What did boomers have handed to them? Provide a list.
If you think book smarts is what will get you ahead, you may as well quit now.
Why Republicans are resorting to anti-socialism hysteria
- Thread starter BidenPresident
- Start date
What did boomers have handed to them? Provide a list.
If you think book smarts is what will get you ahead, you may as well quit now.
You're either worth hiring or you're not.
Again, if a robot or a foreigner can take your job, you suck so badly it's beyond pitiful.
BattleofHodow
New member
BattleofHodow
New member
You called me a boomer despite it not being true. Not once have I or many millions of others ever relied on a union. You also assume that every boomer worked in manufacturing.
Spoken like someone that knows he can't compete with a foreigner or a machine.
BattleofHodow
New member
See, you aren't even to the level of a foreigner or machine. What the fuck can you do but whine?
BattleofHodow
New member
Anyone that thinks I should leave should be man enough to back it up.
Anyone that thinks a higher skilled worker should be replaced by a lower skilled one proves he's the latter.
No. No. Yes.
They're all major crime figures. Not remotely. It was. Not remotely.
Agreed on all points.
BattleofHodow
New member
With an average IQ of 85, rest assured most are too stupid to compete with foreigners.
BattleofHodow
New member
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
There is nothing wrong with socialism. And it doesn't kill capitalism.
That is merely society looking out for itself.
Humans live in societies. It's logical. Power in numbers. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Together, we have the power to do this.
We all contribute in some way or another. Some contribute more than others. Everybody does what they can. Some can't do anything. We don't let them starve. We care about our fellow citizens. We are an advanced society. Primitive societies can't afford to take care of the unfortunate. We can. We should. We do.
It is only logical that the greedy do not want to help, do not want to pay taxes to support social programs. We have to over ride their views because it is the right thing to do.
There has never been a case of any rich person taxed into poverty by too high taxes.
Even when the highest income tax rate was 94%! That's because that rate doesn't kick in until the taxpayer has already earned more than most others and gotten to keep most of that. The high rates only apply to amounts above and beyond those levels.
Any one of us could have been born into a very different situation. If we are able to pay we should. It's not really that much. Well-off people can afford it and still have plentiful lives.
You can't take it with you.
That is merely society looking out for itself.
Humans live in societies. It's logical. Power in numbers. The whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Together, we have the power to do this.
We all contribute in some way or another. Some contribute more than others. Everybody does what they can. Some can't do anything. We don't let them starve. We care about our fellow citizens. We are an advanced society. Primitive societies can't afford to take care of the unfortunate. We can. We should. We do.
It is only logical that the greedy do not want to help, do not want to pay taxes to support social programs. We have to over ride their views because it is the right thing to do.
There has never been a case of any rich person taxed into poverty by too high taxes.
Even when the highest income tax rate was 94%! That's because that rate doesn't kick in until the taxpayer has already earned more than most others and gotten to keep most of that. The high rates only apply to amounts above and beyond those levels.
Any one of us could have been born into a very different situation. If we are able to pay we should. It's not really that much. Well-off people can afford it and still have plentiful lives.
You can't take it with you.
Last edited:
T. A. Gardner
Serial Thread Killer
The following is a bunch of rhetorical nonsense.
Then why are all the most Socialist countries--truly Socialist--in Europe the biggest basket cases? Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal are all heavily Socialist. In Greece less than 50% of the population works in the private sector. That is, for every worker paying taxes to the government there is more than one person receiving a check from the government. Socialism loathes hard work. More Socialism breeds lethargy and stagnation. It destroys the incentive for innovation. Why innovate or take risks when you know the government will always be there to bail you out but will also be there to tax and regulate your ideas into the ground.
As proof of that, what great inventions of the last century came from Socialist governments other than new weapons in time of war?
No, that is people gaining power and believing that they can change human nature and force people to be altruistic. This is the great truth about Socialism: It argues that people will choose to be altruistic and freely give away what they've earned to others. It argues that everyone will do their best and those that do the most will freely give to those that do the least. It completely denies an understanding of human nature.
This too isn't true. Power comes from possession of wealth, knowledge, physical ability, etc. The whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, in most societies you can break things down much like you can with basic costing of parts for something. That is there are A, B, and C parts. A parts constitute 1% or so of the whole but are 80% of the cost. B parts constitute 10 to 20% of the whole and are 10 to 20% of the cost. C parts represent the other 80% of the parts and are 1 to 2% of the cost.
Yes you need those C parts to make things complete, but you pay attention to the A and B parts because of their massive cost by comparison. In a society, the top few percent of earners, thinkers, innovators are the ones that drive society forward. They are the equivalent of A parts. The B parts are the skilled workers and middle managers that make things work. The C parts are basically necessary but you can always get another trailer park full of them to replace the current ones. They on the whole contribute just a little.
If you stifle or drive off the A and B group the whole becomes largely worthless. At the same time the A and B groups generate so much of the wealth and other stuff that advances society that the C group becomes almost irrelevant to the equation. They're a mere decimal place.
Also, teamwork is grossly overrated. Individual effort drives most innovation and wealth production. Yes, a good team with good teamwork can be highly productive and worthwhile, but they tend to be very hard to come by.
Primitive societies did the same. But they also didn't do it to where it was destroying the capacity of the capable to prop society up economically. Socialism often does.
The greedy often do want to help, but they expect something in return--that's why they're greedy. Sure, they don't want to pay 90% in taxes because they see that as excessive. When France tried that a few years ago, a big portion of the millionaires in France moved somewhere else and tax revenue fell. The rich didn't get that way being stupid, nor were they overly altruistic. You can say society should eat the rich, taxing their wealth away, but it won't work for long. The rich will leave, move their wealth where government can't confiscate it, or if necessary fund a revolution to remove government and put in a more sane one.
Seems you are dead flat wrong here:
https://slate.com/business/2016/09/more-than-7-million-americans-get-taxed-into-poverty.html
This is a canard. That nominal tax rate was rarely paid by anyone. The exemptions and loopholes that existed then ensured it. You can see what happens when you do this looking again at Europe, among other places. High income earners rearrange their wealth and finances so they don't have "income." Instead, they take wealth in kind that doesn't count as income.
How generous of you to force your altruism on other people.
You can give it to your progeny or others you choose for that. It shouldn't be the government's decision to make and take.
Then why are all the most Socialist countries--truly Socialist--in Europe the biggest basket cases? Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal are all heavily Socialist. In Greece less than 50% of the population works in the private sector. That is, for every worker paying taxes to the government there is more than one person receiving a check from the government. Socialism loathes hard work. More Socialism breeds lethargy and stagnation. It destroys the incentive for innovation. Why innovate or take risks when you know the government will always be there to bail you out but will also be there to tax and regulate your ideas into the ground.
As proof of that, what great inventions of the last century came from Socialist governments other than new weapons in time of war?
No, that is people gaining power and believing that they can change human nature and force people to be altruistic. This is the great truth about Socialism: It argues that people will choose to be altruistic and freely give away what they've earned to others. It argues that everyone will do their best and those that do the most will freely give to those that do the least. It completely denies an understanding of human nature.
This too isn't true. Power comes from possession of wealth, knowledge, physical ability, etc. The whole isn't greater than the sum of its parts. In fact, in most societies you can break things down much like you can with basic costing of parts for something. That is there are A, B, and C parts. A parts constitute 1% or so of the whole but are 80% of the cost. B parts constitute 10 to 20% of the whole and are 10 to 20% of the cost. C parts represent the other 80% of the parts and are 1 to 2% of the cost.
Yes you need those C parts to make things complete, but you pay attention to the A and B parts because of their massive cost by comparison. In a society, the top few percent of earners, thinkers, innovators are the ones that drive society forward. They are the equivalent of A parts. The B parts are the skilled workers and middle managers that make things work. The C parts are basically necessary but you can always get another trailer park full of them to replace the current ones. They on the whole contribute just a little.
If you stifle or drive off the A and B group the whole becomes largely worthless. At the same time the A and B groups generate so much of the wealth and other stuff that advances society that the C group becomes almost irrelevant to the equation. They're a mere decimal place.
Also, teamwork is grossly overrated. Individual effort drives most innovation and wealth production. Yes, a good team with good teamwork can be highly productive and worthwhile, but they tend to be very hard to come by.
Primitive societies did the same. But they also didn't do it to where it was destroying the capacity of the capable to prop society up economically. Socialism often does.
The greedy often do want to help, but they expect something in return--that's why they're greedy. Sure, they don't want to pay 90% in taxes because they see that as excessive. When France tried that a few years ago, a big portion of the millionaires in France moved somewhere else and tax revenue fell. The rich didn't get that way being stupid, nor were they overly altruistic. You can say society should eat the rich, taxing their wealth away, but it won't work for long. The rich will leave, move their wealth where government can't confiscate it, or if necessary fund a revolution to remove government and put in a more sane one.
Seems you are dead flat wrong here:
https://slate.com/business/2016/09/more-than-7-million-americans-get-taxed-into-poverty.html
This is a canard. That nominal tax rate was rarely paid by anyone. The exemptions and loopholes that existed then ensured it. You can see what happens when you do this looking again at Europe, among other places. High income earners rearrange their wealth and finances so they don't have "income." Instead, they take wealth in kind that doesn't count as income.
How generous of you to force your altruism on other people.
You can give it to your progeny or others you choose for that. It shouldn't be the government's decision to make and take.
Won’t vote for who I want them to...
Won’t give up their constitutional rights...”cling to their guns” maybe?
Believe in taking care of their own before others.
???? The last I saw they weren’t the ones throwing temper tantrums and burning down cities.
They believe that able bodied people should work for a living.
They believe in that God and that Bible they’re clinging to
They put signs and flags up for and vote for the people that see things like they see them and highlight the differences.
Into the Night
Verified User
I'm not siding with anybody, dumbass.
They are not better educated. I also point out here that blue collar workers, which you obviously despise, are paid handsomely to keep your toilet functioning, keep your water flowing, keep your lights on, get the food to the grocery stores so you can buy it, build the houses and apartments, and a whole lot else. These require only a tradesman education, or just simply working their up through the ranks on their own on the job.
No, it isn't.
No, they aren't. You can go out and make your own market. That's how capitalism works.