• 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!

Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person?

Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person?

  • Total voters
    9
Luna Tick

Luna Tick

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 31, 2010
Messages
2,148
Reaction score
867
Location
Nebraska
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
If every poor person gave a pound of flesh to a rich person, the rich, being the innovative people that they are, could likely figure out a way to turn it into a profitable business that would stimulate the economy. Then there would be more jobs for the poor. And, while we're at it, we could deny the poor the right to vote until they turn in their pound of flesh. While we're at it, maybe we could put some poor people into stocks and yell at them for creating this bad economy. We all know our economic problems were caused by welfare mothers, not by reckless wealthy investors and politicians throwing money away on pointless wars. Maybe if we could just hate the poor's guts enough and blame them for all our problems, we could have a great economy! Sound like a plan?
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Whoa. You're up here and I need you down here. Throwing stupid at stupid normally just makes more stupid. I know what you are saying but there is better ways at going about it.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

JohnWOlin said:
Whoa. You're up here and I need you down here. Throwing stupid at stupid normally just makes more stupid. I know what you are saying but there is better ways at going about it.
Click to expand...

Have you ever read Jonathan Swift? My post is in that tradition.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Luna Tick said:
Have you ever read Jonathan Swift? My post is in that tradition.
Click to expand...

Right but you seem to be more literal about it...
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Luna Tick said:
If every poor person gave a pound of flesh to a rich person, the rich, being the innovative people that they are, could likely figure out a way to turn it into a profitable business that would stimulate the economy. Then there would be more jobs for the poor. And, while we're at it, we could deny the poor the right to vote until they turn in their pound of flesh. While we're at it, maybe we could put some poor people into stocks and yell at them for creating this bad economy. We all know our economic problems were caused by welfare mothers, not by reckless wealthy investors and politicians throwing money away on pointless wars. Maybe if we could just hate the poor's guts enough and blame them for all our problems, we could have a great economy! Sound like a plan?
Click to expand...
Lets be honest Luna...you are misstating reality. The reality is that 47% dont give even an ounce, let alone a pound, and the top 1% give 35 pounds....thats the heart, a kidney, an arm, and maybe a leg from the knee down. If this is all about 'fair share' and dramatics shouldnt it at least be close to accurate?
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Luna Tick said:
If every poor person gave a pound of flesh to a rich person, the rich, being the innovative people that they are, could likely figure out a way to turn it into a profitable business that would stimulate the economy. Then there would be more jobs for the poor. And, while we're at it, we could deny the poor the right to vote until they turn in their pound of flesh. While we're at it, maybe we could put some poor people into stocks and yell at them for creating this bad economy. We all know our economic problems were caused by welfare mothers, not by reckless wealthy investors and politicians throwing money away on pointless wars. Maybe if we could just hate the poor's guts enough and blame them for all our problems, we could have a great economy! Sound like a plan?
Click to expand...

yes... sounds like a plan


....a bad plan, and a bit messy, but a plan nonetheless.

I think my plan would start with a lot less hatred of anyone, rich or poor.... but yours certainly has more ..uhh...je ne sais quoi
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Luna Tick said:
Have you ever read Jonathan Swift? My post is in that tradition.
Click to expand...

Read your OP, though "da hell is wrong with this person?" and voted no. Then I read this post and thought there should be a distinction between skinny and fat people in your proposal, as one group is clearly benefiting more from the rich's gifts to the world. A pound for one, a stone for the other?
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Boring Bob said:
Read your OP, though "da hell is wrong with this person?" and voted no. Then I read this post and thought there should be a distinction between skinny and fat people in your proposal, as one group is clearly benefiting more from the rich's gifts to the world. A pound for one, a stone for the other?
Click to expand...
From a strictly literary sense, the pound of flesh refers to the heart.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Of course! Do not forget to toss in their first born;):2razz:
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Kali said:
Of course! Do not forget to toss in their first born;):2razz:
Click to expand...
Born...not aborted? Cuz you might have to add those up to equal a pound, depending on how far into it the pregnancy went...
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Kali said:
Of course! Do not forget to toss in their first born;):2razz:
Click to expand...

We could use Swift's idea for that one.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Sounds great to me... damn, now I want to be rich so I can feast on the raw flesh of thousands.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

VanceMack said:
Lets be honest Luna...you are misstating reality. The reality is that 47% dont give even an ounce, let alone a pound, and the top 1% give 35 pounds....thats the heart, a kidney, an arm, and maybe a leg from the knee down. If this is all about 'fair share' and dramatics shouldnt it at least be close to accurate?
Click to expand...

Our economy doesn't provide the work or wages to enable the 47% to pay federal income taxes. Given the choice between continuing to pay the "35 pounds" or facing economic regulations that would force them to provide decent jobs and wages, I'm sure the 1% would choose to keep picking up the tab for the 47% use of public services. Society doesn't collapse, and they get to keep a larger share of the money according to those rules. Personally, I would be glad to shift more of the tax burden to the 47% as long as our economy was reordered so that they had the income to pay it.
 
Last edited:
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Morality Games said:
Our economy doesn't provide the work or wages to enable the 47% to pay federal income taxes. Given the choice between continuing to pay the "35 pounds" or facing economic regulations that would force them to provide decent jobs and wages, I'm sure the 1% would choose to keep picking up the tab for the 47%'s welfare. They get to keep a larger share of the money according to those rules.
Click to expand...
There are still many jobs out there and sometimes you have to work 2 and 3 to get from broke ass to middle/upper middle income. Some of us spent 30 years doing it. Well worth it. That being said...all good...as long as we stoip this whiny rhetoric about how the poor should just give up a pound of flesh. One side of that 47% drains the country of resources...the 53% pay for it. Im not naive enough to expect the occasional 'thank you'...but it would sure be nice if that 47% were a little more concerned about THEIR role and how to affect positive change.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Just the obese poor of which there are many.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

Morality Games said:
Our economy doesn't provide the work or wages to enable the 47% to pay federal income taxes. Given the choice between continuing to pay the "35 pounds" or facing economic regulations that would force them to provide decent jobs and wages, I'm sure the 1% would choose to keep picking up the tab for the 47% use of public services. Society doesn't collapse, and they get to keep a larger share of the money according to those rules. Personally, I would be glad to shift more of the tax burden to the 47% as long as our economy was reordered so that they had the income to pay it.
Click to expand...

that's nonsense. to say 47% cannot pay ANY federal income tax is complete BS
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

VanceMack said:
There are still many jobs out there and sometimes you have to work 2 and 3 to get from broke ass to middle/upper middle income. Some of us spent 30 years doing it. Well worth it. That being said...all good...as long as we stoip this whiny rhetoric about how the poor should just give up a pound of flesh. One side of that 47% drains the country of resources...the 53% pay for it. Im not naive enough to expect the occasional 'thank you'...but it would sure be nice if that 47% were a little more concerned about THEIR role and how to affect positive change.
Click to expand...

excellent point-the entire point of taxing the "poor" or the 47-51% that pay no income tax is to give them feedback. Feedback, as Mach noted, to provide them with edification that government spending has to be PAID for. Right now, too many people have no idea how government is paid for so they constantly demand more and more government

here is the bottom line. If YOU cannot AFFORD to pay for what you want, then you should demand LESS rather than demand others be taxed more so you can have what you cannot pay for
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

W.....t.....f
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

VanceMack said:
Lets be honest Luna...you are misstating reality. The reality is that 47% dont give even an ounce, let alone a pound, and the top 1% give 35 pounds....thats the heart, a kidney, an arm, and maybe a leg from the knee down. If this is all about 'fair share' and dramatics shouldnt it at least be close to accurate?
Click to expand...

That sounds fair since the top 1% has redistributed the wealth to itself in a greater sum than the bottom 50% have put together.
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

MKULTRABOY said:
That sounds fair since the top 1% has redistributed the wealth to itself in a greater sum than the bottom 50% have put together.
Click to expand...

the socialist definition of redistribute means to earn wealth while ignoring the real definition-the government taking wealth from those who earned it and giving it to others to buy their votes
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

TurtleDude said:
the socialist definition of redistribute means to earn wealth while ignoring the real definition-the government taking wealth from those who earned it and giving it to others to buy their votes
Click to expand...

No, youre going by the historical examples of nations that were forced to cannibalize themselves while they attempted to throw of the shackles of western financial and economic dominance. Do you nay have any other revisions of political vocabulary of the English language to bestow upon us mortals?
 
Re: Should every poor person have to give a pound of their own flesh to a rich person

MKULTRABOY said:
That sounds fair since the top 1% has redistributed the wealth to itself in a greater sum than the bottom 50% have put together.
Click to expand...
Consider the effort you are putting into your life and what you are getting out of it. maybe...again...JUST maybe...the problem isnt the very successful. MAYBE the problem is the man in the mirror.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom