If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   John Edwards puts the final nail in his own coffin on day 1, chooses to campaign on the Robin Hood platform   (online.wsj.com) divider line 1080
    More: Followup  
•       •       •

20162 clicks; posted to Main » on 28 Dec 2006 at 12:32 PM (7 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1080 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all
 
2006-12-28 03:10:50 PM  
"I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle."

~Andrew Carnegie~
 
2006-12-28 03:11:02 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: But you can't honestly tell me that a system where anyone has to surrender 80% of their income as "their fair share" when others surrender 4% is fair....

It seems fair when you don't have any money.
 
2006-12-28 03:11:19 PM  
untrustworthy: You didn't understand what I was saying. Their money isn't in a bank. It's invested in business. That means the money isn't just available for withdrawal. It's being invested in businesses on speculation that the businesses will grow and be profitable. Without that money many businesses wouldn't exist or might not be able to sustain growth.

*gasp* wait - would that mean that without that money, there would be a lot of people without jobs?

that's unpossible!
 
2006-12-28 03:11:25 PM  
untrustworthy: Without the sale of the WidgetX our economy would shrink and this conversation about poverty level would be irrelevant because what we would consider to be impoverished would be far less than what we consider now.

I seriously doubt it. And I didn't suggest halting the sale of WidgetX, I'm saying that it should be distributed realistically, not sold with some maximum profit macro attached to it...

But demand would be cut in HALF if products were actually distributed on a basis of need, not "oo look cool I gotta have this piece of crap."

CommonSenseSurrenders: Sure it would. Will you be the first to sign up for the "you can only have what i decide you need" program?

I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of waste under the banner of "demand." You can't deny it.
 
2006-12-28 03:11:36 PM  
DROxINxTHExWIND:
/Im sure during Katrina the evacuees WISHED it were 1931
//at least they would have had soup.


Would there be Visa check cards?
 
2006-12-28 03:11:54 PM  
Well so far voting is tied at one vote each, so no one has anything interesting to say.
 
2006-12-28 03:12:48 PM  
All Apologies: "I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle."

~Andrew Carnegie~



You keep these all in a Word file on your desktop, don't you? ;)
 
2006-12-28 03:13:30 PM  
Action Replay Nick

Good point, however if you compare the loss of jobs in white collar positions with the jobs of blue collar position. The economy is at a worse state.


An increase in positions due to the expansion of your local wallmart does not mean people are better off.
 
2006-12-28 03:13:37 PM  

2006-12-28 02:57:47 PM CommonSenseSurrenders [TotalFark]


The only real solution in the end is a flat tax structure. Everyone pays the same %.


I really wish people would stop trumpeting this, it's the STUPIDEST idea ever thought up by someone wanting to sell books... I'd sooner join Scientology than consider a flat tax.

To make a flat tax work, we'd need about a 40% FEDERAL tax rate. So, if I make $40k/yr, I need to pay $16000 in FEDERAL taxes... leaving me with $24k to pay my state taxes and live off of.

Then movie stars that make $40m/year would pay $16m/year in taxes, which sounds like a lot, leaving them with only $24m/year to live off of.

Yeah, that works, sign me up!
 
2006-12-28 03:13:47 PM  
2) Excluding the undesirable

Uncle Karl:So do we


newsimg.bbc.co.uk

That's just outside Paris, dude, and it's not the result of a natural disaster.

In the USA we too have racist and xenophobic leaders. Also why bring up 60 years ago? Why should a man have to pay for the crimes of his father, or in this case grandfather?

Where did I suggest such a thing? I just pointed out that they only have a 60 year history of avoiding purges and mass murder, and don't really seem on track to extend that history.
 
2006-12-28 03:15:04 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: But the basic fact of the matter is - that when to comes right down to it, the poor and hungry are not my responsibility. I didn't make them poor or hungry.

You are right, they aren't your responsibility. But they will eventually become your problem. As more and more people are pushed down into worse lifestyles and fewer and fewer people are rich (the widening wage gap that we've heard so much about), it won't be long until the rich find themselves rather outnumbered by very pissed off poor people who are going to go to your house and redistribute your wealth on their own.

Talk to some older cubans living in Florida about how much fun that is. Or watch the Godfather II!
 
2006-12-28 03:15:05 PM  
Pro Zack:strangely, the people who give the most to charity are red staters

I do have one issue with how the red staters perceive themselves. The rules of thumb I've always heard from red staters was to give 10% of there salary there church. They then say that they give 10% of there salary every year to charity. However they directly benefit from the money they are giving to the church by attanding mass and other fuctions at the church. So really how much different is that from a gym membership? Both of them are places that you go to and feel good after. The only part of church donations that I'd really consider charity when a church is doing charitable work itself. After costs of the church property, candles, and other expenses how much is going to actual charity work? Likely only 1-2%, I'd be curious on what the norm is. That said the 1-2% plus whatever other money red staters give to charities other than churches is probably still higher that the blue staters.
 
2006-12-28 03:15:13 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: *gasp* wait - would that mean that without that money, there would be a lot of people without jobs?

Yes, but fortunately we'd have the government to redistribute that money to everyone equally. That is, until our economy dries up because the government is tapping a dry well and unemployment is through the roof. But at least we'd be sharing the (lack of) wealth!

whidbey: I seriously doubt it.

What do you think our economy is based on? It certainly isn't based on actual "needs".

And I didn't suggest halting the sale of WidgetX, I'm saying that it should be distributed realistically, not sold with some maximum profit macro attached to it...

Something is only worth what people are willing to pay for it. If it costs too much, the product dies off. That's how capitalism works, right?
 
2006-12-28 03:15:13 PM  
IXI Jim IXI: You keep these all in a Word file on your desktop, don't you? ;)

I like to collect ideas that resonate with me. Carnegie is my new favorite industrialist.
 
2006-12-28 03:16:06 PM  
My chart post was a joke. I assumed the "GIS for 'fancy chart'" bit would give it away.
 
2006-12-28 03:16:47 PM  
untrustworthy
And what do you think banks do with the money they have? The same farking thing!

Resin33
Truthfully I missed the they can't deny anyone bit. I myself cannot get non group health insurance. I am apparently to much of a risk, because I need 1 cheap medicine or I die. Guess what? The only way that is a risk is if I cannot go to the doctor to get the prescription, because I do not have health care.
 
2006-12-28 03:17:14 PM  
whidbey: CommonSenseSurrenders: Sure it would. Will you be the first to sign up for the "you can only have what i decide you need" program?

I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of waste under the banner of "demand." You can't deny it.


I'm not sure what you mean by "waste." If the product was purchased, someone obviously wanted it. I don't think they saw it as a waste. I don't want to live the life of an ascetic; I enjoy the labor saving devices and other creature comforts we have in the name if increased demand. I wouldn't call it "waste."

However, there is waste in giving the government money. Waste in the form of inefficiency, which no one gets the benefit of. Even if that money is supposed to be used for benevolent purposes.
 
2006-12-28 03:17:38 PM  
FarkiddyFarkFark: Sweet. We haven't had a political flame war in the last 15 minutes or so.

This is turning into an economic flame war! Even more fun cause it actually matters to Farkers and makes a difference in their life (economics as opposed to politics).

/doing my best to contribute
//no new subscribers to my newsletter unfortunately
 
2006-12-28 03:19:02 PM  
Anyone else surprised that they apparently have black people in Paris?
 
2006-12-28 03:19:21 PM  
untrustworthy: It seems fair when you don't have any money.

Of course - human nature. "As long as it's not me, it's fine." But you can't objectively and honestly say that such a system is fair, can you?
 
2006-12-28 03:19:34 PM  
untrustworthy: What do you think our economy is based on? It certainly isn't based on actual "needs".

I'm not disagreeing with the reality of it...

I'm just pointing out that eventually the system is going to have to change, that "true" capitalism isn't really sustainable.

It only benefits a very small portion of our society, the rest all work to keep it happening. Seems like a very antiquated system in a supposedly enlightened age...

If it costs too much, the product dies off.

Not always. It certainly isn't true of some of our most prized commodities, like gasoline...

I'm just philosophizing. I see a very real disparity of income, and it's going to eventually come to a head.
 
2006-12-28 03:20:05 PM  
whidbey: I'm just pointing out that there's a lot of waste under the banner of "demand." You can't deny it.

And I'm not trying to deny it. i was just clarifying that "demand" does not necessarily equate to "need."
 
2006-12-28 03:20:10 PM  
All Apologies: "I shall argue that strong men, conversely, know when to compromise and that all principles can be compromised to serve a greater principle."

~Andrew Carnegie~


"I'm not a role model."

~Charles Barkley~
 
2006-12-28 03:20:19 PM  
Uncle Karl: And what do you think banks do with the money they have? The same farking thing!

Again, you are taking an overly simplistic and unrealistic view.
 
2006-12-28 03:22:46 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: Of course - human nature. "As long as it's not me, it's fine." But you can't objectively and honestly say that such a system is fair, can you?

It's not fair, I agree. I wish people would strive to realize that we can't have a healthy and progressive economy without having the haves and have nots. But compare our have nots to those in other nations and you'll realize that the people we consider impoverished in our country would likely be considered afluent in others.
 
2006-12-28 03:22:57 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: But the basic fact of the matter is - that when to comes right down to it, the poor and hungry are not my responsibility. I didn't make them poor or hungry.

And this right here is what is wrong with our society, the it's not my problem I only look out for #1 attitude. DIAF you selfish asshole. Out of human decency those less fortunate than you are your problem. If you are doing well in this system you do benefit from their struggles. The guy who stocks the stores for minimum wage, to the people pumping gas they all benefit you.


Sloth_DC
Would you like me to post pics of the homeless I encounter on my way to work?
 
2006-12-28 03:23:09 PM  
untrustworthy: Just look at the problems we've already discussed about lack of training programs and welfare abuse.

I wouldn't consider talking about stuff in a fark thread "experience"
 
2006-12-28 03:23:11 PM  
www.venganza.org
 
2006-12-28 03:23:37 PM  
Uncle Karl: Truthfully I missed the they can't deny anyone bit. I myself cannot get non group health insurance. I am apparently to much of a risk, because I need 1 cheap medicine or I die. Guess what? The only way that is a risk is if I cannot go to the doctor to get the prescription, because I do not have health care.

Ok then! My silly idea still works in theory!
 
2006-12-28 03:24:14 PM  
Resin33: You are right, they aren't your responsibility. But they will eventually become your problem. As more and more people are pushed down into worse lifestyles and fewer and fewer people are rich (the widening wage gap that we've heard so much about), it won't be long until the rich find themselves rather outnumbered by very pissed off poor people who are going to go to your house and redistribute your wealth on their own.

See - now we're getting somewhere - so we can agree that it is not my responsibility, but it is likely in my best interests.

So then can you justify forceably denying me the property that is rightfully mine for something that is not my responsibility? Or would the better approach be to allow me to determine what would be in my best interests, and allow me to choose how to handle that?
 
2006-12-28 03:24:16 PM  
That's too many posts for me to read through to catch up. Can someone post a summary of this thread so I can join in the fun?

/In lieu of summary, a list of asshats and trolls would suffice
 
2006-12-28 03:25:02 PM  
whidbey: I'm not disagreeing with the reality of it...

I'm just pointing out that eventually the system is going to have to change, that "true" capitalism isn't really sustainable.


We don't live in a truly capitalistic society.

It only benefits a very small portion of our society, the rest all work to keep it happening. Seems like a very antiquated system in a supposedly enlightened age...

What system survives without workers? What would you suggest?

Not always. It certainly isn't true of some of our most prized commodities, like gasoline...

There are issues with price fixing and monopolies, but that is one of the things we can address in a society that doesn't embrace capitalism in it's purest form.

I'm just philosophizing. I see a very real disparity of income, and it's going to eventually come to a head.

It might come to a head, but I doubt it's going to be any real revolution.
 
2006-12-28 03:25:18 PM  
untrustworthy

I wish people would strive to realize that we can't have a healthy and progressive economy without having the haves and have nots

Or maybe some of them realize there are more important things in life than the all mighty dollar. So how healthy would it have to make the economy before you supporting taking even more advantage of the less fortunate?
 
2006-12-28 03:25:19 PM  
untrustworthy: It's not fair, I agree. I wish people would strive to realize that we can't have a healthy and progressive economy without having the haves and have nots. But compare our have nots to those in other nations and you'll realize that the people we consider impoverished in our country would likely be considered afluent in others

An absolutely brilliant observation! Seriously!

Yes, I have traveled to other countries, and seen how people in some parts of the world live. And you are absolutely right.
 
2006-12-28 03:26:07 PM  
Headso: I wouldn't consider talking about stuff in a fark thread "experience"

Are you somehow implying that my reference is irrelevant to our discussion?
 
2006-12-28 03:26:19 PM  
untrustworthy: It's not fair, I agree. I wish people would strive to realize that we can't have a healthy and progressive economy without having the haves and have nots. But compare our have nots to those in other nations and you'll realize that the people we consider impoverished in our country would likely be considered afluent in others.

Trickle down!!! Heh, better than nothing.

But really, without a sprinkling of socialism, capitalism will eventually crumble under its own weight and we can enjoy miserable years of Communism.

You may disagree with communism, but Karl Marx knew what he was talking about.
 
2006-12-28 03:26:29 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: i was just clarifying that "demand" does not necessarily equate to "need."

I see the difference, I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that it SHOULD equate.

Rational Exuberance: I'm not sure what you mean by "waste." If the product was purchased, someone obviously wanted it. I don't think they saw it as a waste.

Waste to me is taking a resource and distributing it without conscience to actual need, but rather to profit off it.

I'm not against profit, don't get me wrong, I do tend to become sickened when profit is utterly maximized without regard for conservation.

I don't want to live the life of an ascetic; I enjoy the labor saving devices and other creature comforts we have in the name if increased demand. I wouldn't call it "waste."

I don't either, and for that matter, I submit that many "labor-saving devices" should make our lives easier.

But they merely add to the mix, and "labor-saving devices" do not make things cheaper or more accessible, they're merely profit-making tools in the long run...

However, there is waste in giving the government money. Waste in the form of inefficiency, which no one gets the benefit of. Even if that money is supposed to be used for benevolent purposes

I don't know the statistics on this, and I know it's easier to be a cynic, but there are government programs that have helped many many people, that's the truth.

untrustworthy: It might come to a head, but I doubt it's going to be any real revolution.

I don't know either. One thing I really would like to see is more company ownership by the workers who turn the wheels.

And that's my commie philosophizing for the day, I need to seek some barbecue...:)
 
2006-12-28 03:27:49 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: So then can you justify forceably denying me the property that is rightfully mine for something that is not my responsibility? Or would the better approach be to allow me to determine what would be in my best interests, and allow me to choose how to handle that?

Yeah, I offered a damn good solution with my tax reform idea but you ignored it.
 
2006-12-28 03:28:20 PM  
Uncle Karl: Or maybe some of them realize there are more important things in life than the all mighty dollar.

Some people like making money. Who am I to criticize them? Hell, they're the ones that help keep our economy booming.

So how healthy would it have to make the economy before you supporting taking even more advantage of the less fortunate?

Take advantage how? As far as I can tell, the poorer people are benefiting from the rich every step of the way. If it weren't for business owners and entrepreneurs people wouldn't have jobs. Do you think life would be better if we all went back to sewing our own clothes and harvesting our own food?
 
2006-12-28 03:28:55 PM  
CapnPlaty: That's too many posts for me to read through to catch up. Can someone post a summary of this thread so I can join in the fun?

/In lieu of summary, a list of asshats and trolls would suffice


First it was people laughing at Edwards which led to Wal-mart smack which led to economic flaming.

Notable trolls: Resin33
 
2006-12-28 03:30:02 PM  
Uncle Karl: And this right here is what is wrong with our society, the it's not my problem I only look out for #1 attitude. DIAF you selfish asshole. Out of human decency those less fortunate than you are your problem. If you are doing well in this system you do benefit from their struggles. The guy who stocks the stores for minimum wage, to the people pumping gas they all benefit you.

Listen you socialist overpriveleged prick. Maybe if you would follow what was being said, you would know what was being said. Instead, you decide to take one thing out of context and flame me for it.

You talk like you have a clue of what you are talking about. You've probably never actually done a minimum wage job, have you? Never gone and done day labor, hoping someone would grab you to rip shingles off a roof on a 120 degree day for $6 per hour? Maybe if you had, you'd understand why people who have actually EARNED what they have want to be able to decide for themselves what they do with it. Don't put your silly rich white boy guilt off on me - deal with your own issues.

And you stupid arrogant overpriveleged little biatch, I'd be willing to bet that I donate more of my time, money, and services to charities and to the less fortunate than you do - and I do it VOLUNTARILY. So next time you want to blow yourself, go do it in the corner.
 
2006-12-28 03:30:07 PM  
2006-12-28 03:11:36 PM MadAsshatter


DROxINxTHExWIND:
/Im sure during Katrina the evacuees WISHED it were 1931
//at least they would have had soup.

Would there be Visa check cards?

===============================================

Sure! And you'll only have to starve for a week and a half before you can get one. But, make sure that you use that ENTIRE $2,000 to get yourself a new house, a vehicle to transport you to and from work, and food for the foreseeable future.
 
2006-12-28 03:30:57 PM  
Resin33: But really, without a sprinkling of socialism, capitalism will eventually crumble under its own weight and we can enjoy miserable years of Communism.

Pretty much any "ism" in pure form doesn't work in reality. Communism without a healthy dose of capitalistic enticements wouldn't work just like an unchecked Capitalistic society would lead to chaos if we didn't have at least a little socialism.

You may disagree with communism, but Karl Marx knew what he was talking about.

It's fun for philosophy class, but it doesn't work in real life.
 
2006-12-28 03:31:20 PM  
untrustworthy
Let me clarify, If as a measure to improve the economy all OSHA requirements were lifted and all workers who died in the line of service could be paid for with a one time fee would you oppose that?

I do not contest that even the worker needs his job, just that the guy on top could and should be a little nicer to the worker.

Jake Steed
Look up the word tool, it fits you very nicely.
 
2006-12-28 03:32:00 PM  
whidbey: One thing I really would like to see is more company ownership by the workers who turn the wheels.

A good example of this is the grocery store Publix. 100% employee owned I believe. It is also the best damn grocery store in the country (if you don't buy the bananas that is.. they are bad for some weird reason).
 
2006-12-28 03:32:14 PM  
whidbey: I see the difference, I guess what I'm saying is that I believe that it SHOULD equate.

Then again, I ask - will you be first in line to sign up for the "I will decide for you what you need and what you do not need" program?
 
2006-12-28 03:32:23 PM  
untrustworthy: Pretty much any "ism" in pure form doesn't work in reality.


Jism?
 
2006-12-28 03:32:33 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders: Yes, I have traveled to other countries, and seen how people in some parts of the world live. And you are absolutely right.

And strangely enough, they don't seem to feel the same sense of entitlement that we see in many people in America.
 
2006-12-28 03:34:04 PM  
CommonSenseSurrenders
I have held 6 minimum wage jobs, the first when I was 15. I have done roofing as well during the summer. I worked my way through college and am still paying back the loans. Do you know what I learned? That life would be a lot better without people like you who hold no value in their common man.
 
2006-12-28 03:34:41 PM  
untrustworthy: And strangely enough, they don't seem to feel the same sense of entitlement that we see in many people in America.

...and also strangely enough, in many of the places I've been, their public assistance policy seems to primarily revolve around the 'work or starve" philosophy.

I wonder if maybe there might be a correlation there?
 
Displayed 50 of 1080 comments

First | « | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report