Or anyone else who isn’t independently wealthy? (At least, wealthy enough to quit a job to start a business without worrying about death or bankruptcy).
No oligarchy here, sir. Nope.
You already are.
Unfortunately, one stereotype of the “short, bald, fat guy” is unfair and cruel (a bit like you). It is that he is probably a tool.
It’s clueless, socially-inept ingrates like you that made the stereotype possible. It’s so unfair to the good guys (the vast majority). You probably already are a sweaty tub of goo. But if not, then you will be shortly. You will NEVER be able to resist gorging on all that greasy shit because it serves two functions that are very important to you:
-
Every morsel of food you can stuff in your pie-hole is one less bit of food that could have fed a hungry child. Win!
-
A full belly helps calm the suicidal rage you feel every night when yet again, you don’t get laid.
Doesn’t work that way.
There are LOTS of taxes. Some progressive, some regressive.
I posted a link I can’t be arsed to look up now on the SDMB that showed the tax burden, as a percentage of income, is highest on the bottom 20% of income earners in California (which as a very progressive tax structure). When you include sales tax and all the rest the poor pay more, as a percentage, than the rich.
This overly simplistic notion of a flat tax fails. It only makes sense if you focus on a tree and ignore the forest.
It ignores, as mentioned, that the US prospered most spectacularly when taxes on the rich were stupendously high compared to today (and the rich still got richer).
It ignores that Dem administrations saw the country prosper more than Rep administrations (and guess what, the rich prospered more under the Dems, not make the poor better at rich people’s expense Robin Hood stuff).
Some very, very few are making out like bandits. Almost everyone else is screwed. Income disparity in the US is at record highs. The middle class is shrinking. Wages are stagnant at best.
Who the fuck do you think will buy an iPod when they are scratching for food?
Even if you are one of the very, very few who get colossally rich what kind of country do you want to live in? Bet you’d be considered rich in Somalia. Want to live there? I am betting no (else you’d be there now).
Every time I hear this I can’t help but wonder what percentage of the so-called “rich” the 90% rate applied to. When you consider that most states, cities and counties also have taxes, I can’t help but think that the proportion of people who could pay out all that money and still meet their living expenses must have been infinitesimally small.
A year or two ago one of the cable channels was running old quiz shows like What’s My Line and I’ve Got A Secret, and one night Lucille Ball was the guest. This was in the late fifties/early sixties, the height of Lucy-mania. During the questioning that preceeded her exposure as the guest, she was asked if she was a millionaire. She said no. Later, after her identity was revealed, one of the panelists asked if it were true that she didn’t have a million dollars. She frowned and shook her head, saying that “With today’s taxes you can’t make a million dollars.”
With regard to the flat tax, I’m aware that among people of a certain political bent, flat tax is considered ill-advised/ridiculous. I’m also aware that people of certain other political beliefs consider it not only feasable but eminately fair.
And while I’m not schooled in economics enough to know who to listen to, I have read enough to know that there are highly trained economists who will argue forcefully for one side or the other.
The social contract describes how people give up certain rights in order to maintain social order. It is only a “contract” in the loosest sense of the word. A contract usually consists of two parties entering into an agreement of their own free will. You do not have a choice in entering the social contract as the government will force you to abide by its laws.
You do not have a responsibility to provide a living for those who are lazy, incompetant and unwilling to attempt to better themselves. And that is what you are doing when you are forced by government mandate to pay into a system that rewards based on need instead of merit.
Well, I don’t believe that it is as simple as “the economy always runs better under Democrats”, but the numbers do seem to indicate that.
No one said anything about no government. The role of government is to protect people from those who would take from others by force.
oligarchy - a form of government in which power effectively rests with a small elite segment of society distinguished by royal, wealth, intellectual, family, military or religious hegemony.
From this cite:
Sounds like an oligarchy to me.
You’re not being forced to be here.
Oh dear god, you’re serious, right? You ARE aware that this thread is SATIRE? :smack:
Crafter_Man – perhaps a better comparison to fried chicken would be a skinless chicken breast that’s been baked after being marinated in a nice Italian vinigrette? You don’t have to give up taste just because you’re dieting? (And like I said, I’d prefer that – I don’t like fried chicken, as I HATE chicken skin. Ick)
And I think most people are getting on your case because the diet you reccomend IS pretty harsh. Most people will tell you that you CAN have treats – just that moderation is the key word. I’ll eat junk food, just not as my main thing.
You also don’t just eat less - you have to excercise as well.
(Fortunately, I come from a thin family, AND one of the side effects from my meds is an increased metabolism.)
As for “PC explanations”, that’s just an excuse for your wanting to make your OWN stereotypes. I’ve known plenty of people who were poor – but not out of being lazy. I’ve known both. So nice to be able to put people into simple little catagories – but life doesn’t work that way.
But that’s a hijack of this topic. If you want to talk about lazy poor people and food, start another one.
Well this is pretty appalling.
Generally around 95% of the population is employed (give or take). Of the 5% unemployed many are only temporarily unemployed (always some shifting jobs or from a business that went under and so on).
Some very small percentage can be said to be “lazy”. The vast majority work their asses off and it is their hard work that is lining the pockets of a relative few.
Well, that’s rather the point. Have a look at the post in which I explained the difference, from Rand’s point of view, between altruism and philanthropy. You can’t always just grap a sentence out of thin air, with no context, and start an argument about it. I mean, YOU certainly can. But one shouldn’t.
I’m curious, if we lived in a purely Objectivist society, what would happen to an orphan who got paralyzed from the neck down? Giving any money to care for him would be considered “wasted” because it’s not going to any productive use, right? And if Rand Rover is any indication, Objectivists don’t give a shit about anyone else unless they are friend or family.
You’re correct. I can eat - and enjoying doing so - poultry that is baked or broiled. I also like fresh fish. I can’t deny that I love the taste of fried food, but I don’t ever touch it.
It’s true that you can snack in moderation. But - speaking about my own experience only - I find it is actually easier to completely abstain from eating a certain snack that to “eat a little bit.” If I eat one cookie, for example, I will want another. And another. And another. And, maybe, just one more. And then, just one last cookie. 
Far easier and less stressful to simply not eat any at all.
I exercise. I jog during my lunch hour at work. But even then, I understand my exercise program is not a significant factor in helping me maintain a healthy weight. For the vast majority of people, permanent weight control is primarily achieved via a permanent modification of their diet (eating less / eating better), not exercise.
Behind most stereotypes is a grain of truth. Based on my experience, chronically poor people are - for the most part - poor primarily because they repeatedly make bad decisions. And most chronically poor people I have come across also seem to be lazy and dumb.
Being raised in a poor environment can impair a child’s neural development, which I’m assuming can make it harder for them to succeed as adults.
But you seem to be in the minority. If you’re counseling people not to snack at all, or just to avoid these foods altogether, no wonder they’re simply giving up!
[/quote]
Behind most stereotypes is a grain of truth. Based on my experience, chronically poor people are - for the most part - poor primarily because they repeatedly make bad decisions. And most chronically poor people I have come across also seem to be lazy and dumb.
[/QUOTE]
Plural/anecdote/data and all that. I’ve could say the same about a lot of rich people – raised in luxury, they become lazy, spoiled and stupid. Mommy and Daddy do everything for them, they never have to lift a finger, etc.
We can play this game all day, it doesn’t change things, or translate to real life. Besides, I seem to recall (reading over some old threads for cites and such), that you said you went to Catholic school. Didn’t you learn anything at all?
Yes. That I don’t like Catholic schools. 
Vegetables have a very low calorie density, and don’t do a very good job of making a person feel “full.”
To illustrate how ridiculous your example is, I looked up some nutritional statistics and did some math.
By my calculations based on the wikipedia entry for broccoli it would take 14 pounds of brocolli or 11 pounds of carrots to reach 2,000 calories.
I figured that 2,000 calories worth of fried KFC drumsticks (Warning: PDF) would be 1.7 pounds.
Try working for 8 hours at a grueling minimum wage job, and I give you a choice between scarfing down 14 pounds of broccoli (it would probably take up the rest of your day trying to eat that much, and you’d pretty much have to force yourself to do it and try not to vomit it up) or 1.7 pounds of fried chicken. Which are you going to pick?
Blalron: It was not my intention for my example to be taken literally. Want a realistic example? Fine. Take a fat, poor person on welfare and show them a plate of fried chicken, onion rings, and cheesecake. Then show them a plate of broiled chicken breast, fresh string beans, and a lemon water. They will choose the former. The will still choose the former after you “educate” them on nutrition. And they will choose the former regardless of the price difference between them.
How do you know this?
:rolleyes:
Why do I suspect you’re speaking of yourself at one time?
Fear Itself: Take my marinated chicken and grill it, instead. That gives it more flavor. Add a baked potato with low-fat sour cream and fresh tomatos right out of the garden. Maybe some some green peas. And some ice-tea.
Dude is giving people hospital food. And once again, enough of the “poor, welfare people.” Give us some cites, or shut up the fuck up.
BTW, have you tried those Fiber One bars? They have chocolate chip, and peanut butter, and they’re GREAT. (They have a cheaper version at Aldis, and you can’t even tell the difference.) I do caution against the caramel ones – it’s like eating pancakes with oatmeal.
Now, can we PLEASE get back on topic: Socialism is teh EEEEVILLLLLL!!! Hey, dude is railing against poverity and stupidity, but still wants to abolish the Department of Education. :rolleyes:
Actually 95% of the population is NOT employed. Unemployment only measures people over a certain age (16 IIRC) who are looking for a job but can’t find one. Those unemployed are usually only temporarily unemployed and covered by state unemployment insurance. Unemployment statistics don’t include your retired grandmother, your 3 year old brother or, more importantly, people who have stopped looking for work and thus dropped out of the work force.
People aren’t fat because they like fattening foods.
People are fat because the foods they like are fattening.