@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
On a related note. I saw a homeless man on the METRO last night who obviously had a sever infection on his right leg. His leg was swollen and discolored and in spots, it looked as if the flesh itself was coming off. I saw it and immediately realized that we needed to stop funding public programs and start getting some tax relief to billionaires.
T
K
O
Why didn't you take him home with you and give him some food and then go buy him some antibiotics and treat his leg? Then, maybe offer him a job working for you and supplement his health insurance?
You're talking about treating symptoms. I think my contributions through volunteer work is a better approach to finding solutions.
This line is old. It would be far superior to help needy people via shelters. Shelters can do more than I can. Shelters need money and support. I've provided both many times over my short life.
I'm all for our money helping people in need: Shelters, Clinics, etc. I'm not for giving the richest people in the world more money so they can have a lower overhead.
T
K
O
That's because you are a young, dumb and idealistic liberal.
Young - irrelevant. My views are indistinguishable to many older Americans. If could be argued that I recognized a better system at a younger age.
Dumb - I've got no insecurity on the intellectual front, so call me dumb all you want. It won't make your arguments any better.
Liberal - This one you just throw on as a tag along. It's more an effort to build an association with young and dumb as if the liberal/progressive viewpoint only appeals to young and yet to see the wisdom of conservatism types. This is of course false as proven here at A2K by MANY MANY older and progressive posters who are far from young or dumb.
McGentrix wrote:
Do you work for a private company or for the government? I think you mentioned once, but I forget now.
A private company.
McGentrix wrote:
I work ofr a private company and my employer provides me money to support my way of life. Insurance, home, food, etc.
Yeah, me too. Oh yeah! The contracts my company works on are created and funded with government dollars! Seems like the product my company provides wouldn't exist without the government saying it wanted it to begin with.
However, I'm sure republicans are shy about being as critical about defense contracts vice that of public programs that help fund shelters and clinics.
McGentrix wrote:
Why would I want him to pay more so people that don't have insurance can have some?
Hmm. I thought in your aged wisdom you'd have figured it out by now. Here's one example: Talent.
My company hires thousands of engineers. It pays millions on millions in taxes too. A portion of those millions goes to educational programs in state run schools. Those schools and programs that offer financial aid help a larger amount of students have access to higher education and guess what companies they end up working for? American ones like mine.
It's not about the rich paying more, it's about them paying what is right. The GOP has a tendency to pretend that they are paying an unjust amount and need to pay less. The richest people benefit greatly from government programs.
McGentrix wrote:
Ho many people work of Microsoft and Walmart? Imagine how many people suddenly can become unemployed and without healthcare should the Walton family just decide "you know what? We've had enough. We are moving to an island we own in the pacific. Closing our doors, see ya!"
I call bluff. If Wal-mart wants to relocate to another country, let them. If they want to make money, they still have to sell things. their stores will remain. If they think they can still offer their prices as is after moving their corporate center elsewhere, whose naive then? You know what happens next? Hello Target, you just got a huge boost.
You fail to understand that Wal-mart has an interest in staying here beyond taxes. Hell, if taxes was the driver on WHERE they were, they'd have already left. Wonder why they haven't? I call bluff and I point your attention again to the fact that they are still here when they could be elsewhere.
Also, I think it's great that you use Wal-mart as your example while leveraging an argument on jobs considering they sell Chinese goods manufactured under the most horrible means.
McGentrix wrote:
You volunteer, that's great! Why didn't you take this poor homeless guy to a shelter? Instead, you looked at him, tsked and went on your way thinking how evil those scum bag republicans are. If only the wealthy would pay more!
Damn. If I had, you probably would have conceded to my argument. No. What you attempt to do here is morally subjugate me by saying I didn't do enough based on some standard you aren't willing to meet. The standard I suggest on the other hand is one I'm willing to meet: That we all support public programs and that we pay for them with our tax dollars.
McGentrix wrote:
It just shows that you do not have the maturity to understand that taxing the rich isn't going to solve the countries problems.
If maturity is in question, then you have wasted our difference in years in avoiding it.
McGentrix wrote:
You can tax them at a 100% and that homeless guy will still be on the metro because you walked passed him. Just like everyone else.
I never said that he wouldn't be there otherwise, I only pointed out the absurd juxtaposition that the rich are the ones who need relief. There will most likely always be some population of homeless people. The idea that government can't do more and produce a measurable improvement is dumb. The idea that they shouldn't try and that it should be left to someone just walking along the street that can't offer them what they need is even dumber.
Enjoy your foxy clapping monkey.
Hey Fox, just a reminder, you don't read my posts. If you want to chime in, don't be a coward, address me head on or not at all.
T
K
O
