• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most of America’s rich think the poor have it easy

Oh, but there is where you're dead wrong. As a citizen I pay taxes for roads, schools, and infrastructure. As a trucker I pay through the nose for roads, and infrastructure. Tell me I don't and I'll send the bills to you and you can pay them.
We both pay taxes. We both are allowed to use public goods and services regardless of what we've paid. You can drive on any street in any town in any state without being denied for the amount of taxes you've paid. You'll never be stopped at an intersection and told "you've driven as far as your $63,000 taxable income permits."
 
If you borrow money and refuse to pay it back, you are a thief. Period.
Well, you can't get blood out of a turnip, can you?
What if a poor working stiff borrows money with every intention of paying it back?
Then, his job is eliminated, off-shored, down-sized out of existence.....he can't repay his debt.
Is he still a thief?
What if a hypothetical wealthy guy---call him Donald Chump---files multiple bankruptcies, stiffing his vendors?
Chump still manages to lead the life of an alleged billionaire, after screwing the people he dealt with.
Is Chump a thief?
 
Some poor people are slouchy, but not most. Because if it is, the rich people will starve. [emoji19]
 
Well, you can't get blood out of a turnip, can you?
What if a poor working stiff borrows money with every intention of paying it back?
Then, his job is eliminated, off-shored, down-sized out of existence.....he can't repay his debt.
Is he still a thief?
What if a hypothetical wealthy guy---call him Donald Chump---files multiple bankruptcies, stiffing his vendors?
Chump still manages to lead the life of an alleged billionaire, after screwing the people he dealt with.
Is Chump a thief?

Who the hell ever said you can get blood out of a turnip? I just said AND I REPEAT that if you borrow money and REFUSE to pay it back, you're a thief. The only people I can think of that would get all indignant over that are people that wouldn't think anything of borrowing money and ducking out of their debts.
 
Who the hell ever said you can get blood out of a turnip? I just said AND I REPEAT that if you borrow money and REFUSE to pay it back, you're a thief. The only people I can think of that would get all indignant over that are people that wouldn't think anything of borrowing money and ducking out of their debts.

There is a difference between 'refusing' and just simply cannot.
 
There is a difference between 'refusing' and just simply cannot.

Thank you for stating the obvious. Apparently not all lefties are gifted enough to understand plain English but maybe you have helped out your less erudite comrades with that important observation.

But that is why some people may end up getting tossed in the clink for welching on their debts. If the court finds it calculated and wilful, i.e. THEFT, then I understand why the court might think a little time-out to think about it all might be in order.
 
Thank you for stating the obvious. Apparently not all lefties are gifted enough to understand plain English but maybe you have helped out your less erudite comrades with that important observation.

But that is why some people may end up getting tossed in the clink for welching on their debts. If the court finds it calculated and wilful, i.e. THEFT, then I understand why the court might think a little time-out to think about it all might be in order.

Um, no. They actually are not getting put into a cell until the judge sees that they are unable to pay for something and it may not be from a lender. It could be something like a traffic or parking ticket. If they had the money to pay it, they wouldn't be sent to jail. So, it goes back to they are put in a cage because they don't have the money/means to pay.
 
Um, no. They actually are not getting put into a cell until the judge sees that they are unable to pay for something and it may not be from a lender. It could be something like a traffic or parking ticket. If they had the money to pay it, they wouldn't be sent to jail. So, it goes back to they are put in a cage because they are don't have the money.

Well, lucky them! Free room and board, then. For someone that doesn't have any money, that's not such a bad deal, huh?
 
Having your freedom taken away because you are poor?

More like because you couldn't be bothered to even acknowledge your personal responsibilities.

Under the law, debtors aren't arrested for nonpayment, but rather for failing to respond to court hearings, pay legal fines, or otherwise showing "contempt of court" in connection with a creditor lawsuit.

If you can't be bothered to even respond to actions your creditors are taking to try to recover what you owe and won't pay, then you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Act like an adult and you don't have to worry about such extreme measures. The court doesn't like to be held in contempt.
 
More like because you couldn't be bothered to even acknowledge your personal responsibilities.



If you can't be bothered to even respond to actions your creditors are taking to try to recover what you owe and won't pay, then you're going to have to deal with the consequences. Act like an adult and you don't have to worry about such extreme measures. The court doesn't like to be held in contempt.

Strawman. That is not at all what the other poster I were even talking about when you responded. We were talking about people getting put in prison because they were too poor to pay violations. This is being challenged. It's not legal to put people in prisoners for being too poor to pay a bill but my response was that seems the way some people would like it. Thank you for proving my point btw.
 
Um, no. They actually are not getting put into a cell until the judge sees that they are unable to pay for something and it may not be from a lender. It could be something like a traffic or parking ticket. If they had the money to pay it, they wouldn't be sent to jail. So, it goes back to they are put in a cage because they don't have the money/means to pay.

By the way. I've seen how this works first hand in New Orleans. The police arrest you for some nuisance charge like "obstructing the sidewalk". You get hauled in and if you can't pay the nuisance charge bond, you wait for a hearing behind bars. Either you plead no contest or guilty and the judge sentences you to $25.00 or two days in prison (or something like that) and you choose which you prefer. If you don't have $25.00, then you prefer two days in jail.
 
Strawman. That is not at all what the other poster I were even talking about when you responded. We were talking about people getting put in prison because they were too poor to pay violations. This is being challenged. It's not legal to put people in prisoners for being too poor to pay a bill but my response was that seems the way some people would like it. Thank you for proving my point btw.

I see. So you figure, someone should be able to commit violations with impunity if they are poor. Well, that's an interesting perspective. Not one that I think makes much sense, but I've come to expect liberal notions about what's right and fair to be lacking in that department.
 
By the way. I've seen how this works first hand in New Orleans. The police arrest you for some nuisance charge like "obstructing the sidewalk". You get hauled in and if you can't pay the nuisance charge bond, you wait for a hearing behind bars. Either you plead no contest or guilty and the judge sentences you to $25.00 or two days in prison (or something like that) and you choose which you prefer. If you don't have $25.00, then you prefer two days in jail.

That should not be legal. That was the point the other poster and I were making. I went one step further by saying I wouldn't doubt some on this board would like the return of debtor prisons.
 
That should not be legal. That was the point the other poster and I were making. I went one step further by saying I wouldn't doubt some on this board would like the return of debtor prisons.

Sounds to me like you think that if you don't have any money, you should be able to commit violations with impunity. Can't fine you. Can't jail you. You aren't going to pay and you don't figure the court should be able to make you. Maybe you are inclined to institute caning as a good compromise? Then you could choose between paying, sitting in jail for a few days, or just taking a few whacks with a cane. How about that? What about if the judge decreed that your EBT get reduced to cover the fine for your violation?

Nah, I'll bet you don't go for that, either. You really just figure the least we can give the deadbeats of the world is the right to commit petty crimes without risk of any punishment. 'Cause you got a big heart. :)
 
Sounds to me like you think that if you don't have any money, you should be able to commit violations with impunity. Can't fine you. Can't jail you. You aren't going to pay and you don't figure the court should be able to make you. Maybe you are inclined to institute caning as a good compromise? Then you could choose between paying, sitting in jail for a few days, or just taking a few whacks with a cane. How about that? What about if the judge decreed that your EBT get reduced to cover the fine for your violation?

Nah, I'll bet you don't go for that, either. You really just figure the least we can give the deadbeats of the world is the right to commit petty crimes without risk of any punishment.

Jailing someone for jaywalking or a parking violation is ridiculous.
 
Jailing someone for jaywalking or a parking violation is ridiculous.

I think it's much more ridiculous to believe that paying fines for violations you've committed is optional. Oh, well, since you don't want to pay, then nevermind. Right? Yeah, let 'em violate the law with impunity if they're poor because it's just not fair to punish the poor little dears.

It would be funny if a drunk homeless guy set up shop in front of your house and started using your stoop to relieve himself every morning. Can't do anything about it because he can't pay a fine and you can't toss him in jail for a night because he won't pay it. All they can do is just keep telling him "you can't do that" and he can keep giving them the finger because bleeding heart libbies don't think he should be punished.

It would be poetic justice.
 
Last edited:
I think it's much more ridiculous to believe that paying fines for violations you've committed is optional. Oh, well, since you don't want to pay, then nevermind. Right? Yeah, let 'em violate the law with impunity if they're poor because it's just not fair to punish the poor little dears.

It would be funny if a drunk homeless guy set up shop in front of your house and started using your stoop to relieve himself every morning. Can't do anything about it because he can't pay a fine and you can't toss him in jail for a night because he won't pay it. All they can do is just keep telling him "you can't do that" and he can keep giving them the finger because bleeding heart libbies don't think he should be punished.

It would be poetic justice.

So, now you are doubling down and want to arrest homeless people? I'm not really interested in your strawman. Obviously, you have proven my first point which was I don't doubt there are people on this board that would like nothing better than to bring back debtor prisons.

Here is an interesting fact:
A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.

Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills - bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not. Top 5 Reasons Why People Go Bankrupt

That's not even touching on the subject of loosing a job etc...
 
So, now you are doubling down and want to arrest homeless people? I'm not really interested in your strawman. Obviously, you have proven my first point which was I don't doubt there are people on this board that would like nothing better than to bring back debtor prisons.

Here is an interesting fact:
A study done at Harvard University indicates that this is the biggest cause of bankruptcy, representing 62% of all personal bankruptcies. One of the interesting caveats of this study shows that 78% of filers had some form of health insurance, thus bucking the myth that medical bills affect only the uninsured.

Rare or serious diseases or injuries can easily result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical bills - bills that can quickly wipe out savings and retirement accounts, college education funds and home equity. Once these have been exhausted, bankruptcy may be the only shelter left, regardless of whether the patient or his or her family was able to apply health coverage to a portion of the bill or not. Top 5 Reasons Why People Go Bankrupt

That's not even touching on the subject of loosing a job etc...
Don't go littering this discussion with red herrings about bankruptcy. Even the article you're trying to use as support said straight up that no one was put in jail for NOT PAYING THEIR DEBTS, but for contempt of court and refusal to pay fines.

Your position is that if you don't have money, you shouldn't have to abide by the same rules everyone else does, and so you can jaywalk all you want and refuse to come to court hearings and refuse to pay fines and refuse to do anything you don't want to do. You think that being broke gives you carte blanche on petty crime with complete impunity.

Stick to that and don't deflect with your rants about the causes of bankruptcy.

I still think you'd be able to see things a little differently if someone started crapping on your porch every day and flipping you the bird every time you opened your door and stepped in it. I think you'd change your mind about just how swell it is for people to be able to be as much of a nuisance as they'd like with complete impunity if that happened to you.
 
Don't go littering this discussion with red herrings about bankruptcy. Even the article you're trying to use as support said straight up that no one was put in jail for NOT PAYING THEIR DEBTS, but for contempt of court and refusal to pay fines.

Your position is that if you don't have money, you shouldn't have to abide by the same rules everyone else does, and so you can jaywalk all you want and refuse to come to court hearings and refuse to pay fines and refuse to do anything you don't want to do. You think that being broke gives you carte blanche on petty crime with complete impunity.

Stick to that and don't deflect with your rants about the causes of bankruptcy.

I still think you'd be able to see things a little differently if someone started crapping on your porch every day and flipping you the bird every time you opened your door and stepped in it. I think you'd change your mind about just how swell it is for people to be able to be as much of a nuisance as they'd like with complete impunity if that happened to you.

None of your rant addresses what I stated to another poster who gave me a link about debtor prisons including your rant about homeless people.

The bankruptcy link I gave does have to do with how many people in this country become poor and lose it all. Should they become indentured servants? That was my original point. Another poster gave a link to how some states do put people in jail for not being able to pay fines (they don't go to prison for the actual crime of jaywalking or not paying a parking ticket). The crime is not paying for the fine. I'm sure there are much better ways to handle that then prison. I responded with I agree that is sad. I do suppose that might be another topic but I was merely responding to OP and it surely doesn't surprise me some have the attitude that not having money to pay for a fine should be sent to a jail cell. Your posts speak for themselves about your attitude and the poor.
 
I think it's much more ridiculous to believe that paying fines for violations you've committed is optional. Oh, well, since you don't want to pay, then nevermind. Right? Yeah, let 'em violate the law with impunity if they're poor because it's just not fair to punish the poor little dears.

Garnish wages. Jail ain't necessary. Government has all sorts of tools through which it can exert its force.

It would be funny if a drunk homeless guy set up shop in front of your house and started using your stoop to relieve himself every morning. Can't do anything about it because he can't pay a fine and you can't toss him in jail for a night because he won't pay it. All they can do is just keep telling him "you can't do that" and he can keep giving them the finger because bleeding heart libbies don't think he should be punished.

It would be poetic justice.

What do you want, you want to jail a crazy homeless guy for being misfortunate enough to be homeless? Not really the Christian thing to do. Also, take him for a night, what if he comes back later? How long are you willing to throw a man in jail for being homeless?
 
Who in their right mind would choose to live a subsistence lifestyle????

Anyone who hates working more than living on the tax payer dime and that would be one hell of a lot of people. Ever hear the term "freeloader"?

Freeloader

Someone who sits around and dosen't work and mooches off their family and steals all their moms hard earned money to do nothing all day and contribute **** to society. Someone who is a waste of air and takes up valuable space on the planet earth.

Urban Dictionary: freeloader


1. (slang) a person who habitually depends on the charity of others for food, shelter, etc

Freeloader | Define Freeloader at Dictionary.com


The term "Freeloader" in everyday speech refers to a "mooch" or a schnorrer. The technical term for such a person is a free rider.

Freeloader - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
We both pay taxes. We both are allowed to use public goods and services regardless of what we've paid. You can drive on any street in any town in any state without being denied for the amount of taxes you've paid. You'll never be stopped at an intersection and told "you've driven as far as your $63,000 taxable income permits."

That's true, and for that I bring goods that you want and need to market so that your life can become easier, and well maintained...And, instead of recognizing that my sacrifices of doing this, with its long hours, extended time away from family, and general frustrations of trips on open highways with the inconsiderate in the general population, your response is one of somehow taking credit for building the roads? Well let me tell you buddy, It is me that should be saying that to you considering the lopsided level of taxation I pay compared to you, and the benefit you receive having me deliver your stuff.
 
That's true, and for that I bring goods that you want and need to market so that your life can become easier, and well maintained...And, instead of recognizing that my sacrifices of doing this, with its long hours, extended time away from family, and general frustrations of trips on open highways with the inconsiderate in the general population, your response is one of somehow taking credit for building the roads? Well let me tell you buddy, It is me that should be saying that to you considering the lopsided level of taxation I pay compared to you, and the benefit you receive having me deliver your stuff.
So let's just examine what goes into the roads you're traveling:

1) They're designed by the government
2) They're designed by the government to connect with other roads
3) They're designed and maintained by the government to withstand your vehicle traveling over them.
4) They're designed and maintained by the government to interfere minimally with drainage, pedestrian travels, wildlife, emergencies, weather, and safety
5) They're patrolled by enforcement who aims to ensure safe travel by both you and the non-professional drivers you share the roads with
6) They include regulations and enforcement that limit the type and condition of vehicles that can safely be operated
7) They work in combination with alternative roads to ensure that multiple routes are available to reach almost any destination
8) They include alternative transportation options to reduce travelers you're sharing the road with
9) They're generally free for all to use with the exception of toll roads and bridges, rather than requiring direct capital investments by every user in advance of travels.
Etc. Etc.

Now, all those things that make roads safer, are extended to almost every other aspect of life. The doctor who keeps you healthy got there by studying at an American university, which was likely publicly subsidized, and his loans and tuition were subsidized, and his license to practice was ensured to meet critical expectations by the government, the tools and pills he gives you to keep you healthy were all verified as safe by the government, etc. etc. etc.

All of your interactions in the world likely involve the government directly, or indirectly, but they all are ideally making you safer, keeping you healthier, and providing you with more stability. It's easy to take for granted just how consistent and easily navigable our country is, but it wouldn't be like this without oversight, planning, and enforcement.
 
So let's just examine what goes into the roads you're traveling:

1) They're designed by the government
2) They're designed by the government to connect with other roads
3) They're designed and maintained by the government to withstand your vehicle traveling over them.
4) They're designed and maintained by the government to interfere minimally with drainage, pedestrian travels, wildlife, emergencies, weather, and safety
5) They're patrolled by enforcement who aims to ensure safe travel by both you and the non-professional drivers you share the roads with
6) They include regulations and enforcement that limit the type and condition of vehicles that can safely be operated
7) They work in combination with alternative roads to ensure that multiple routes are available to reach almost any destination
8) They include alternative transportation options to reduce travelers you're sharing the road with
9) They're generally free for all to use with the exception of toll roads and bridges, rather than requiring direct capital investments by every user in advance of travels.
Etc. Etc.

Now, all those things that make roads safer, are extended to almost every other aspect of life. The doctor who keeps you healthy got there by studying at an American university, which was likely publicly subsidized, and his loans and tuition were subsidized, and his license to practice was ensured to meet critical expectations by the government, the tools and pills he gives you to keep you healthy were all verified as safe by the government, etc. etc. etc.

All of your interactions in the world likely involve the government directly, or indirectly, but they all are ideally making you safer, keeping you healthier, and providing you with more stability. It's easy to take for granted just how consistent and easily navigable our country is, but it wouldn't be like this without oversight, planning, and enforcement.

Yep, and I pay more than you for these roads, then should I say that you shouldn't be able to travel them?
 
Back
Top Bottom