Rich Guy: We Should Get More Votes Than Poor

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
Oh I agree. I know what he was getting at but practically speaking it would never make sense. Still I understand the frustration with the fact that the poor have reached a tipping point where they heavily control the election and they don't care what is best for the economy. They care about what is best and easiest for themselves which is also dangerous. People that want all the government handouts are becoming a growing segment with a lot of voting power.
Ever think that the reason there are so many more poor people is because the ultra greedy motherfuckers in the 1% WANT IT ALL!! The proportion of the wealth for the ultra rich keeps growing at astronomical percentages while the poor and the middle class go up at less than inflation.

It is ridiculous. Sociopaths with no fucking regard whatsoever for the rest of us are getting everything while the ranks of the poor expand and take the fucking blame because they get a free phone and some fucking food stamps.
 

Cotton

One-armed Knife Sharpener
Staff member
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
119,583
Let's just trash the entire capitalist system altogether. I mean, it's not like it's what this country was built on or anything.

Bipo, how about you just move out because you are never getting what you suggest here. Not to that magnitude at least.

Welfare is already socialist enough for me.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
Oh I agree. I know what he was getting at but practically speaking it would never make sense. Still I understand the frustration with the fact that the poor have reached a tipping point where they heavily control the election and they don't care what is best for the economy. They care about what is best and easiest for themselves which is also dangerous. People that want all the government handouts are becoming a growing segment with a lot of voting power.
I fully agree that people manipulating the Government with respect to living on handouts is utterly deplorable, but attacking the people who take advantage of the system doesn't fix things. The way the Government functions is the issue, not the people who take advantage of it. While I understand that the rich are far less apt to allow a politician who is willing to provide those handouts to the poor into office, we cannot, under any circumstance, undermine personal liberty and freedom. Otherwise, we're susceptible to become the very countries whom we speak ill of.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
Ever think that the reason there are so many more poor people is because the ultra greedy motherfuckers in the 1% WANT IT ALL!! The proportion of the wealth for the ultra rich keeps growing at astronomical percentages while the poor and the middle class go up at less than inflation.

It is ridiculous. Sociopaths with no fucking regard whatsoever for the rest of us are getting everything while the ranks of the poor expand and take the fucking blame because they get a free phone and some fucking food stamps.
Hell why not sanction stealing what you need it amounts to the same thing. If someone owns something it doesn't matter how many are oppressed,they still own it.
 
Last edited:

townsend

Banned
Joined
Apr 11, 2013
Messages
5,377
Ever think that the reason there are so many more poor people is because the ultra greedy motherfuckers in the 1% WANT IT ALL!! The proportion of the wealth for the ultra rich keeps growing at astronomical percentages while the poor and the middle class go up at less than inflation.

It is ridiculous. Sociopaths with no fucking regard whatsoever for the rest of us are getting everything while the ranks of the poor expand and take the fucking blame because they get a free phone and some fucking food stamps.
I don't buy this, I know too many guys who would be broke by Wednesday if you handed them 100K.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
Ever think that the reason there are so many more poor people is because the ultra greedy motherfuckers in the 1% WANT IT ALL!!
No, because I understand certain basic, entry-level economics.

The proportion of the wealth for the ultra rich keeps growing at astronomical percentages while the poor and the middle class go up at less than inflation.
Those two things don't have anything to do with each other.

Wealth proportion only matters if it was a zero sum game. It's not.

And do you realize that all those horrible rich people already pay like 90% of the taxes? The top 1% alone pays like 45%.

Meanwhile the bottom 30% pays like 1% of the taxes. The bottom 20% or so pays literally nothing.

Seems like they are already getting a good deal.... the entire infrastructure that protects them in this country (subsidized housing, food stamps, flat out welfare, government education, medical care if you are old or unable to work, retirement income -- basically food, shelter, all your absolute needs) is already paid for by someone else.

Damn those horrible rich people not paying the poor people what they deserve! They pay their salaries for worthless, no value jobs, plus part of their housing, food bill, they pay to educate their children, they pay for their sick bills, they pay for them to not work when they get too old.... but it's NOT ENOUGH!!!!!!!

:lol

Yeah, Bipo. Everything should be handed to them. They can't do it on their own.... even with all the help they are already getting that they pay literally nothing for.
 
Last edited:

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
Oh I agree. I know what he was getting at but practically speaking it would never make sense. Still I understand the frustration with the fact that the poor have reached a tipping point where they heavily control the election and they don't care what is best for the economy. They care about what is best and easiest for themselves which is also dangerous. People that want all the government handouts are becoming a growing segment with a lot of voting power.
Right, it's just something to consider.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
My prayer is for Bipo to win the biggest lottery in history then see how quickly he gives it away.
 

BipolarFuk

Demoted
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
11,464
My prayer is for Bipo to win the biggest lottery in history then see how quickly he gives it away.
I never said any rich person should give it all away. I just find the ones who are worth billions and pay workers minimum wage to be greedy scumbags. I don't see the difference in having a net worth of 25 billion or 50. It is just greed.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
I never said any rich person should give it all away. I just find the ones who are worth billions and pay workers minimum wage to be greedy scumbags. I don't see the difference in having a net worth of 25 billion or 50. It is just greed.
In my opinion, it depends on the value of the position. For example, I don't consider a typical Wal-Mart employee of fast food worker to be worth more than minimum wage because anyone can do it without possessing any skills, abilities, talents, or training. And I also don't think that a billionaire is always "greedy". When someone has a very successful and growing corporation, their net worth increases commensurate to the company. So if the company required higher skilled workers, that CEO's salary would not grow as rapidly.
 

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
So that qualifies the idea of pegging it to personal wealth? That exacerbates the problem. It doesn't improve it. And the government never took away a minor's right to vote because the Constitution outlines it as being 18 years old. In other words, adults have that right, not children. So I'm hard pressed to see how allowing a richer man more votes than another supports liberty. If anything, it removes it by directly placing power into the hands of the rich and removes all liberty from the middle class and below because they cannot afford to buy elections. Manipulating elections like that is no better than authoritarian dictatorships like Afghanistan which claim to have elections even though they are rigged and under the full control of a corrupt dictator.
Property qualifications, which were once allowed by the constitution, say that a landowners vote count as one and a non landowners vote counts as zero. I find that pretty comparable to a tax payers vote counting as 1 and a non tax payer counting as zero.
 
Last edited:

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
I never said any rich person should give it all away. I just find the ones who are worth billions and pay workers minimum wage to be greedy scumbags. I don't see the difference in having a net worth of 25 billion or 50. It is just greed.
Paying more than the market dictates is giving it away.
 

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
I never said any rich person should give it all away. I just find the ones who are worth billions and pay workers minimum wage to be greedy scumbags. I don't see the difference in having a net worth of 25 billion or 50. It is just greed.
I pencilled one time, how much more money the government would make if they only taxed my company 20% and allowed us to reinvest the profits. Tax receipts would be doubleing at 20%, compared to 48%, after 10 years (assuming the return on equity could be maintained).

So I guess my question is, is it greedy for my company to want to be taxed less or patriotic?
 

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
I never said any rich person should give it all away. I just find the ones who are worth billions and pay workers minimum wage to be greedy scumbags. I don't see the difference in having a net worth of 25 billion or 50. It is just greed.
What is the difference between 12 and 25 billion?

I guess double the wealth, double the income, double the employees, twice the taxes paid, double the charity given.
 

L.T. Fan

I'm Easy If You Are
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
21,688
Plainly stated, if it were not for the prosperous and wealthy there would be no tax money to distribute to the poor.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
Property qualifications, which were once allowed by the constitution, say that a landowners vote count as one and a non landowners vote counts as zero. I find that pretty comparable to a tax payers vote counting as 1 and a non tax payer counting as zero.
And that is no longer allowed by the Constitution, thus proving it's a living document and that people realized that liberties were restricted with that initial way of voting, so they evolved past it. Your point?
 

jeebs

Brand New Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2013
Messages
670
And that is no longer allowed by the Constitution, thus proving it's a living document and that people realized that liberties were restricted with that initial way of voting, so they evolved past it. Your point?
If voting restrictions are allowed by the constitution, under certain interpretations, all we would need to do is start interpreting the constitution that way. And since it is a living document, I would assume you have no problem with that.
 

Smitty

DCC 4Life
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
22,471
And that is no longer allowed by the Constitution, thus proving it's a living document and that people realized that liberties were restricted with that initial way of voting, so they evolved past it. Your point?
Yeah, it's not a living document. It's a law. Law is interpreted based on what the intent of the lawmakers was when they wrote it. That's law 101, it's what judges do every single day.

Except when they want to talk about the Constitution, because politicians wanted a way to get by the law.
 

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
Yeah, it's not a living document. It's a law. Law is interpreted based on what the intent of the lawmakers was when they wrote it. That's law 101, it's what judges do every single day.

Except when they want to talk about the Constitution, because politicians wanted a way to get by the law.
The law has been changed, and the Constitution has been changed. That's a living document, schmitty. If it wasn't, Amendments couldn't be added or changed. You know this. For example, black people are no longer 3/5 of a person, yet that used to be in the Constitution. But it isn't anymore. That's not interpretation; that was a change in the Constitution.

The bible isn't a living document but the Constitution is.
 
Last edited:

Plan9Misfit

Appreciate The Hate
Joined
Apr 7, 2013
Messages
5,818
If voting restrictions are allowed by the constitution, under certain interpretations, all we would need to do is start interpreting the constitution that way. And since it is a living document, I would assume you have no problem with that.
I would have major issues with that because it undermines civil liberty. If lawmakers want to implement that type of authoritarian nonsense, then they need to change the Constitution, not "interpret" it. I love how "conservatives" are more than willing to distort and rescind civil liberties just as readily as liberals so long as it fits their agenda. Undermining liberty for any reason is unacceptable.
 
Top Bottom