Home Mobile Archives Reader Blogs Register Login

Thursday, May 03, 2007

It’s UnAmerican Not To Earn As Much As You Can

Archie Goodwin once said something like that.  I don’t think Rex Stout was serious when he wrote that but I think Archie’s right.

Consider two people.  One a rich successful real estate developer and the other a welfare mom.  Who’s taking more out of the economy?

The developer is a millionaire, drives several cars, has two homes, vacations in the world’s hotspots, eats in the fanciest restaurants and generally is living the high life.

The welfare mom gets about a thousand bucks of month in total support.  After paying for her apartment, cable bill, food, and clothing she doesn’t have anything left.  She thinks she gets so little that she’s surely not getting her share.  It’s clear to the her that the real estate developer is taking her share besides his own.  She has so little that she must be owed more.  Is she right.

No, the developer has earned his money.  More than that he’s added many times his wealth into the economy.

In the private enterprise system no transactions happen unless all parties feel they are better off with the transaction.  The developer is offering good housing to the consumers at a fair price.  If he’s any good he’s selling his expertise and negotiating to supply the home buyer with a better home than they otherwise would have had.  By building new homes he’s making the home market more affordable for everyone because he’s increasing competition.  He’s helping provide jobs for all of the tradesmen that build the homes.  Many of the contractors in their turn become wealthy.

He may be making the real estate sales people wealthy.  It’s not unlikely that a good salesperson could become a millionaire themselves by selling homes the developer developed.

He’s helping people up and down the supply chain from plumbing suppliers to lumberjacks up in Canada.

On the other hand what is the welfare mother producing?  Nothing.  What is she taking?  A lot actually.  That thousand dollars a month support she take costs a heck of a lot more than that.  First of all the welfare bureaucracy skims off most of the money in they system.  The IRS costs money to run and what with the extra record keeping it costs the taxpayer even more to file his tax return.  That measly thousand dollars a month probably costs the economy four or five thousand to supply her with a meager living.

And what does society get for its money?  Less than nothing.  Society loses from the extra bureaucratic overhead on the economy.  Society loses because taxes are a disincentive to produce.  Society loses because the taxpayer has less money to spend where it would be more productive. 

If she was off welfare she’d be producing something for her money.  Maybe not much at first, but it’d be better than nothing.  And the welfare and tax bureaucrats would have to find a productive job too.  They’d add to the country rather than subtract.

Of course there would be more money and more wealth in society so you’d expect that after a period of adjustment the welfare mom and the bureaucrats would be better off working for a productive enterprise rather than a counter-productive one.

So the developer would have more customers to sell to and more people to hire.  So what if he becomes a richer man and spends the money to benefit himself.  He’s working hard and smart so he deserves it.  If he buys a bigger boat that means the boat manufacturer and their employees are better off.  Of course they’ll have all the more incentive to work hard and become wealthy themselves.

If this doesn’t convince you ask yourself this question.  Would you like to live in a town full of the welfare moms or would you like to live in a town of rich successful real estate developers, boat makers, bankers, doctors, dentists etc etc.

It really is UnAmerican not to earn as much money as you can.

Comments

Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

The difference is that the real estate developer is creating wealth for himself and other people while the welfare mom is not.  Leftists will disagree, but that’s because they see our economy as a zero sum game (if I make $1,000,000 that’s a million that you can’t make) rather than the reality.  Which is that wealth is created every day.

Think of it this way: When that developer builds a new home it costs him money.  Say, $100,000.  But when he spends that $100,000 is it really gone?  No.  At the end he has a home worth (if he’s a good developer) more than what he put into it.  Maybe $150,000 or more.

And not only that, the original $100,000 is still in the economy as well but it has been sliced and diced among the carpenters, plumbers, electricians, roofers, materials suppliers, hardware stores etc. all of whom contributed in some small way to the construction of the development.  So what this developer did was create wealth for himself in the value of the new home he built while simultaneously creating wealth for others by paying them for the goods/services they provided.

This happens every single day all over this country.

Meanwhile, the welfare mom?  She has done nothing but take a small amount of the wealth we gave the government in taxes and live on it.  Sure, she paid her bills and rent and such which goes into the economy, but that money hasn’t created any new wealth.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 11:15 am

Almost sounds like capitalism… wink

I don’t think it is “UnAmerican” not to earn as much as you possibly can.  Just because the developer can make $10 million a year, doesn’t mean he should be obligated to do so.  Maybe he would find far more joy in his work at a position that only makes $50K a year.  (yes, he is not living up to his potential, but I certainly wouldn’t consider it “UnAmerican”

I know people that have used welfare, earned a college degree and worked their way up the food chain.  I congratulate these people, we all have to start somewhere.  In the proper context, welfare is meant to help people get back on their feet so that they can contribute to society.

Unfortunately some people don’t have the intent of using welfare to improve themselves. They are welfare parasites living off the system.  AND THAT is CERTAINLY UNAMERICAN!

Ace25 on May 3, 2007 at 11:39 am

Not to deviate from your thread, but since you brought it up.....I used to love the Nero Wolfe novels. That is one of the truly unique characters of the genre.

Glad to see you quoted Archie. Fun stuff.


Election ‘08 - We Are So Screwed

Pilgrim on May 3, 2007 at 12:21 pm

used to

excuse me, used to. 

That’s unAmerican too!

Maybe he would find far more joy in his work at a position that only makes $50K a year.  (yes, he is not living up to his potential, but I certainly wouldn’t consider it “UnAmerican”

Obviously that’s his choice, but society is worse off because he’s not living up to his potential.

That’s in direct contrast to the way liberals see the world.

I know people that have used welfare, earned a college degree and worked their way up the food chain.  I congratulate these people, we all have to start somewhere.

I shouldn’t be forced to pay for it should I?

In the proper context, welfare is meant to help people get back on their feet so that they can contribute to society.

I think the negative effects have been far worse than the positive effects.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 12:39 pm
Avatar for Hawk

Obviously that’s his choice, but society is worse off because he’s not living up to his potential.

No, it depends on what he does with his time.  If he spends it with his family or doing charity work than society is likely better off.

Hawk on May 3, 2007 at 01:10 pm

I shouldn’t be forced to pay for it should I?

You are absolutely right.  You “shouldn’t” be forced to pay for it. In an idealistic world everyone would volunteer to help those in need and no one would ever make it to the welfare system.  Unfortunately there aren’t enough Mother Teresa’s in this world and there is a need for some form of welfare.

Maybe this isn’t the best example, but lets look at a young child whose parents both die and the child has no “next of kin” or for that matter, someone drops off a child on your doorstep.  Who is responsible for this child?  Will he/she get a fair chance in life? Not many would openly take the child in and raise it like their own. 

We have to do something with this child until he is able to “contribute to society” this raises another question, what is the minimum amount that this child has to contribute to society in order to be recognized as an American (maybe I should have substituted the word Human)?

I see a basic need for welfare.  However, I would have to agree that there are more negative effects than positive ones in our current welfare system.  Too many people are taking advantage of the system, at taxpayer expense.

Ace25 on May 3, 2007 at 01:11 pm

Stebbins: “Someday something you think is so damn funny is gonna get you killed.”

Archie: “Maybe… but that doesn’t mean it isn’t funny.”


“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One on May 3, 2007 at 01:19 pm

It really is UnAmerican not to earn as much money as you can.

No, it really isn’t. Go back to the drawing board on this one Whistler. You could be making more money! You unAmerican Benedict Arnold. There are many strata in between welfare moms and rich moguls. None of them are inherently unAmerican. This post is… a waste of typing time.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 3, 2007 at 01:46 pm
Avatar for Robert Perry

Lost in the discussion over whether one person or another is contributing more to society is the basic question of whether we ought to even be asking that question.  Do we have a right to complain that a man is somehow cheating us out of his “contribution to society” in a free society?

If a man has possession of his person and skills, I think that the answer must be “no.”

I’m always glad to see someone pulling his own weight instead of depending on government, of course.  I just don’t know that we can, or should, make such a dichotomy based on mere income.  Leland Stanford, for example, would have looked great in this comparison, but he more or less stole his fortune from the government and was a far worse leech than any ordinary “welfare queen.”

Robert Perry on May 3, 2007 at 02:48 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

The key, Robert, is to have made your fortune despite the government.  Not because of it.

I disagree that a person not living up to his/her potential is cheating society and is unAmerican.  As long as that person is burdening society by living off the wealth of the rest of us (i.e. taking money from the government, etc.) he/she is a positive for society.  There’s nothing wrong with a guy who makes $10 million in his twenties and then retires and lives off that with his family for the rest of his life.  Sure he could have contributed more, but choices like that are part of a free society.

What shouldn’t be a choice is the one that has people living off of others.  And that goes for businesses who are subsidized as well.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 02:59 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

There is one HUGE hole in your whinny diatribe concerning the age old Nazi/fascist/conservative issue of the mythical creature you guys call “welfare mom”.

Unskilled Labor!

What is it?:
It can be a job anywhere between all the factory jobs for which the majority have been shipped over seas or moved over the border into Mexico in the last 20 or so years (Thanks Ronnie Regan and Billy Clinton! smile) to the scrubbing of the rich man’s yacht toilets. If everyone were a “successful real estate developers, boat makers, bankers, doctors, dentists etc etc” in your town who would work the unskilled positions in the non-existent factories and scrub the rich man’s toilets? They’d have to import the labor from somewhere else (South Africa style shanty-town down the road from Richmanville maybe?). Some jobs have to be done that don’t require a professional degree. Do you think the rich man will scrub his own toilets? HELL NO!

Also, if you were one of these professional persons who didn’t want to live in a town full of welfare moms here’s an idea:
Move the fuck out! You have the money to live anywhere you want, so do it! Do them a favor and quit your bitching and leave!

But why doesn’t the welfare mom just get educated and get a better job?:
School can be expensive. Her immigrant parents (BTW: all Americans are descended from immigrants, unless you’re native American) had worked dead end jobs and couldn’t afford to a college fund for their daughter, ya know, on account that they had to feed their kids!

Can’t she get a loan to go to school?:
Yes she can, under certain curcumstances… But…

..how is she to feed, clothe and shelter herself and her child(ren) without a family or governmental support system if she’s to go to school full time?:
I have no idea but it might have something to do with some dumb-ass in North Dakota with a forth grade level understanding of social issues who doesn’t feel like giving 1/10th of a penny once a year to help her out… Go figure…

Greedy prick.

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 03:27 pm

Rob
Reread your most recent comment. I think you made a typo or two.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 3, 2007 at 03:30 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

I’m not seeing any...not that I don’t make them…


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 03:41 pm

Greedy prick.

Glad you signed your name to your drivel!


A troll is someone who only wants to stir up trouble, not have an honest debate.  Some signs that a poster is a troll:
* Dodges questions from other posters * Refuses to give sources
* When one of its arguments is shown to be false, either ignores the proof or moves the goalposts.  Heh. (From the LGF faq)

Proof on May 3, 2007 at 03:46 pm

Rob
I meant this:

As long as that person is burdening society by living off the wealth of the rest of us he/she is a positive for society.


rasberry

Sparkie Arbuckle on May 3, 2007 at 03:49 pm

how is she to feed, clothe and shelter herself and her child(ren) without a family or governmental support system if she’s to go to school full time?:

Duh don’t have kids when you can’t afford them.  And if you do step up and take care of them yourself.

I have my own kids to raise.

Some jobs have to be done that don’t require a professional degree. Do you think the rich man will scrub his own toilets? HELL NO!

People clean their own toilets all of the time.  Something I’m sure you aren’t aware of.

By the way everyone who works at a private enterprise job is contributing to the economy.  Some who work at a government job are, but many aren’t. 

If everyone contributed we’d all be a lot more wealthy.  That’s my point.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 04:09 pm

Do we have a right to complain that a man is somehow cheating us out of his “contribution to society” in a free society?

If a man has possession of his person and skills, I think that the answer must be “no.”

It’s fine for someone to make their own choice on how much they succeed.

My point was to show that the more successful someone is the better we all are.

I don’t think that’s said enough.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 04:12 pm

By the way Greedy Prick. 

That’s funny you should choose that as your name because I define greed as wanting something that you didn’t earn so bad you’re willing to force someone to give it up.

But to use your example if your only skill is cleaning toilets you sure as heck want there to be successful people around to hire you. 

Sure as heck the welfare moms aren’t going to hire you to do that job.

You wear gloves when you do that don’t you?


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 04:21 pm

Interesting post, whistler.  However, your examples were the extremes, the millianaire developer and the welfare mom whereas there is a lot of room inbetween and most of the inbetween contribute something to the msrketplace/society and msy not be obsessed with money.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on May 3, 2007 at 04:53 pm

Well a lot of people have been put off by the hyperbole but I thought it was a good post.

The welfare mom would help society if she stopped milking the system and get a job.  Every step up the ladder is better for society. 

Now a person can decide that it’s better for them not to work as hard as they could.  That’s fine and probably better for their family but not society as a whole. 

And of course there are extremes.  Yes society may suffer if they don’t raise their kids right.

But whose kids turn out better the welfare mom kid or the kids of successful parents.

Being successful means you do more than one thing right.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 05:42 pm

It really is UnAmerican not to earn as much money as you can.

Wealthy people don’t work for money.  They work for assets.


"All the perplexities, confusion and distress in America arise not from defects in their Constitution or Confederation, nor from want of honor or virtue, so much as downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation.”
- John Adams

Troy_Pineri on May 3, 2007 at 06:02 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

Explain “contribution”.

I don’t give a flying fuck (R.I.P. Vonnegut [lol, he was a Humanist]) what you “think” the word “greed” means but in a discussion it would generally follow that we’re speaking the same English language. I believe the word that better applies to the “welfare mom” is “need”. You’ve heard of people who are in “need”, right?

“Well gorsh, ‘need’ and ‘greed’ do sound alike, don’t they mean the same thing?” Nope. But I can see how somebody with a grand intellect like yours, Mr. Twizzler, could confuse the two. Ya see, we use words that have their spelling and meaning explained in an official documented lexicon. It’s called a dictionary. Neato’, eh? Catch phrases and pseudo-terminology found in Bill Reilly and Ann Coulter books don’t count, thanks.

BTW:
Somebody should clock you upside-the-head with something heavy. A dictionary might do the trick! Who knows, there’s a chance could undo some of the damage from you being repeatedly dropped on the head as a child. In place of that here’s the Dictionary.com definitions of greed:

excessive or rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

An excessive desire to acquire or possess more than what one needs or deserves, especially with respect to material wealth: “Many . . . attach to competition the stigma of selfish greed” (Henry Fawcett).

1.  excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one needs or deserves
2.  reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth (personified as one of the deadly sins) [syn: avarice]

I hope this clarifies things for you kiddo.

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 06:33 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

Wealthy people don’t work for money.  They work for assets.

Oh, that’s deep.

Of course, money is an asset.  A full savings account is an asset just as a piece of real estate is.  They’re just different types of assets with different sorts of pros and cons.

Hadtobesaid: What part of “We should all work for ourselves and keep what we earn” don’t you get?


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 06:37 pm

rapacious desire, esp. for wealth or possessions.

reprehensible acquisitiveness;



excessive desire to acquire or possess more (especially more material wealth) than one...deserves

Thanks for the definitions.  They prove my point.

Now in the case of aquiring more than one “needs.”

Well that would apply to all of us.  First of all I don’t think we’re greedy for wanting to work hard and be rewarded for what we do.  After all we’re creating far more wealth for other people by doing that than we are gaining for ourselves.

On the other hand demanding someone else’s money is greed.  That’s money you don’t deserve.

Thanks for making my point Greedy Prick.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 06:48 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

Rob, there are ways of successfully avoiding taxes. One solution would be if N.D. seceded from the US. Do your own version of the “Boston Tea Party”. What would that be, the dumping of all non N.D. beer and cigarettes into Lake Sakakawea? And I don’t think the rest of the US would care too much N.D. seceded, most of N.D. is just empty space after all. But hey, North Dakota could be the central hub of the KKK’s Aryan Nation! How cool would that be?! Really cool, after all N.D. is cold as shit! But I digress…

If “unjust taxation” is really your grief then I might be able to get some info for you. I’ll just have to do a little bit of asking around on my end. You know how it goes; “I know a guy who knows a guy...”

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 07:02 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

Mr. Twizzler, what are the needs of our “welfare mom”, oh wise one? Enlighten me! Please, I need another good laugh.

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 07:08 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid
Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 07:20 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

Hadtobesaid, did anyone here say that we didn’t want to pay any taxes?

We just don’t want to pay taxes to help people who won’t help themselves.  Try being literate.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 07:22 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

You lie. What does “We should all work for ourselves and keep what we earn” imply? You never said “to keep tax money away from welfare mom.” Get a clue before you get a dictionary thrown at you too.

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 07:34 pm

Mr. Twizzler, what are the needs of our “welfare mom”, oh wise one? Enlighten me! Please, I need another good laugh.

I would say put down the cheeze puffs, get off of the couch and go to work. 

And for the planets sake please turn off the TV before she leaves.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 07:38 pm

But if you think she needs help you’re perfectly free to give her your money.

Personally I think she’d be better off if you hired her to produce something, but do what you want to do.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 07:42 pm

Why would we want our money stolen from us that will hurt both the recipient of the money and the society as a whole.

That money will be spent and if the welfare mom get’s off her butt she’ll be able to get a job.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 07:46 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

What does “We should all work for ourselves and keep what we earn” imply? You never said “to keep tax money away from welfare mom.”

For all your talk of dictionaries, you’re reading comprehension leaves something to be desired.

I meant exactly what I said.  We should all work for ourselves and keep what we earn.  I guess I could have said “keep most of what we earn,” but I didn’t think you were such a literal-minded twit.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 07:48 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

And for the planets sake please turn off the TV before she leaves.

Sounds like you really know their plight, first hand. Just remember; when you, Mr. Twizzler, are slumming it with the welfare moms just remember to use a condom. We don’t need anymore kids on this planet with dead-beat dads.

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 07:48 pm

That’s pretty stupid.

I think my money should go to raise my own kids, not the kids of people too flippin lazy to support their own kids.

Sounds like you really know their plight, first hand.

Not at all, I just don’t want to be forced to subsidize their plight.

But if you disagree by all means go ahead.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 3, 2007 at 07:52 pm
Avatar for Hadtobesaid

keep most of what we earn

There you go! Now that’s clarity! You must have thought it but forgot to write it down… Poor lil’ Robbie…

“Sing piggie!”

Nah, forget it… You pigs are far too gone to learn how to sing. We can only hope YOU conservative nit-wits kill yourselves without taking the rest of the planet with you. Die of cancer. Or better yet die in a Liberal drive-by-shooting (not likely since they don’t carry guns, but hey...).

Hadtobesaid on May 3, 2007 at 08:02 pm
Avatar for Dave

a literal-minded twit.

AKA, someone who calls Rob on his bullshit.
Dave on May 3, 2007 at 09:16 pm

Hadtobesaid spews, BTW: all Americans are descended from immigrants, unless you’re native American

“Native Americans” are immigrants as well.

We all came out of Africa. It was really the only good place to live back in the last ice age.

Greedy prick.

How do you know he’s greedy? Maybe he needs the money. It is his money.

Assuming jackass.

We can only hope YOU conservative nit-wits kill yourselves without taking the rest of the planet with you. Die of cancer.

Wow. You’re a very low person.

Why do you hate individualism so much?

likwidshoe on May 3, 2007 at 09:32 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

AKA, someone who calls Rob on his bullshit.

No, not really.  I’m wrong of course, I’ll admit to that.  I’m just not wrong in this instance.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 09:39 pm
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

AKA, someone who calls Rob on his bullshit.

Really, what a bitter little doofus you are.  Would you like to have another swing at trying to convince us that hamburgers are murder while abortion is moral?  Just for old times sake?  Maybe cheer you up a bit?

Because I always get a laugh out of your retarded thrashing about…


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 3, 2007 at 09:43 pm

Nah, forget it… You pigs are far too gone to learn how to sing. We can only hope YOU conservative nit-wits kill yourselves without taking the rest of the planet with you. Die of cancer.

Aha, it took awhile but your true liberal colors have finally emerged. i.e. resort to insults when you are losing the debate.


The Supreme Court is a bunch of black robed tyrants

docdave on May 4, 2007 at 12:41 am

In my mind, this issue swings on statements that I have personally heard coming out of welfare mothers’ mouthes.  I have heard things like,"I can get x number of dollars from the government o pay for this and that.  I’d rather do that and be able to stay home with my kids all day than get a job.” no one has a problem with helping people through hard times.  That’s the whole point of our social welfare system.  People do get upset when someone leeches off that system in perpetuity.

The question was raised about the needs of the welfare mom.  I don’t know the answer to that one, but I do know that it doesn’t involve a big-screen, flat-panel TV.  Too often in our society, things like that are considered “needs” and not “wants.” That’s just envy and it is one of the seven deadly sins.


"Although I can accept talking scarecrows, lions and great wizards in emerald cities, I find it hard to believe there is no paperwork involved when your house lands on a witch.”
- Dave James

Steve L. on May 4, 2007 at 08:53 am
Avatar for Dave

docdave:

(...)your true liberal colors have finally emerged. i.e. resort to insults when you are losing the debate.

Were you referring to Rob here?

Really, what a bitter little doofus you are.  (...) I always get a laugh out of your retarded thrashing about…

Dave on May 4, 2007 at 09:35 am
Avatar for Andy L

I’m wrong of course, I’ll admit to that.

Robbie, can we quote you?

Andy L on May 4, 2007 at 10:43 am
Rob
Rob
17371 comments
Send a private message

Sure, everybody gets something wrong once in a while.


Image and video hosting by TinyPic

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

robport.gif border=0

Rob on May 4, 2007 at 10:49 am

So, if you are an employee, it’d be un-American not to join a union.


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on May 7, 2007 at 05:02 am

No I said earn.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 7, 2007 at 05:21 am

How is living off ones capital any more like earning than employees organizing themselves?


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on May 7, 2007 at 05:35 am

If I can pay $5/week to a union to increase my income, that’s money well earned.


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on May 7, 2007 at 05:37 am

Just like property development is a way of extracting more money from the current system, so is joining a union. Both are legal. Hence not doing the latter would also be un-American.


“All the war-propaganda, all the screaming and lies and hatred, comes invariably from people who are not fighting.”
“Every war when it comes, or before it comes, is represented not as a war but as an act of self-defense against a homicidal maniac.” —George Orwell

Anarchist Vegetarian on May 7, 2007 at 05:39 am

Property developers use their organizing skills to earn something.

Belonging to a union doesn’t create any value.  However if the union were to be non-destructive (I don’t know of many examples) it’s not all bad.


What’s going to happen to US industry when the global warming extremists like John McCain double the price of electricity?  I would think all these factories will close and set up in countries where they aren’t scared of technology.


The Whistler's signature
The Whistler on May 7, 2007 at 05:43 am
Page 1 of 1        

Post a Comment


Before commenting, please recite:

Grant me the serenity to ignore the trolls,
the courage to debate with honest opponents,
and the wisdom to know the difference.

Name   
Email   
URL   
Human?
  
 

Upload Image    

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Note: Notifications will only be sent to confirmed email addresses.