Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Gob wrote:

This doesn't work.

I know a guy who's a genius. He could easily have schooled his own teachers, BUT, because he's such a bad people person (or ass kisser ) He barely gets by working in retail, and strangely enjoys his job..

On the other hand you can have people without college educations steal and cheat their way to the top (Bill Gates).

This is why capitalism is fucked.

I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.

Bull shit. That is such a cop out. And besides, getting along with people is a facet of business. So, you can't be too smart if you can't figure that out. And plenty of "geniuses" that aren't fit for the boardroom came up with their own business to make money.

I think the funny part is the part where "strangely he enjoys it." That is fine. But, I also think it answers the other part of your commentary about his job status. He didn't like being a "genius." He likes retail. Good for him.

LikeAnOcean · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Gob wrote:

This doesn't work.

I know a guy who's a genius. He could easily have schooled his own teachers, BUT, because he's such a bad people person (or ass kisser ) He barely gets by working in retail, and strangely enjoys his job..

On the other hand you can have people without college educations steal and cheat their way to the top (Bill Gates).

This is why capitalism is fucked.

I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.

Bull shit. That is such a cop out. And besides, getting along with people is a facet of business. So, you can't be too smart if you can't figure that out. And plenty of "geniuses" that aren't fit for the boardroom came up with their own business to make money.

I think the funny part is the part where "strangely he enjoys it." That is fine. But, I also think it answers the other part of your commentary about his job status. He didn't like being a "genius." He likes retail. Good for him.

Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Why is the middle class disappearing?

Are people getting smarter AND dumber?

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Gob wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Bull shit. That is such a cop out. And besides, getting along with people is a facet of business. So, you can't be too smart if you can't figure that out. And plenty of "geniuses" that aren't fit for the boardroom came up with their own business to make money.

I think the funny part is the part where "strangely he enjoys it." That is fine. But, I also think it answers the other part of your commentary about his job status. He didn't like being a "genius." He likes retail. Good for him.

Why are the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer? Why is the middle class disappearing?

Are people getting smarter AND dumber?

What does have to do with your friend that can't get along with others?

The middle class is not disapearing. It's being mis-defined. I think we need to take another look at what Obama is calling "rich."

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

The middle class is not disapearing. It's being mis-defined. I think we need to take another look at what Obama is calling "rich."

The Middle Class in America Is Radically Shrinking. Here Are the Stats to Prove it

http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/th ... 20657.html

The 22 statistics detailed here prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that the middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence in America.

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer at a staggering rate. Once upon a time, the United States had the largest and most prosperous middle class in the history of the world, but now that is changing at a blinding pace.

So why are we witnessing such fundamental changes? Well, the globalism and "free trade" that our politicians and business leaders insisted would be so good for us have had some rather nasty side effects. It turns out that they didn't tell us that the "global economy" would mean that middle class American workers would eventually have to directly compete for jobs with people on the other side of the world where there is no minimum wage and very few regulations. The big global corporations have greatly benefited by exploiting third world labor pools over the last several decades, but middle class American workers have increasingly found things to be very tough.

Here are the statistics to prove it:

• 83 percent of all U.S. stocks are in the hands of 1 percent of the people.
• 61 percent of Americans "always or usually" live paycheck to paycheck, which was up from 49 percent in 2008 and 43 percent in 2007.
• 66 percent of the income growth between 2001 and 2007 went to the top 1% of all Americans.
• 36 percent of Americans say that they don't contribute anything to retirement savings.
• A staggering 43 percent of Americans have less than $10,000 saved up for retirement.
• 24 percent of American workers say that they have postponed their planned retirement age in the past year.
• Over 1.4 million Americans filed for personal bankruptcy in 2009, which represented a 32 percent increase over 2008.
• Only the top 5 percent of U.S. households have earned enough additional income to match the rise in housing costs since 1975.
• For the first time in U.S. history, banks own a greater share of residential housing net worth in the United States than all individual Americans put together.
• In 1950, the ratio of the average executive's paycheck to the average worker's paycheck was about 30 to 1. Since the year 2000, that ratio has exploded to between 300 to 500 to one.
• As of 2007, the bottom 80 percent of American households held about 7% of the liquid financial assets.
• The bottom 50 percent of income earners in the United States now collectively own less than 1 percent of the nation’s wealth.
• Average Wall Street bonuses for 2009 were up 17 percent when compared with 2008.
• In the United States, the average federal worker now earns 60% MORE than the average worker in the private sector.
• The top 1 percent of U.S. households own nearly twice as much of America's corporate wealth as they did just 15 years ago.
• In America today, the average time needed to find a job has risen to a record 35.2 weeks.
• More than 40 percent of Americans who actually are employed are now working in service jobs, which are often very low paying.
• or the first time in U.S. history, more than 40 million Americans are on food stamps, and the U.S. Department of Agriculture projects that number will go up to 43 million Americans in 2011.
• This is what American workers now must compete against: in China a garment worker makes approximately 86 cents an hour and in Cambodia a garment worker makes approximately 22 cents an hour.
• Approximately 21 percent of all children in the United States are living below the poverty line in 2010 - the highest rate in 20 years.
• Despite the financial crisis, the number of millionaires in the United States rose a whopping 16 percent to 7.8 million in 2009.
• The top 10 percent of Americans now earn around 50 percent of our national income.

Giant Sucking Sound

The reality is that no matter how smart, how strong, how educated or how hard working American workers are, they just cannot compete with people who are desperate to put in 10 to 12 hour days at less than a dollar an hour on the other side of the world. After all, what corporation in their right mind is going to pay an American worker 10 times more (plus benefits) to do the same job? The world is fundamentally changing. Wealth and power are rapidly becoming concentrated at the top and the big global corporations are making massive amounts of money. Meanwhile, the American middle class is being systematically wiped out of existence as U.S. workers are slowly being merged into the new "global" labor pool.

What do most Americans have to offer in the marketplace other than their labor? Not much. The truth is that most Americans are absolutely dependent on someone else giving them a job. But today, U.S. workers are "less attractive" than ever. Compared to the rest of the world, American workers are extremely expensive, and the government keeps passing more rules and regulations seemingly on a monthly basis that makes it even more difficult to conduct business in the United States.

So corporations are moving operations out of the U.S. at breathtaking speed. Since the U.S. government does not penalize them for doing so, there really is no incentive for them to stay.

What has developed is a situation where the people at the top are doing quite well, while most Americans are finding it increasingly difficult to make it. There are now about six unemployed Americans for every new job opening in the United States, and the number of "chronically unemployed" is absolutely soaring. There simply are not nearly enough jobs for everyone.

Many of those who are able to get jobs are finding that they are making less money than they used to. In fact, an increasingly large percentage of Americans are working at low wage retail and service jobs.

But you can't raise a family on what you make flipping burgers at McDonald's or on what you bring in from greeting customers down at the local Wal-Mart.

The truth is that the middle class in America is dying -- and once it is gone it will be incredibly difficult to rebuild.

.

JOEJOEJOE · May 2011

Gob wrote:

This doesn't work.

I know a guy who's a genius. He could easily have schooled his own teachers, BUT, because he's such a bad people person (or ass kisser ) He barely gets by working in retail, and strangely enjoys his job..

On the other hand you can have people without college educations steal and cheat their way to the top (Bill Gates).

This is why capitalism is fucked.

I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.

I really don't think any human being is worth more than a few hundred thousand a year to society, or less than a few dozen thousand..

If you want to work hard, you make twice as much as the guy who doesn't work hard. Not millions more.

A maximum wage would greatly reduce the incentive to excel in many areas. It is great to think that people should do something for the craft, but if there aren't sufficient financial rewards, the quality of the craft will go way down.

If those making $200,000 per year were only allowed to make, say, $50,000 per year, many of those high earners would opt for less complicated jobs.

brandon10 · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

polaris_x wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

And before we get into why not drug test everyone - the "rich" are not asking anyone else for anything.

what about corporations that lobby gov'ts for policies aimed at benefiting them? ... what about corporate welfare? ...

Been over this in another thread (and I can't believe we have 2 parallel threads going on right now). We should review those. If they provide more economic good than what the gov't is providing, they should continue (and this also means the simple job creation to the actual extra tax dollars produced). If not, then they should be reconsidered. But, it's not as simple as EXXON made $14 billion and got $4 billion in subisidy. There's more to the 2nd part of the equation.

And some feel that social welfare is a benefit to society as a whole much the same a corporate welfare may be. There are grey areas for both. BOTH have their positives and negatives. But it seems you are blind to the benefits of having a wealthier( actually slightly wealthier, but much healthier) bottom end of our society. But go ahead and keep spending billions a day overseas. :roll: :roll:

JOEJOEJOE · May 2011

There will ALWAYS be some sort of weatlth distribution. Political stability in any country requires that people get fed and clothed. Remember all of the rebel uprisings in Central America in the 70s & 80s? They happened because the poor people were fed up!

I am a capitalist, but I know that there will always be those in need, so I have no problem helping them.

Rather then focus on the amount of wealth distributed, I think we should worry about the poor way in which said distribution is administered.

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

Hey, gimme - so many of those stats are so laughable that it's embarassing you're using them.

I especially love the one that polls people and more people live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe, that's because instead of just buying essentials, they're saving up for PJ20 tickets.

People don't contribute to their retirement savings - because they know the nanny state will take care of them! So, why "waste" their money on this foolishness. Theres' PJ20 tickets to buy! And ice cream!

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

inmytree · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

People don't contribute to their retirement savings - because they know the nanny state will take care of them! So, why "waste" their money on this foolishness.

I think you're right...too many think the nanny state will take care of them...I say all entitlement programs be eliminated...let the old folks find for themselves...screw 'em, right eddypistachio

Utopia here we come....

I was looking for your stats, though...I didn't see you post any...

inmytree · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

now you're making things up... :eh:

_ · May 2011

Gob wrote:

This is why capitalism is fucked.

I don't care how hard you are working, if you are making 10x more than the lazy ass, that's still too much. Like a minimal wage there should be a maximum wage. If you are only being successul for the money and not the craft then you don't deserve it and I'm sure we can find better doctors and atheletes and so on who care more about what they do than numbers they make.

I really don't think any human being is worth more than a few hundred thousand a year to society, or less than a few dozen thousand..

If you want to work hard, you make twice as much as the guy who doesn't work hard. Not millions more.

I like the way you think! We need to get rid of the myth of meritocracy in this country. The hard work of really rich people is not possibly proportionate the amount of money they make. It's just not possible for Donald Trump to work a billion times harder than my mom, a teacher. And I would argue that he doesn't contribute more to society at all.

Go Beavers · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

You talk like there are all these unfilled job openings. Speaking of McDonalds, did you see the response to their announcement of openings?

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

Hey, gimme - so many of those stats are so laughable that it's embarassing you're using them.

I especially love the one that polls people and more people live paycheck to paycheck. Maybe, that's because instead of just buying essentials, they're saving up for PJ20 tickets.

People don't contribute to their retirement savings - because they know the nanny state will take care of them! So, why "waste" their money on this foolishness. Theres' PJ20 tickets to buy! And ice cream!

dude seriously. there is no way of proving the accusations you are making. what i underlined is bullshit. many many people have 401 ks and such but the company matching is now gone, so they are putting less money into them and they are losing it due to the volitility of the markets. everyone in my age group knows that medicare and social security, the alleged "nanny state" you speak of will not be enough to retire on. why don't you look up some of the things i posted in that post? you sit here and say "the middle class is not going away" and i provide stats that go against your opinion and provide evidence and you scoff at them instead of looking deeper into where those stats are coming from.

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

why not? you think someone like me with a master's degree and is a professional is going to go to work at mcdonalds and lose my home and my cars with the $6 an hour i make there? it is a good thing that people on your side don't have a choice, or many many people would not only lose their homes, but starve.

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

Go Beavers wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

You talk like there are all these unfilled job openings. Speaking of McDonalds, did you see the response to their announcement of openings?

yes, come on house republicans, where are the new jobs???

Smellyman · May 2011

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...

I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.

The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).

I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.

And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.

According to the GOP Making 50,000 grand as a teacher in Wisconsin is rich.

Which is it? $50,000 dollars is rich or $250,000 isn't?

gimmesometruth27 · May 2011

Smellyman wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

well it is really simple. if rich folks want to get into a lower tax bracket, give money away to charity. bang, lower tax bracket. done. end of discussion...

I think the problem with this whole discussion is what is the definition of rich. Do you really think $250,000 a year for a family is RICH? As one facet - consider that those families have no chance at financial aid for college. I'm not saying give them pity. But, there are add'l expense ALREADY expected, setting aside the add'l tax burden. If you said, well we'll take some obvious amount that nobody even those in the bracket couldn't argue with ($5 million a year?), it might be different.

The problem is, there's not enough money there for the Democrats to do what they want. So, they have to lower the definition (and thus I agree with none of it).

I want to take care of the truly needy. But, I don't want to contribute to those that are irresponsible. Is that an unreasonable request? I shouldn't stand on line behind someone with food stamps that has ice cream on the belt. Yes, I should have a say in that I want your children to only be able to eat fruits and vegetables and not luxuries/sweets/non-essentials. If you don't want that contract, don't take my food stamps.

And I believe there is more than enough money in the revenue base now to accomplish that and then some.
And, I then would have some money to contibute (more) to charity.

According to the GOP Making 50,000 grand as a teacher in Wisconsin is rich.

Which is it? $50,000 dollars is rich or $250,000 isn't?

the gop would argue that "NOW THAT'S DIFFERENT!. those people are paid by the state and not the private sector, and the state can not afford to pay all them teachers when they only work 9 months a year.."...

EdsonNascimento · May 2011

gimmesometruth27 wrote:

EdsonNascimento wrote:

My point is - you can't use stats that reference people's spending habits and saying - see they need help! Not everyone is entitled to everything. We do need to ensure that the necessities of living and the opportunity to achieve is provided. But, we do not need to finance non-essentials.

AGain, I'm for helping the truly needy that are responsible and just unfortunate. I am not willing to support someone who lost their job and is now unwilling to work at McDonald's (not sure why I pick on that. Absolutely nothing wrong with it).

I should also not be forced to finance people's poor choices.

why not? you think someone like me with a master's degree and is a professional is going to go to work at mcdonalds and lose my home and my cars with the $6 an hour i make there? it is a good thing that people on your side don't have a choice, or many many people would not only lose their homes, but starve.

I'm missing your point here. If you have a job, the point is irrelevant. If you don't have a job, we should not be financing your living situation for any more than a reasonable amount of time. If finding a job to suit your needs means moving, then that's what you should do. My guess with your background you could find a bridge job thats well above mcd's. I understand you should be given time to find a job commensurate with your prior livelihood, but after a while you should feel compelled to "settle" for something else while you can continue to look for your next "dream" job. If you don't, then we shouldnt continue to pay because you think such a job is beneath you.

whygohome · May 2011

brandon10 wrote:

I think someone may have had their IQ redistributed....

I think if you ask most liberals, they will tell you that it's not so much about sharing wealth with those less fortunate. It's much more about paying for infrastructure, health care, crime prevention, and the general safety of the people. It's about spending money to create a world that is better to live in. And if that world in better for the poorest people in your country, then it is in turn better for the wealthiest.

And yes, those more fortunate should pay for the majority of the costs of a heathy society. Those on the far right in America are more concerned about wealth distribution than they are about where their money is being spent. They are too idiotic to realize they are spending billions of dollars a day on needless wars overseas and could easily have the resources to be by far the best country in the world!!

USA!! USA!! USA!!

You evil, evil socialist!!!

Liberals - Is it ok to redistribute your GPA

Comments

Categories