aimeeandbeatles
watermelon
- Joined
- Apr 5, 2007
- Messages
- 20,112
She just refuses, full-stop, with some b.s. excuse.
Shaming the bottom-feeders.
- Thread starter Mouthwash
- Start date
- Status
Internet using first world citizen pretending to be poor.
Because nobody in the first world is actually poor, right? It's all a lie by the Grant Left-Wing Conspiracy to take money away from the hardworking millionaires like Mitt Romney.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Well, not compared to the poor in places like Africa...you know the 3rd world?
The Grant conspiracy?
Not familiar with that one.
1st world problems have more to do with funding huge militaries to struggle against third worlders than anything to do with poverty.
Posting on a game forum? No.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Not really. It has more to do with social programs which dwarf the military budget in comparison.
Maybe so. Seems like a lot of our budget was going for social programs in Iraq.
ywhtptgtfo
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 13, 2010
- Messages
- 1,746
You have my sympathy, aimee. Life can be hard. I know it.
As for this: whatever. I am not discontent with your assessment.
You are clearly not discontent to the point that you'd reply to the same comment twice to express your lack of discontent.
I thought Formaldehyde's point is quite reasonable. You seem to be suggesting that not paying federal income tax means a person is being on welfare because they receive some sort of benefit from the government (irrespective of their other contributions to the public funds).
If we are to follow this line of logic, then wouldn't many rich people and corporations be considered as being on welfare, considering the fact that they get tax breaks?
Anyhow, I thought it's rather rude to make a bold argument and then shirk off at the slightest sign of resistance. But whatever.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Well, if you wish to pick this up again....
(Notice I only "shirk" off an engagement with Formaldehyde since he has a history of having long drawn-out slanging matches which never reach a conclusion. If you choose to interpret it as rudeness that's up to you. I call it good sense. But whatever.)
The figure of 47% comes from Mitt Romney http://www.ibtimes.com/why-almost-half-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-790126.
Leaving aside the issue of whether this figure is accurate or not (and I can't see why it shouldn't be - coming from a Presidential candidate, and surely you wouldn't suggest that American politicians are corrupt to this extent? Though if you did, I might be inclined to agree.), this gives a substantial number of people who are in receipt of government benefit, in kind, in the form of defence most notably (but no doubt there are many other things too).
Now then, this isn't a particularly rigorous analysis of the welfare system of the United States by any means, I'll be the first to admit. But as a matter of principle, arguing in terms of the benefits that individuals receive, I would suggest that it isn't really possible to untangle who the net beneficiaries and who the net contributors to any system really are. (Just what price would you put on national defence?)
Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that everyone benefits and everyone contributes. Hence there's no reason at all to "shame the bottom feeders". Nor for the "top feeders" to feel either smug or ripped off by the "bottom feeders".
Do you see? Do you catch my drift?
Or would you like to just characterize my position as outrageous blithering nonsense?
(I really don't mind either way.)
(Oh and btw I only made the second reply because it occurred to me to do so. Nothing more. You know how it is, a thought just pops up sometimes. It's no big deal.)
(Notice I only "shirk" off an engagement with Formaldehyde since he has a history of having long drawn-out slanging matches which never reach a conclusion. If you choose to interpret it as rudeness that's up to you. I call it good sense. But whatever.
)The figure of 47% comes from Mitt Romney http://www.ibtimes.com/why-almost-half-americans-pay-no-federal-income-tax-790126.
Leaving aside the issue of whether this figure is accurate or not (and I can't see why it shouldn't be - coming from a Presidential candidate, and surely you wouldn't suggest that American politicians are corrupt to this extent? Though if you did, I might be inclined to agree.), this gives a substantial number of people who are in receipt of government benefit, in kind, in the form of defence most notably (but no doubt there are many other things too).
Now then, this isn't a particularly rigorous analysis of the welfare system of the United States by any means, I'll be the first to admit. But as a matter of principle, arguing in terms of the benefits that individuals receive, I would suggest that it isn't really possible to untangle who the net beneficiaries and who the net contributors to any system really are. (Just what price would you put on national defence?)
Indeed, I'd go so far as to say that everyone benefits and everyone contributes. Hence there's no reason at all to "shame the bottom feeders". Nor for the "top feeders" to feel either smug or ripped off by the "bottom feeders".
Do you see? Do you catch my drift?
Or would you like to just characterize my position as outrageous blithering nonsense?
(I really don't mind either way.)
(Oh and btw I only made the second reply because it occurred to me to do so. Nothing more. You know how it is, a thought just pops up sometimes. It's no big deal.)
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's always weird to me how much conservatives and Maoists have in common on this topic.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
The "conclusion" here is quite easy to reach. You were shown to not have any notion of what the word "welfare" actually means. And then you started your own "long drawn-out slanging match" to try to cover it up before you decided to finally end it. But you still haven't done so. You have yet again decided to discuss me instead of the topic.(Notice I only "shirk" off an engagement with Formaldehyde since he has a history of having long drawn-out slanging matches which never reach a conclusion. If you choose to interpret it as rudeness that's up to you. I call it good sense. But whatever.
Besides, what "benefits" do most Americans actually receive from their federal government? The right to be targeted for terrorist attacks do to the ludicrous foreign policy decisions? The spoils from engaging in imperialism and hegemony with its vastly over-sized military? For the most part, the "benefits" which most Americans actually get from their government come from the state and local level in the form of police and fire protection, schools, roads, libraries, regulation of utility and insurance companies, and the like. And they certainly do pay for those, even though they may not pay any federal income tax for a few years during this supposed recovery that never seems to end.
In summary, trying to claim that any American who doesn't currently pay any federal income tax is on "welfare" is simply absurd. What makes it even worse is that the politicians, especially Republicans, have been buying the vote of Americans for decades now by deliberately keeping federal taxes lower than the actual expenses, which is literally robbing future generations by making them pay the debt for this fiscal irresponsibility.
Borachio
Way past lunacy
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2012
- Messages
- 26,698
Nonsense! But please yourself. Have it any way you please. It's all the same to me. 
(Let me know when you've finished editing.)
Nevertheless, some people can be extremely poor even while living in the 1st world. I have seen people picking food out of litter bins in some quite affluent places in France. And they weren't those you'd call freeconomists either.
If you keep to the rules ,though, there's no reason to actually be poor on the scale of the Congo. Just that some people will always fall through any safety net there is.
(Let me know when you've finished editing.)
Well, as a general rule, I suppose this is true.
Nevertheless, some people can be extremely poor even while living in the 1st world. I have seen people picking food out of litter bins in some quite affluent places in France. And they weren't those you'd call freeconomists either.
If you keep to the rules ,though, there's no reason to actually be poor on the scale of the Congo. Just that some people will always fall through any safety net there is.
No, I think it's fair to say that Aimee is poor. Maybe in a 'developed world' kind of way, yes, but it's a type of poverty we shouldn't find tolerable or an 'acceptable' level.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
Indeed. And literally scolding her for it in a public forum is reprehensible.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
You mean like these comments which should have never been publicly made?
Of course, that is just my opinion. YMMV.
It is really none of your business. But if you think you might be actually able to help improve the situation by offering her such platitudes, you certainly should have done so in private instead of publicly.
Of course, that is just my opinion. YMMV.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It's kinda weird how you're making a big song and dance about Borachio allegedly patronising Aimee, given that you've unilaterally volunteered to talk on her behalf.
Formaldehyde
Both Fair And Balanced
I haven't said a word directly "on her behalf".
"It's kinda weird" that you would even suggest that I am. Did ywhtptgtfo post "on my behalf" by venturing his opinion about Borachio's latest posts? Do you when you frequently disagree with what someone has posted in this forum in response to another poster?
"It's kinda weird" that you would even suggest that I am. Did ywhtptgtfo post "on my behalf" by venturing his opinion about Borachio's latest posts? Do you when you frequently disagree with what someone has posted in this forum in response to another poster?
- Status
