found this while browsing imgur..
it's true we know nothing of the beggar nor the owner of the car, and i'm not saying that rich people should not be able to have nice things, but the underlying message of the photo when viewed objectively still holds-that the gap between the rich and the poor is large and ongoing
Is that a man wearing a top and skirt? Looks like it to me.
You're not "saying" that, but that's what you're saying...Quote by: Boy
found this while browsing imgur..
it's true we know nothing of the beggar nor the owner of the car, and i'm not saying that rich people should not be able to have nice things, but the underlying message of the photo when viewed objectively still holds-that the gap between the rich and the poor is large and ongoing
Why is person A with money responsible for person B without?
Let me say that again...
Why is Bill Gates (Person A, with money) responsible for you (person B, without money)?
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
Why don't you ask him? He believes he is.
But it's not that he's "responsible for you". It's that we live in a society, which requires some upkeep to stay healthy and educated and vibrant, and the rich (Bill Gates) are best able to provide for it, and in fact are normally willing to.
If he want to help less fortunate people out, GREAT! That makes him an outstanding person! However, the implication here is that "The Rich" shouldn't be rich and that they are somehow responsible for everyone that's not rich....It doesn't matter that they are "best able to provide for it", that doesn't make them responsible for anyone.
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
Today's conservatives can almost make you pine for fuedalism... at least then the rich gave lip-service to the concept of noblesse oblige.
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
Oh no! The evil rich didn't give away all their wealth to the poor! How dare they breathe the same air as the rest of us!!
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
Oh, no! Another straw man argument from a conservative. I don't want my rich neighbor to give me all of his wealth. 9/10 will be plenty. LOL. That, of course, is complete sarcasm. What I really want is for him to realize that he needs a personal jet considerably less than his fellow citizens need to be able to make enough money to pay for things like insurance and groceries. If he opts to deny them necessities to provide himself with toys, he is doing wrong.Oh no! The evil rich didn't give away all their wealth to the poor! How dare they breathe the same air as the rest of us!!
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
It wasn't a "straw man argument"....it was pure sarcasm at your silly comment.
What you want is to take from the rich and give to the poor, right Robin Hoodette?
"Government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives." | "Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them." - RR
Quote removed because someone got their feelings hurt. (boo hoo)
How is he "denying them" by keeping what is his?
As I have brought up before, why don't we take this kind of approach to other needs? How dare a poor woman with a very happy social life deny me her company, which I am in such dire need of?
Serious as a heart attack...
...and twice as deadly.
To begin with, he can not generate the profits you call "his" without them. Let's take the example I have used with others. A busy doctor's office employees 20 people and serves 2 physicans' support staff needs. The doctors opperate by seeing 40 patients each a day. Those 40 people have to each be scheduled, paperwork has to be completed, their visit notes transscibed, their insurance companies need to be billed and their charts have to be maintained and many other, associated tasks, like referal scheduling, etc have to be completed. Without the support staff, the doctors would have to do all of that themselves. Trust me when I tell you, because I have worked in a doctors office, if they had to do all the work involved, they would be able to treat, maybe, 5 patients a day. The difference in the revenue generated by 5 patients and 40 patients is quite significant. So, you tell me, what portion of the extra revenue generated by the existence of the support staff is magicly, somehow, in your mind, generated only by the learning and ability of the physician and completely "his"? Exactly none of it, if you ask me. How, do tell, do you arrive at the conclusion that it is all "his" or "hers"? I find it amazing that you, and so many others, buy into the concept that business owners, be they doctors or factory owners or retail opperators, give people jobs out of the kindness of their hearts and that employees should all be sniviling, subserviant peons thankful for the scraps they throw. In practice, the relationship between worker and owner is a symbiotic one. But, owners have somehow convinced employees that they are a host creature and the workers are parasites and everyone should be glad they don't take a delousing treatment everyday. It is bullshit, but the longer we believe it en mass, the longer they get to screw us. But, to really answer your question, the reason why they should stop keeping so much of what we all generate together is that, as even the bastard Henry Ford understood, what was "his" depended on the ability of the masses to afford to keep purchasing what he was selling. How is a doctor going to sustain a business that sells health care when he and the rest of the owner class refuse to surrender enough for people to afford to pay for health care. If WalMart employees can't afford to feed their families on the salary they make, who is going to keep buying WalMart groceries. That jet is his and now, the employees won't be able to purchase the next round of services, and he will eventually have a jet and no fucking customers. That, if nothing else, is why he should not buy the jet if it means his employees can't purchase the things they need to survive. In the end, it is in his rational self-interest. But, that is a 25 or 50 year calculation, and that jet sure makes him feel special and powerful and important this week.
Now, I don't hate jets. And I don't think the folks who work for the doctor should make as much as the doctor or drive the same car, or live in the same mansion as the doctor. But, if the doctor needs to not have a jet and live in a slightly smaller house and own 3 instead of 6 cars so that the people working for him can economically function and live, it is in everyone's best interest if the profits generated by the support staff and the physician working together are split a bit more equitably.
This is so silly as to deserve only this...
***scoff****
All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard -
Tell me, could that be you?
John Kay
Now who's delivering a straw man. Push, push, deep breathing, inhale, push...
If the terrain and the map do not agree, follow the terrain.
When motherhood becomes the fruit of a deep yearning, not the result of ignorance or accident, its children will become a new race.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks