|
| |
its_a_fine_line_between_profitable_and_parasitic
|
|
|
dafremen
|
There's an awful lot of talk about liberal and conservative, rich and poor,capitalism and socialism. But I hear a bunch of rhetorical symbolism filled with hot-air and little of substance.
Look at the rich man. Look at how hard he has worked to become a recipient of society's welfare. Notice how proudly he wears the mantle of his profits. What are profits but what's left after all of the bills are paid?
That means everything put into the economy, into labor, into taxes into EVERYTHING was passed on to the consumer..ie. society and its members..PLUS a little bit of extra cost to make someone wealthy. Society foots his company's bills. Society pays his way through life. Society provides him with luxuries. THat is profit. If he is successful he pays nothing.
What was his risk but a single big lottery ticket bought, instead of the lifetime of smaller ones bought by working class persons? One pay-off for either, and they're on easy street.
One disablity claim, one successful liquor store built on decades and thousands of dollars, one successful investment of imaginary dollars in a hot stock tip made in an afternoon. Everyone's chasing their lotto dreams. No one wants to foot the labor bill of our common welfare recipient dreams.
Eventually, the rich hope to maybe push papers around to keep their money flowing in..if that. Just like a welfare recipient fighting Social Security denial letters and requalifying for Food Stamps does his paperwork to keep his pittance coming in.
The rich man claims he creates jobs and buys materials which stimulates the economy. But upon further examination, what's an employee to a profitable company but a free slave who takes care of his own food, clothing, housing and transportation to the fields and factory? The welfare recipient creates jobs too. Legions of caseworkers and investigators and bookeepers and administrators.
Lets not forget how the majority of state distributed welfare money ISN'T tied up in one man's personal investments, but is rather spread throughout the economy as it is paid out. The rich welfare case who receives big paychecks and dividends, the majority of his hand out from society will go back into investments without ever seeing the economy.
But the REAL difference?
The well-fed, well-clothed, well-housed RICH welfare recipient is treated with respect for trying to take EVEN MORE from the public's pockets, while the T.V. dinner-eating, thrift-store-shopping, apartment-or-project-dwelling POOR welfare recipient is monthly barrraged with insults to his character, assaults on his pride, lowering of his benefits, removal of his privacy and whatever other scraps he has left which might give him comfort and dignity.
In an ultimate act of irony, and a real testament to the overall gullibility of the human race (on both sides of the class war), the better treated welfare recipients look down upon and sneer at the less so. And the barely getting by..have been brainwashed into hanging their heads, convinced of the lie that a rich man sacrifices more for his welfare check..and in a more dignified manner.
But a quick peek behind the smoke and mirrors reveals the truth--that pushing off upon society all manner of things it doesn't need, destroying its children, destroying its health, claiming its resources and scooping out a people's soul just to fatten one's share of the public handout is a most dignified way to have lived. Most undignified indeed.
Rather, the well blessed bum had best cheerfully pony up a bit of his feast for a less fortunate brother, lest the welfare witch hunt locate the REAL drain on society's resources and its economy.
--
|
120203
|
| |
... |
|
|
daf
|
I try to look on both sides of everything. This bothers me a bit:
How can a rich man can call the poor "losers" for not having and requiring assistance. Not everyone is inclined to material pursuits. Not everyone finds freedom for food a reasonable sacrifice. "Liberty or death" used to be a noble enough way to live. What happened?
The rich may exploit the system to lower his tax liabilities, buy political influence, de-regulate his requirements to keep the public's resources healthy, even create public opinion (even on nonexistent events and issues) by buying up and dominating media. One can just as easily say that lowering one's requirements for a comfortable living, and choosing early retirement by choosing to live off of a bare pittance is another winning strategy.
Why one man's way of making a living off of his fellow man so much better than another's? Is it the poor's fault that the rich have such high requirements for happiness?
Society no more owes the rich a mansion and several cars than it owes the poor at least breath, a full belly, a warm bed, freedom and a bit of dignity..or it owes as much to both. Take your pick. A poor man's life or a rich man's follies.
Where should our resources go? Which do we value more?
|
120203
|
| |
... |
|
|
a clever disguise
|
By your last entry, it sounds like poverty or needing assistance could be a choice. In many cases it is, and in those cases, what assistance should that person receive? In many cases it is not, and what assistance should that person receive?
Meaning, if you choose to be a 30 year old man working at wal-mart, are you really as poverty stricken as the man who was a firefighter, say, was laid-off couldn't find work and now is working at wal-mart.
Are they the same or are they not?
(I'm asking, not inferring.)
|
120203
|
| |
... |
|
|
dafremen
|
I think that society has as much responsibility to the individual as it feels the individual has to society..perhaps even more so.
It is the mores and morals, population needs and purposes of a society (among others) which form the chain of events bringing a human being into existence. Society's attitudes, needs and power struggles also form the conditioning of the adults who will raise this person, forming their personality with gentle curves, jagged scars or, as is usually the case, both.
Society always pulls out individual choice..and conscience.
Choices made under duress in many instances. Choices made under duress because society had to apply pressure. Pressure applied to counter the tendencies brought on by the very conditioning cultivated in a mixed mosh of society's needs and power struggles, traumas and attitudes of the time (among other things.)
To say that food, clothing, shelter, social equality and the right to human dignity are owed the individual by society (at least at this point) seems obvious.
The fact that the individual provides society with its creative genius and its impetus of the moment, makes me wonder why we're in such a hurry to shackle people up with ideas of obligation to labor anyhow. Daydreaming isn't a worthwhile activity until its profitable. Interesting how in the arena of the almighty dollar..where production of predictability invariably takes priority over the production of better individuals, it is claimed that the best of our race are winning..simply because their efforts produced profits.
Profits or no, society owes a man his basic life for giving it to him mutilated and turning him our of childhood lost and broken.
If a man wishes BETTER food than basic, BETTER lodging than clean but simple, BETTER clothing than clean but used..let him struggle for those things.
|
120203
|
