Quote:
Originally Posted by Boobzooka
Strawman argument. The vast majority of humanity are hard-working people on subsistence wages, even if some happen to be employed in occupations I personally consider a waste of manhours. I'm extremely grateful to have all those people doing the back-breaking shitty work for me. I think if society relied on me to do it, the power would fail and the sewers would overflow. Meanwhile I make 10x more contributing nothing of any critical importance. Capitalism actually does a pretty lousy job of measuring who is more deserving. It's Darwinism/jungle-law, and generally the winners are the best predators, or best parasites, not the best worker bees. So prosper as much as you can, but always keep in mind that without that peasant class the lords would starve. And frankly, if you can't afford to retire comfortably right now today, don't fool yourself, you're still a member of the peasant class too.
|
you're wrong.
Darwinism is what's driven mankind to the heights its achieved today.
"deserving" is a quaint idea you have but irrelevent
lastly, its silly to talk about "subsistence wages" when Forty-three percent of all poor households actually own their own homes, Eighty percent of poor households have air conditioning, The average poor American has more living space than the average individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens, not the poor in europe, the average. Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 31 percent own two or more cars.
The point the people on your side completely miss is that if the "unwealthy" felt the pain of what their representatives in washington were promising them, government and life as a whole would be much better.
This has never been an argument over taking care of our poor, this is an argument about the government setting up class warfare so they can continue spending beyond its means by taking from the smallest segment of our population with the support of the largest part whom they've now set up to vote for more, while paying for nothing.