Forum Post: Why Liberals Are Selfish
Posted 11 years ago on June 20, 2012, 8:10 p.m. EST by linker
(-241)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
It is a constant refrain on the left that conservatives are "selfish." Those who want to work and keep the fruits of their own labor are castigated as self-centered and greedy, while progressives are held out to be all-compassionate and kind for supporting government-run programs for every malady under the sun. Enough of that rubbish...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/06/why_liberals_are_selfish.html
Keeping wages stagnant for the last 30 years while reaping huge profits isn't earning the fruits of your own labor, it's taking someone else's fruit.
what market mechanism determines wages?
Globalism... Faux Trade... competition with others that are not on the same playing field as us. Our wages have dropped significantly.
so - what do you bring to the table?
A return to sensibility. The call to end the course of national suicide that we are on. Fair Trade not Free Trade. Meaningful Financial Reform with real teeth. The removal of money from politics, corporations from our government.
Who decides what is "fair"?
With manufactured goods its pretty easy. All the costs are known.
That is the system we use now. it is called capitalism. People and business competes where the best price for the value gets the money.
When dealing with manufactured goods, labor rates and regulations and lower standard of livings that other countries have... it is clearly not a level playing field. This isn't a hard concept to grasp, focus a little.
We can not compete with countries like India or China whose cost of living and regulatory environment allows for far cheaper production costs.
In order to compete with them we have two choices..1) lower our standard of living and remove the regulations in place that ensure that quality of life, including workers wages... or 2) reinstate the tariff system that leveled the playing field by making imports competitively priced with our domestically manufactured goods of the same class.
You and others like you prefer choice number 1, which is ruining this country.
Tariffs won't work. They would hurt the consumer more than the free flow of goods. We are far better off working to have free trade.
They worked for over 200 years here. Check your history.
"We are far better off working to have free trade."
Maybe if I was super wealthy sociopath who owned factories overseas where my labor costs were nil, and there were no pesky environmental or safety regulations to deal with... I'd agree with that statement too. After all my standard of living would not go down. Too bad they are the only ones who benefit from Free Trade. The American Worker, our Middle Class, our poor, and our standard of living don't benefit at all.
Americans benefit from low prices to make their dollar go farther.
What part about jobs going overseas did you miss? Hard to stretch a dollar when you can't earn a dollar.
tariffs do not prevent jobs from going overseas, but will raise the cost of goods for average Americans.
if tariffs are high enough to make foreign labor no longer profitable than companies will keep their factories here, which will bring down unemployment, making labor more valuable. You know every action taken in life has cost and benefits attached to them. if I have to pay more for cheap ass consumer goods but I get paid more to make cheap ass consumer goods, then I have no problem voting for politicians who will raise tariffs. As a frugal person, i could care less that I might have to pay a little more for consumer goods. besides, tariffs, in the big scheme of things, have the ability of re-appropriating profits for share holders to wages for laborers or if the share holders can't live with less profits, it makes consumer goods more expensive but allows labor to make more money making the goods, which spurs consumption. Either way, tariffs help the American economy.
Americans do not benefit from lower wages and exported jobs to foreign countries, nor does our overall economy. Without good paying jobs at home, we can not survive.
Cheap plastic goods and video games created by China for Walmart or a thriving American economy that keeps our standard of living?
Should be a no brainer of a choice....
I think our stagnant economy has more to do with lax lending and government excess than it does with China making products for Walmart.
The Financial Sector in 2008 made up over 40% of our GDP...... that would normally have been filled by domestic manufacturing.... that is whats wrong with our economy.
No jobs -> people don't get paid -> people can't buy or pay taxes -> stagnant economy.
Where are those jobs? Not here.... check overseas.
Wrong thinking(?) or dumb thinking. How do tariffs hurt the consumer? Products entering the economy at a parity of cost/price - in what way hurts the consumer? The consumer is still offered variety of choice. The domestic market place is not under cut by cheap labor or slack foreign environmental policies.
No the only thing that gets hurt is abusive greed.
goods cost more for the consumer.
Not if the goods don't sell - then there is a price adjustment.
so basically you have the qualifications of a teenager with no experience & no skills. yet you want some Utopian wage lol! good luck. you are better off just occupying. better way to pick up skanky chicks anyway.
Maybe you should read my profile before you make rash assumptions.
I am surprised with those qualifications you are still so ignorant. Actually - the environmental info says it all. Good luck.
So you don't understand what I do in environmental remediation, and thus call me ignorant because of your ignorance. Nice.
yes exactly.
'Conservatives' and 'work' don't belong in the same sentence. Sorry, screwing over others does not count as work.
brilliant analysis. well reasoned.
Right. It's real selfish to want to earn a proper amount to compensate for your labor productivity so that you are not exploited and have enough money to survive. How dare those liberals.
no one is stopping you. what skills are you bringing to the table? what are your credentials?
Aries? I ask, because he used to ask me that question over and over months ago. Too funny. What do you bring to the table linker? Me. I just dumb.
I am not the one complaining. if you want to earn a decent wage - you need to provide a reason for why I am paying you x amount of $$$.
We could stipulate that everybody is selfish. Does that help you? Salve on the old conscience? Is it guilt loves company? Hmmmmm.
Actually the quality of life is better for the rich in countries that have a lower gini income coefficient. So you can be selfish and want more income equality be cause it makes your life better. See this TED presentation and consider the data presented.
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
No, I would not stipulate that everyone is selfish. Although I do not have much, I try to do my best to help others. The people around me that I see for the most part are not selfish. In my opinion, most people do their best to live their lives without taking what they have at the expense of others. If everybody around you is selfish, perhaps it is time to move to a place where the people are less inclined to infringe on your rights and property.
I said we could so stipulate, not that we should or that it is true, and would that help linker's problem with liberals? I think it would not.
There are selfish people in the 99% and in the 1%. I don't think selfishness is a crime. But my point, and that of Wilkerson, was that less income and wealth inequality actually results in greater happiness for the wealthy and the poor.
Selfishness does not necessarily equate with infringing in your rights and property, although some selfish people do. I agree with you that, "most people do their best to live their lives without taking what they have at the expense of others." That does not preclude some of those same people from being selfish, but law abiding people.
Wanting and working to take the property is far more selfish than a person wanting to use the proceeds of their own labor as they see fit. Anyone who is in favor of or works to game the government to redistribute the wealth of others (the rich) are far more greedy and selfish than the "rich" people they are targeting.
Your logic (?) is fatally flawed snoot.
It is not redistribution it is proper distribution. The greedy/minority have been taking from the hard working majority. This is what is criminal and has been proceeding mostly unopposed.
So, you want to take the property of others to satisfy your own desire to use as you see fit. You sound pretty selfish to me.
Not necessarily true, of course. Apparently you have a different definition of selfish in which it is a crime when one group (the poor and middle class) uses the system but isn't when another group does. When the first group uses the vote and the second buys the votes, rigs elections, bribes officials, propagandizes without limit, supresses and intimidates the voters etc. Group one are the more greedy and selfish? Hmmmm? I guess I don't understand the kind of society you want? Obviously you didn't watch this?
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
I think it is you who is making up a new definition of selfish.
I am comfortable with these:
self·ish [sel-fish] Show IPA adjective 1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others. 2.characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish motives.
Adj. 1. selfish - concerned chiefly or only with yourself and your advantage to the exclusion of others; "Selfish men were...trying to make capital for themselves out of the sacred cause of civil rights"- Maria Weston Chapman
Don't see anything relative to crime or illegality in these and I just picked them at random (didn't cherry pick them).
So maybe it isn't me that is changing the definition?
You seem to be concerned with what others have and want to take it for yourself.
Don't see this "want to take it for yourself" anywhere.
Nope, the new definition is yours.
Is avarice a crime? Nope, not a crime. Bribing politicians is a crime.
Perhaps you are right. When you talk about "proper distribution", do you mean that those who don't have as much could work harder and longer to be able to earn more money? If not, what would be your recommendation to remedy the improper distribution you seem to have an issue with?
You still haven't watched the TED presentation. And I am reluctant to try to paraphrase many charts of real data that is explained about as clearly as can be done.
Obviously, there is a problem that has gotten much worse in the recent past. It is much worse in the US than most other countries but very few are totally immune. The best way to work on the problem is education because the solutions (and there are potentially many of them) would be best if they were instituted by the relatively few people that could fix it by themselves. And since the results are beneficial to everyone, why wouldn't they be willing to fix it?
There are already several of those who could contribute to the solution who have expressed the willingness to do so. It seems to me to be a better idea to try to persuade a couple of hundred people than to persuade half of 310 million people (especially when they won't watch a 15 minute video.)
The problem hasn't been this bad before and of course you could apply remedies that others are using with good results. Could I solve it, sure but since I won't be asked, I won't discredit the process. I am sure you could solve it as well. And it would be to your benefit to do so, if you are asked.
The first step is agreeing that there is a problem. The second, is clearly defining it and then consider the pluses and minuses of the variety of solutions that have been shown to work. This is one of those win-win opportunities. Even if you are a billionaire, and I doubt that you are (yet), it would be a better use of your time to watch the presentation than arguing with me. Then, when you get there you will have a better life.
The good part is it won't make me any richer or any poorer, and besides I don't have much time left. Good luck..
There is no way a fancy speaker or a bunch of charts can justify the theft of property from others. I would rather have the right to property than some imagined benefit of theft from others.
With your mind set in concrete you should avoid water, and me. False alternatives is a logical fallacy.
Theft is theft. Murder is murder. Some things are best to be set in stone.
And taxing members of a community to provide the services and protections that the community wants, is serving the community.
everyone is selfish. no question. it's the same old saying misery loves company. Why do people hate the NY Yankees? they want to see the powerful & successful suffer
You conveniently ignored the most important part.
"Actually the quality of life is better for the rich in countries that have a lower gini income coefficient. So you can be selfish and want more income equality be cause it makes your life better. See this TED presentation and consider the data presented."
http://www.ted.com/talks/richard_wilkinson.html
People want to see cheaters suffer. The system is rigged and it works like it is rigged to work. When is wasn't rigged, it worked like it wasn't rigged. The data is available to everybody. Look at it.
The rich who earned it, also want cheaters to suffer because it cheapens their accomplishments. Ball players that didn't take PED's want the cheaters thrown out of baseball and the Hall. So do I.
I don't mind anyone being selfish, conservative or otherwise. It is ignoring the corruption in the system because they gain from it, or plan to, that I deplore. That is beyond selfish, isn't it?
you will never get rid of corruption. you can reduce it by reducing the size of government.
No you can reduce it by taking money out of the process of governance. And you can establish appropriate penalties and you can enforce them and put them in government operated prisons. And as you get the crooks out, government will shrink to the proper size to perform the tasks that government should perform.
You probably said you can't get rid of poliomielitis, but we have, for all practical purposes. In both cases, giving up before you start is not the way to fix problems. What you are saying is, I want corruption to continue, I just want you and everybody else who is a victim to accept it too.
We could reduce child abduction, we just need to have fewer kids.
Not bloody likely. Let me know how many people support your approach, 1%?
You really don't see how simple minded your solution is. Corruption is the act of an individual not playing by the rules. If government officials are corruptible in their public service endeavour, what is stopping them from being corrupted when they get a private job? Your logic is as simple as saying because a few cops don't play by the rules we need to disband every police department from here to the end of our boarders. Now, me personally, I would not care if all the cops got their walking papers, i have never once in my life used their services so to me they are expendable. But to all you peeps who are infatuated with property, I don't see you guys enjoying a policeless state, just like I can't imagine living in a nation that does not ensure a clean environment or a social safety net.
Corruption is a fact of life so getting rid of man made institutions is not a solution to human frailty but a invitation to lawlessness.
good luck figuring yourself out. it's a proven fact. the less money sloshing around govt. the less they are able to engage in corruption.
so you are only interested in doing away with gov't corruption and don't give two shits about corruption in general. I guess that is why you are compelled to post on a anarchic web site. You believe in Anarchistic Capitalism. Well, your pipe dream does not seem like a good environment to raise children. In fact, your pipe dream scares me more than a corrupted gov't. Get rid of the rule of law and implement the rule of the market. This is your solution?
all corruption is bad. but govt corruption is what is accountable to the people.
I agree with that statement one hundred percent and because we agree that their corruption is the only corruption that is accountable, should we not fortify these institutions at the expense of non accountable institutions, ie big, private business?
Guess that must also be true of the privater sector. Should get rid of all of that private money then there would be no private corruption? Oh, we call that innovative business practices? Sure we do.
you vote based on your public servant. not private enterprise.
I question your statement that everyone is selfish. Although I do not have much, I try to do my best to help others. The people around me that I see for the most part are not selfish. In my opinion, most people do their best to live their lives without taking what they have at the expense of others. If everybody around you is selfish, perhaps it is time to move to a place where the people are less inclined to infringe on your rights and property.
I did not make the statement. You are mis characterizing what I said.
"I said we could so stipulate, not that we should or that it is true, and would that help linker's problem with liberals? I think it would not."
Being selfish however does not mean "taking what they have at the expense of others."
self·ish [sel-fish] Show IPA adjective 1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
Concerned "primarily" is not the same as "exclusively" or "at the expense of others". And it certainly doesn't mean taking it away from others or theft.
Of course living in a community that shares your priorities, may be the lifestyle you prefer and you are quite right to consider that when choosing a place to live.
self·ish [sel-fish] Show IPA adjective 1.devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others....
When someone looks at others and are so concerned with not having what they have nd want to take what the other has to even out what they lack, that is being selfish. That is being more selfish than using your own property the way you would choose.
It doesn't say "wants to take what the other has". Why do you keep putting that phrase in? That is a major change to the definition that isn't there. You may want it to be there but it isn't. just because a person is centered on their interests doesn't mean that they are planning to take someone's property or that they will take someone's property. The use of one's own property in the way that they choose fits the definition of selfish.
You definition is not generally accepted.
Because that is what that ted dude wanted to do to make things more even so everyone could be more equal so everyone could live a "better" life. It isn't the definition of selfish, but someone who wants to take stuff from someone else to make his own life better is being more selfish than someone who earns money and uses it as he sees fit.
Of course you missed the point that it is actually better for the wealthy if the inequality is not so extreme. That is true from the point of view of the wealthy.
Wilkinson didn't collect data to prove a point, he collected the data and the point is obvious. You almost got it.
There is more to be learned but given what it took for you to understand the definition of a common term, I think I will spend the time with my grandchildren. Bye.
Theft is theft even when the selfish people who do it use the cover of government to do it, and the people who use the cover of government use the label of generosity and charity as an excuse to cover their theft and selfishness. Perhaps you can go to your grandchildrens friends house and take their friends toys and redistribute them to your grandchildren under the guise of fairness to make all the grandchildren more equally happy.
And we are all waiting for your illustration of the ways that the 1% have used the power of government to take away the toys of the poor and rapidly accelerate the degree of income and wealth inequality over the last two decades (and, of course, how you have personally benefited from these policies.)
You didn't? What is the definition of stupid again?
What is the definition of stupid again? stupid=brightonsage
Must have hit a nerve? If you are going to support that theft that you didn't even benefit from? You would call that what?
Just so we know where you are coming from, do you consider all taxation theft?
At the current rates? Yes. I consider having to pay more than 50% of what I make in taxes theft.
Pick a number. Just remember, Romney/Ryan promised to raise them. I have found that where people promise to raise your taxes, they usually keep those promises. I am not for raising yours and cutting theirs. I am for cutting yours and raising theirs.
By the way, Obama has cut your taxes more than once. Rather believe a guy who has done it than one who hasn't. I am for cutting the corruption, so I get what I am paying for. When you get that done I will reassess my priorities.
With the Obamacare tax ruled Constitutional, Obama has presided over the largest tax increase in the history of our country.
Like the wealthy corporations taking from their workers and from their consumers. Yep that is what the occupy movements are fighting against.
I have no idea of what one considers a liberal or a conservative.I do however know what greed is. I do know what corruption is.I do know what a military is.I know whai a patriot is.To include being lazy.I know that people who are the most selfish tend to have the most money.People that scream about a 'strong military have never served' People that wrap themselves in the flag tend to be trators.And people that cry about goverment spending tend to be selfish trators that think it is ok to spend trillons on war but object spending OUR money for peoples benifit.
and people that want other peoples stuff? what is that?
What Stuff are you refering to? I would hope you are not talking about natural resources that have been aquired by people that call themselves capatalist.Example Oil that is under the ocean. Gas that is under the earth.These kinds of things belong to all of humanity.Not those who can best exploit failed political systems to there advantage.Food is not a comodity for exploitation.Water is not a comodity for exploitation.There are resonable cost incured for the extraction etc .But not huge monopolized profits.No one should have to make a choice between food or medication .But this is exactly the conservative agenda for lower income people.Since when does someone in the lower income bracket become less of a Human then one who is wealthy?Why have conservatives turned the war on poverty into the war on poor people?What is the regannomic motivation to destroy the American middle class?I know very few if any people that are more concerned with stuff than human welfare.I do not know any self professed Neo-Liberals.But I hear people like you are very common now days.Good luck with your STUFF!
poor people are well taken care of. I have no idea what your gripe is. it sounds like you are a middle class brat who wants free stuff.
No,retierd working class son.As I said I could give a shit about your Stuff.Your whole idea of life is to worry on how to safegaurd "stuff".As far as being a "brat" only brats worry about there stuff.Most men know that things can be replaced.When "brats' such as yourself are of age they transform into SCABS.
[Removed]
On a philosophical level, it is hard not to agree with you. People who work hard should be rewarded and lazy loafs shouldn't live off the hard labor or people who used their brains and sweat to achieve something.
But reality doesn't work that way.
Take for istance, the job of a school teacher. Everyone knows the value that a school teacher gives by inspiring students to excel and become great leaders in society. School teachers work very hard. You may think that she is stupid for working so hard at her job. A school teacher doesn't make enough money to get by in this country or to afford her own home.
A baseball player, on the other hand is making millions. His work is playing. He spends all his time developing a few skills that he is good at. He doesn't even need to be in shape.
The money that someone makes on a job is dependent on market value of that job and not on the actual value that job produces for society. So the selfish thing is to do the job that makes money instead of the job that helps society.
Why wouldn't the baseball player not want to help the teacher? He sends his kids to her class. Isn't it HE that is living off the system? Isn't HE the one living off of someone else's hard labor? Think about it
Reality VS Ideology - It can even make you a better capitalist. Try it some time
[Removed]
True, "enough of that rubbish" by these psychopaths, so support a new constitution to sideline them, as follows:
We the peoples, in order to secure Freedom and Justice for All, do enact this Constitution for Strategic International Systems LLC (or SIS LLC) as summarized in the following Business Operations Forecast:
The customer value mission of SIS LLC is (1) to organize all customer-investors into 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties), and related internet investment legislatures of 50,000 friends (or virtual towns), requiring (2) a $20 weekly capital contribution for 1 year (or $1,000) to (3) create your investment club bank of 50,000 friends (or physical town) -- that is, having $50 million in initial assets -- which (4) due to the operation of today’s fractional banking system becomes (5) $500 million in new annual business loans (or $10,000 in new annual individual loans) from yourself as a new bank officer to yourself as a new business officer who (6) takes 75% employee business control as business officer-investors and 25% customer business control as bank officer-investors of (7) your specific 12 businesses (or investments) in your new bank investment account wherein (8) your investor voting power equals (9) your 1 of 12 levels of experience in (10) your 1 of 12 sectors in 1 of 50 industries in 1 of 200 occupations in 1 of 3,000 specialities which (11) votes-upon your purchasing (or investment) orders as (12) proposed by your employee-elected chain of command.
This means you will have 75% employee business control over your workplace as business officers and, as bank officers, 25% customer business control over all 12 investments (or businesses) in your new bank investment account. In turn, with this 100% town-level business control of your 3,000 workplaces, you can decrease your 12 customer consumption expenses by 75% for services, vehicles, education, retail, food, construction, technology, manufacturing, wholesale, health, justice, and banking expenses; that is, over your first 12 years of SIS LLC membership using a 75% more effective and efficient town design, and related 3,000 workplace designs (herein). Furthermore, while creating your new town & workplace design as described by this constitution, you will replace today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, with your new small investment club banks, and related small businesses (or investments), as proposed, financed, and patronized by your 3,000 investment squad sites of 16 friends (or virtual specialties) in your internet investment legislature of 50,000 friends (or virtual town).
Why? First, because today’s executive business income (mostly from bank or financial asset income) is 33% of all income which is a huge amount of upper 1% income to split among yourselves as new bank officers having 25% customer business control, right? Second, because today’s executive business wealth is 42% of all wealth which is a huge amount of upper 1% wealth to split among yourselves as new business officers having 75% employee business control; that is, only after becoming new bank officers (above) first, right?
For example, this means if you earn $12/hour today, then you will earn $36/hour tomorrow after adding (1) your old wage income, plus (2) your 33% (more and new) interest income as a new bank officer, plus (3) your 42% (more and new) dividend & gain income as a new business officer. Together, these 4 sources of wealth & income from your specific 12 businesses (or investments) will double your net worth every 6-12 years (until retirement); that is, from the compound interest decline of today's upper 1% executives whom you will replace as the new bank & business investor-officers. So, with this power, let’s end today’s communist big businesses, and related big governments, okay? How? By helping to operate your own Business Operations Forecast (above) at http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/StrategicInternationalSystems/ ; so help us help you, today!
[Removed]
I think you are confused. I know I know the definitions have you confused. But consider by shrugging off regulations the libertarian stockmarket crashed the worldwide economy.
The unregulated libertarian fossil fuel speculations have allowed high prices at the pumps during boom and bust seasons.
The deregulated libertarian LNG/Oil fracking industry is allowing the destruction of ground water resources for fossil fuel profit.
There is more - but that should be a sufficient example to start with.
Now you can rebut with the abuses of liberals.
lib·er·al/ˈlib(ə)rəl/ Adjective:
Open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values. Noun:
A person of liberal views. Synonyms:
generous - bounteous - lavish - bountiful - free
libertarian - definition of libertarian by the Free Online Dictionary ... www.thefreedictionary.com/libertarian lib·er·tar·i·an (l b r-târ - n). n. 1. One who advocates maximizing individual rights and minimizing the role of the state. 2. One who believes in free will.
so you still have not provided a reason why I should pay you xxx amt of $$$. all that and nothing lol what skills are you offering. make your case - this is the interview.
You lost?
I lost? You ARE lost.
No, it is a neighbor thing. Conservatives can't stand for their neighbor to get some government money that they don't get. Liberals don't want them coming over and begging.
Humans are selfish, it is human nature.
Otherwise everyone who voted L would be near the poverty line because they gave it all away to charity
so - no skills to offer but demanding redistribution from others who have acquired marketable skills.
There is nothing selfish about wanting the existence of public space.
I was helping teach some kids in a grade school one day. The teacher put four kids to a table to play with blocks. At some tables the kids fought for their blocks as they were put on the table. Each then had their own pile. At other tables the kids collectively put the blocks in the middle of the table, and politely took only the blocks they needed. Interesting thing was the kids who fought over the blocks were the low grade earners, while the kids who put the blocks in the middle were the high grade earners.
To me "conservative" (in the political sense) has something to do with stupid, and "progressive" has something to do with smart.
Your last sentence is one of the dumber ones I have seen on here in a while.
' Not any dumber than saying liberals are selfish. But you're right. We should not be insulting one another. Rather we should be figuring out together how to solve our common problems.
That said there is nothing selfish about advocating public space and public infrastructure, and cautioning about the dangers of privatization which seems to be taking over our country. That's all what many liberals are doing, and that's only common sense.
and there you have it - you are comparing yourself to children which is very fitting. progressing toward what exactly?
Well yes. I was one of the kids at the table with the other kids who put their blocks in the middle of the table. I have a nice life now as an adult sharing with others. I see the kids who were fighting over blocks, now as adults still fighting for blocks. They never learned the lesson.
I bear the rights to the fruits of my own labor. What does that mean exactly? Is that some sort of philosophical view, some god given right, or merely a self-interested opinion.
It means I get to keep what I work for. you have no claim on it.
Does that mean only the actual work you do yourself? Where did you get the idea? Why do you believe it to be true?
what about what wasn't worked for?
example please.
Gov-R-Us! Dumbshit!
You forgot STUPID. You are greedy, self-centered and STUPID. Go to school.
Job creation without higher government spending, inflation, or trade barriers: http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/
I am not sure if people who are not willing to support the accelerated work week are selfish, but I do think they are stupid.
of course they are selfish. they want to work less & get paid more. let the market decide. if you don't like it get some skills.
You misread my comment. However, taking your statement at face value, does this mean you would prefer the unemployed live off of welfare instead of for us to try to create jobs? http://jobcreationplan.blogspot.com/2012/06/nonviolent-solution-to-political.html
Edit: you can post in support of this thread if you like: http://occupywallst.org/forum/a-nonviolent-solution-to-the-political-conflict-in/
I have no idea what you are talking about.
[Deleted]
gas is heavily subsidized in the US
[Deleted]
oil isn't taxed at all
the private companies take it form the ground for free
liberals are generous, with other peoples money.
How Robin Hoods men really treated the poor
the robin hood story is that he took the tax money collected by the kings officials and gave it back to the people it was taken from.
[Removed]