• 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!

Do The Rich Need Saving?

Do The Rich Need Saving?


  • Total voters
    54
In other words, you can't answer simple questions so you choose to obfuscate.

Typical liberal.

The questions seek to obfuscate the moral imperative. Typical conservative.

That is what I spoke to. :sun
 
Last edited:
Has anyone taken a look at the results of the OP poll? I believe this result from a conservative forum should provide a clue to folks what the general election is going to look like next November. :sun
 
Do The Rich Need Saving?

Think of chlidrenzzzz PLEASE!
How Does a Four-Year-Old Spend $46,000 a Month?

Supermodel Linda Evangelista is asking French billionaire Francois Henri-Pinault for $46,000 a month in child support. He’s the father of Ms. Evangelista’s four-year-old son, Augustin James. And Ms. Evangelista argues that $46,000 is the minimum required to provide for young Augustin in the manner to which he has grown accustomed.

Readers outside New York are probably thinking: “What’s this kid eating ?!”

Readers in New York are thinking: “She should ask for more.”

To find out how a four-year-old could possibly burn through $46,000 a month in Manhattan, I called Natasha Pearl, president of Aston-Pearl, the New York-based lifestyle-management firm for wealthy families.

–by Robert Frank

You can read more on our fellow blog Wealth.
How Does a Four-Year-Old Spend $46,000 a Month? - Speakeasy - WSJ
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2011...old-spend-46000-a-month/?mod=google_news_blog
 

Lol! This sounds more like a mother trying to penalize the father for something or just trying to get rich .... wait a minute, nope I changed my mind, a child definitely needs that much money per month .. just think .. if they got $46,000 for every year of life, by the time the child is 18, they would have accumulated $9,936,000 .. now that's what I call adequate child support! :)
 
polyp_cartoon_economic_growth1.jpg
 
The questions seek to obfuscate the moral imperative. Typical conservative.

That is what I spoke to. :sun

There is no moral imperative. If these people have caused their own problems, they deserve to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I'm sorry liberals have no concept of personal responsibility.
 
There is no moral imperative. If these people have caused their own problems, they deserve to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I'm sorry liberals have no concept of personal responsibility.

Yeah, people need to take responsibility for being born poor, not having access to sufficient education, having skin too dark to be hired for a job, living under the constant threat of violence, and being treated like second class citizens.

Whereas those who swindle millions of dollars, break business laws, skip out on paying taxes, engage in bribery, and make the decisions to harm the many for their own benefit... they don't need to take responsibility for their actions. They get a free pass.

What I and mine are advocating is getting those in poverty out of it, so they have the chance to take responsibility and make something of themselves. We recognize that those who are trapped in poverty do not have the means to make those choices and take those risks that are necessary to advance. You need some amount of safety net. Middle class people have one by virtue of just being middle class and having the things that middle class comes with, like property ownership, an education, and some savings. The poor class do not have those things. It takes those things to be anything more than a victim in our society.

Your callous comment is like telling a person with no feet to get up and walk to the grocery store, and not expect us to furnish them with a wheel chair, and that they deserve to starve if they can't build one themselves.
 
Yeah, people need to take responsibility for being born poor, not having access to sufficient education, having skin too dark to be hired for a job, living under the constant threat of violence, and being treated like second class citizens.

Whereas those who swindle millions of dollars, break business laws, skip out on paying taxes, engage in bribery, and make the decisions to harm the many for their own benefit... they don't need to take responsibility for their actions. They get a free pass.

What I and mine are advocating is getting those in poverty out of it, so they have the chance to take responsibility and make something of themselves. We recognize that those who are trapped in poverty do not have the means to make those choices and take those risks that are necessary to advance. You need some amount of safety net. Middle class people have one by virtue of just being middle class and having the things that middle class comes with, like property ownership, an education, and some savings. The poor class do not have those things. It takes those things to be anything more than a victim in our society.

Your callous comment is like telling a person with no feet to get up and walk to the grocery store, and not expect us to furnish them with a wheel chair, and that they deserve to starve if they can't build one themselves.

what exactly creates an affirmative duty on Cephus or others to fund such people if Cephus has no role in their status or condition?

and contrary to your beliefs, opposing income redistribution as a government vote buying scheme is not the same as opposing charity to those who need it
 
There is no moral imperative. If these people have caused their own problems, they deserve to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I'm sorry liberals have no concept of personal responsibility.

If you consider that rich folks taking the tax breaks we gave them and investing them in other countries and laying off workers here to be the fault of the working class who are being forced into poverty, I suppose that would make sense.

Are you trying to say that because people were stupid enough to vote for the GOP, they deserve what they get???
 
Yeah, people need to take responsibility for being born poor, not having access to sufficient education, having skin too dark to be hired for a job, living under the constant threat of violence, and being treated like second class citizens.

Whereas those who swindle millions of dollars, break business laws, skip out on paying taxes, engage in bribery, and make the decisions to harm the many for their own benefit... they don't need to take responsibility for their actions. They get a free pass.

What I and mine are advocating is getting those in poverty out of it, so they have the chance to take responsibility and make something of themselves. We recognize that those who are trapped in poverty do not have the means to make those choices and take those risks that are necessary to advance. You need some amount of safety net. Middle class people have one by virtue of just being middle class and having the things that middle class comes with, like property ownership, an education, and some savings. The poor class do not have those things. It takes those things to be anything more than a victim in our society.

Your callous comment is like telling a person with no feet to get up and walk to the grocery store, and not expect us to furnish them with a wheel chair, and that they deserve to starve if they can't build one themselves.

Reposting because of the great truth you expressed so eloquently here. :sun
 
Yeah, people need to take responsibility for being born poor, not having access to sufficient education, having skin too dark to be hired for a job, living under the constant threat of violence, and being treated like second class citizens.

Whereas those who swindle millions of dollars, break business laws, skip out on paying taxes, engage in bribery, and make the decisions to harm the many for their own benefit... they don't need to take responsibility for their actions. They get a free pass.

They do and I never see anyone demanding this administration stop giving out those passes.
 
If you consider that rich folks taking the tax breaks we gave them and investing them in other countries and laying off workers here to be the fault of the working class who are being forced into poverty, I suppose that would make sense.

Are you trying to say that because people were stupid enough to vote for the GOP, they deserve what they get???


You are saying that's it's still not happening? Who is it that's our job czar again?
 
what exactly creates an affirmative duty on Cephus or others to fund such people if Cephus has no role in their status or condition?

and contrary to your beliefs, opposing income redistribution as a government vote buying scheme is not the same as opposing charity to those who need it

Over and over, you fail to grasp these simple points.

YES, our enjoyment of the things our system produces and our support of that system makes us responsible for the ills we push onto others. You don't have to pull the trigger yourself to be responsible for the death of another.

NO, no one is actually trying to buy up votes, despite your constant assurance otherwise. Genuinely trying to help someone does not mean you're trying to bribe them. Have you no compassion at all? You and Jerry both keep repeating this tired old mantra. Democrats only want to help the poor so the poor will vote for them. Democrats only support gay marriage so gays will vote for them. Maybe it's the other way around. Maybe the oppressed people of this country vote for the ones who aren't oppressing them. By that same token, don't you vote for the people representing your interests? Have they bought your vote by giving you tax cuts? Is that somehow more moral than voting for the people who promise to feed your children?

And lastly... over and over, private charity doesn't solve the problem. Centralized distribution of resources does. Ensuring that no one goes without the things they need does. No amount of selfish greed on your part will ever change that. You don't have a moral right to the wealth and power you possess. You have no more right to not starve than anyone else. You're just lucky that you have power enough to not be one of the ones left in the cold.

Get your head out of the clouds.
 
There is no moral imperative. If these people have caused their own problems, they deserve to deal with the consequences of their own actions. I'm sorry liberals have no concept of personal responsibility.

That's a pretty big if. I'm sure some of them did, but I would be surprised if the large majority of those people weren't victims of circumstance. Some people will better their lot in life and some people will worsen it, but most people stay pretty much on the path they start on.
 
Um... yeah, we demand it all the time.

I've brought it up many times without even an Amen. Do you have something I can read where the left is demanding this administration go after those who committed the fraud that caused this mess?

(Sorry, I do recall, Rolling Stone had a great article concerning this). Anyone else? I'd like to read it.
 
I've brought it up many times without even an Amen. Do you have something I can read where the left is demanding this administration go after those who committed the fraud that caused this mess?

(Sorry, I do recall, Rolling Stone had a great article concerning this). Anyone else? I'd like to read it.

They haven't done near enough.
 
Back
Top Bottom