheating IOUs) Once that happens, we'll all be free again to tend to our own lives and business on our terms and conditions.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
We wouldn't have to if we weren't forced to make handouts to support corporate welfare. This country hands out trillions to keep the wealthy working and living in the lap of luxury long after they have deliberately run their companies into the ground. Why not help out the real working man a little? In fact, feed the masses first.
[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

The reason why the Govt sometimes bails out companies when they run the risk of severe collapse is mostly to preserve jobs and the wealth of people/companies that have invested with the company in trouble. Had the Fed not stepped in to help Bear Sterns several thousand people would have been unemployed immediately, but more importantly, the entire financial sector would have suffered, exacerbating the credit issue in the US, and causing a great deal of unrest within the broader Market. The effects of such a collapse would have been immense.

That being said, I agree with the people who argue that the govt should have let Bear go. As it was, JPM paid an "f-you" price of $2 a share to B. Stearns stockholders (later upped to $10, lad-dee-dah), and gained a massive amount of assets. Bear Stearns overexposed itself in to CDO market, and had little to no hedge against the massive amounts of capital that they had invested. A mantra of any investor worth their salt is to always diversify your holdings, hedge your investments, and minimize risk as much as possible. They didn't, and they got taken to the carpet for it.

No one deliberately runs their company into the ground, not if its actually a profitable going concern. Why would they? You would lose out on not only the likely profits that the company would generate, but also any potential profits that could be brought in through prudent investing, and growth.

I would love to know what you're definition is for a "real working man". Do you have to make under a certain amount of money to be considered a "working man", or does your job just have to involve manual labor? Interesting thing about people who work jobs like construction, or manufacturing, or landscaping, etc. The amount of revenue that they generate in comparison to the amount of work they put into their job is crap in comparison to the amount of revenue and economic benefit that a trained professional can generate. A construction worker making 32k per year is much less important to the economy and business than a top-notch I-Banker that pulls in 7 figures. The worker generates revenue for his company, which might reinvest it in the company, pay it out, whatever. Regardless, his contribution is tiny in comparison to the whole. A well trained financial specialist can generate huge ROI percentages not only for their company, but also for individual investors if hes involved in that business. So, who's more important to society?

reply to post by BloodthirstyCapitalist

The reason why the Govt sometimes bails out companies when they run the risk of severe collapse is mostly to preserve jobs and the wealth of people/companies that have invested with the company in trouble. Had the Fed not stepped in to help Bear Sterns several thousand people would have been unemployed immediately, but more importantly, the entire financial sector would have suffered, exacerbating the credit issue in the US, and causing a great deal of unrest within the broader Market. The effects of such a collapse would have been immense

Merely delaying the inevitable. A handful of people at the top of the Bear Sterns heap have already secured their funds, it matters not if employees are let go in the coming months, or if the investors never see a ROI.

Furthermore, the money would have been much better spent in the small business sector giving opportunity to people who have not already proven to have failed miserably and at great expense to this nation even before the bailout.

They didn't, and they got taken to the carpet for it.

This is a deliberate tactic of the elite. Do you really think the top-dogs were hurt by this whatsoever? They took the money and ran, leaving those left behind holding the bag. A "fire-sale" alright, after a financial "jewish-lightning" scheme.

No one deliberately runs their company into the ground, not if its actually a profitable going concern. Why would they? You would lose out on not only the likely profits that the company would generate, but also any potential profits that could be brought in through prudent investing, and growth.

I think I have just explained that, but let me be clear. You walk with all the good investments and set up shop elsewhere to start the whole process over again. Meanwhile, you leave someone else accountable for all the risks that never paid off.

So, who's more important to society?

Fine, you call a banker the next time your house gets broken into or catches on fire, or you are choking on a thousand-dollar hamburger.

I think I should make it clear, that I am not against anyone doing well, or even being filthy rich for that matter, so long as everyone has access to the means to provide for themselves and to earn a living.

Regardless of the causes of poverty, everyone is entitled to the basic necessities of life so long as those resources are dictated by means and markets beyond the control of individual.

If there were a practical and guaranteed minimum standard of living in this country, you would see a sharp decrease in crime, and a higher quality of life for the middle class. But "they" won't do that for many reasons. One, crime keeps the middle class occupied by fear and subject to easy manipulation. Do you think think the head of an international conglomerate runs the risk of having his home broken into by some crack-head? No. It is the middle class who will suffer for this ignorance, both as the victim of crime, and then as the victim of a terminally flawed economy when it is their turn to be shoved into the abyss of poverty.

Originally posted by jackinthebox
This country hands out trillions to keep the wealthy working and living in the lap of luxury long after they have deliberately run their companies into the ground. Why not help out the real working man a little? In fact, feed the masses first.

[edit on 3/26/0808 by jackinthebox]

My friend you haven't changed a bit.

Since you seem to be an expert on welfare, I've a question.

Let's say over here in this corner we have ONE huge corportion that gets bailed out, just one time, for say One Billion bucks.
And let's say over there in that corner we have a thousand able bodied individuals that continually get bailed out, on weekly basis, and have done so for generations?
I'm sure even you would agree the total bailout of the second group, in the long run, far exceeds that of One Billion bucks many times over.
On top of that, there seems to be no end in sight to this type of practice.

Which is better for the country in the long run?

You say feed the masses first, I say quit buying stuff you can't afford and spend that money on food instead.

Why should I be forced to support folks that don't want to help themselves?

Originally posted by Alxandro
Why should I be forced to support folks that don't want to help themselves?

Oh, I'm sure some would just love to help themselves alright. What it boils down to is would you rather just fork over the cash via their IRS protection racket ganisters with guns, or come home from your slave job one day to find they helped themselves to everything you own that's pawnable?