How come under capitalism . . .

[ksen]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

 

[fromderinside]

With capitalism its one fix for all problems.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

Because derp, derp derp, and make 'Merica Great Again!! Living wages means inflation!

 

[BH]

The problem is that the poor live in their own fantasy world and rich live in theirs. No one understands reality.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

The problem is that the poor live in their own fantasy world and rich live in theirs. No one undestands reality.

Except for the rich, who make their own reality and then build gated communities so that any potential competing reality can't get its logical premises past the security guards.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Job creators and job takers.

Rich people are naturally busy and entrepreneurial. They invest their money to create jobs and poor people are ungrateful for their generosity.
Poor people are lazy, that is why they are poor. They smoke crack and are leeches on society. Look at Ben Franklin and Mitt Romney. Not lazy.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

 

[fromderinside]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

No. The argument is that rich people only want things they way they used to be. Back in the day people enjoyed the fact that they could see the shit being piled up on the street from every source. Now they have to create it so other people can appreciate it.

 

[BH]

The thing is is that if the "poor" did take out loans or pay out of pocket to go get educated in "x" field that now rewards those in it with a large salary it would do not good in the end. It would just create an over supply of those able to do "x" position and drag that position's wage level down.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

No. The argument is that rich people only want things they way they used to be. Back in the day people enjoyed the fact that they could see the shit being piled up on the street from every source. Now they have to create it so other people can appreciate it.

Sorry that makes no sense

 

[dismal]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

cite?

 

[ksen]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

no

- - - Updated - - -

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

cite?

here you go

 

[coloradoatheist]

no

- - - Updated - - -

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

cite?

here you go

So you can't go into more depth on what you mean?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Capitalism is beyond criticism. It cannot be questioned as all that it brings is ultimately good. Cyclical downturns weed out the weak and reward the strong. When we restrain Capitalism we restrain out vigor and essence. Intervention is a foreign substance (Jewism) is introduced into our precious economic without the knowledge of the individual, and certainly without any choice. That's the way these hard-core Commie works. I first became aware of it, ksen, during the physical act of love...Yes, a profound sense of fatigue, a feeling of emptiness followed. Luckily I-I was able to interpret these feelings correctly. Loss of vigor and essence. I can assure you it has not recurred, ksen. Women, er, women sense my power, and they seek the life essence of Capitailism. I do not avoid women, ksen...but I do deny them my essence.

 

[Cheerful Charlie]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

No, the argument is that paying the working poor a living wage is bad for them. And if they get food stamps to eke out a living, that's bad too, so cut out food stamps and the safety net. This will encourage them to get off their butts and get a real job. Of course if unemployment, say under GOP president like Bush reaches 10% plus due to financial mismanagement, well its their fault anyway. The way to fix it all is more big tax cuts to the rich and big business. Again, the wisdom of the ages from Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Sam Brownback, Bobby Jindal et al.

Its so obvious once you lay it all out.

 

[ksen]

So you can't go into more depth on what you mean?

I could, but given your pathetic initial response in this thread I don't think it will do any good.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Recommended read: Down and Out in Paris and London by George Orwell.

 

[coloradoatheist]

Is the argument that poor people will respond to the incentive of being paid to not work they won't work?

No, the argument is that paying the working poor a living wage is bad for them. And if they get food stamps to eke out a living, that's bad too, so cut out food stamps and the safety net. This will encourage them to get off their butts and get a real job. Of course if unemployment, say under GOP president like Bush reaches 10% plus due to financial mismanagement, well its their fault anyway. The way to fix it all is more big tax cuts to the rich and big business. Again, the wisdom of the ages from Arthur Laffer, Grover Norquist, Sam Brownback, Bobby Jindal et al.

Its so obvious once you lay it all out.

You have several items there.

The argument against the living wage is the impact of the people getting it, some people help, some people are hurt by it. The economists who focus against it focus on the people hurt by it

Food stamps: People have different arguments against food stamps. Some based on mooching, some just have a problem on how they spend.

If you are talking unemployment insurance extension, it's the argument about encouraging people not to work

And we've talked about tax cuts encouraging businesses. Your argument against the tax cuts has been against the deficits it creates, not necessarily the job creation/investment.

 

[JonA]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

This has no necessary relationship to capitalism at all.

I think you need to get better at recognizing your boogeymen.

 

[ksen]

the typical conservative will argue that the poors require disincentives, which usually means less money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder and the rich require incentives, which usually means more money in their pockets, to encourage them to work harder?

This has no necessary relationship to capitalism at all.

Sure, sure it doesn't.

I think you need to get better at recognizing your boogeymen.

Nah, I think I do alright.