Profound Thought for the Day!
Discussion
This speaks for many of us, I believe:
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by
legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person
receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not first take from
somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that
they do not have to work because the other half is going to
take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work because somebody else is going
to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the
end of any nation .. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it."
~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
"You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by
legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person
receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody
anything that the government does not first take from
somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that
they do not have to work because the other half is going to
take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea
that it does no good to work because somebody else is going
to get what they work for, that my dear friend, is about the
end of any nation .. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing
it."
~~~~~ Dr. Adrian Rogers, 1931
As much as I enjoyed that quotation it's not like he said anything Earth shattering did he? He's just voicing the typical conservative position.
Unless I've misunderstood, in laymans terms he's just saying "If you tax the s
t out of the rich to provide for the poor, the poor will get lazy because they will live for free and the rich will refuse to work and then we'll all be fked".
The quotation is just common sense in my opinion. However the simple fact is in any ethical society you will need to tax the rich more than the poor. How much you tax and how you spend the money is the only area of dispute. The real problem is addressing the balance.
Should this be in politics?
Unless I've misunderstood, in laymans terms he's just saying "If you tax the s
t out of the rich to provide for the poor, the poor will get lazy because they will live for free and the rich will refuse to work and then we'll all be fked".The quotation is just common sense in my opinion. However the simple fact is in any ethical society you will need to tax the rich more than the poor. How much you tax and how you spend the money is the only area of dispute. The real problem is addressing the balance.
Should this be in politics?
Edited by G_T on Monday 10th August 14:50
Eric Mc said:
But can you expect fairness if you allow the wealthy to operate totally unrestricted?
Absolutely not. However, perpetuating entitlement at the direct expense of the wealth creators will cause them to lose the incentive to create anymore knowing it will cost them. A common misconception is that it is the "wealthy" creating the wealth. In the U.S. small businesses make up the majority of employment, not huge corporations. They are usually not wealthy, but create jobs for many Americans. If these entitlement programs hit the small businesses, they simply hire less people and less wages are paid, less taxes are generated, and the economy takes a hit. When "Spread the wealth" is touted, it is the small businesses, not just the major corporations being targeted for contribution. 
G_T said:
Justayellowbadge said:
10 men go to a bar...
Oh don't. Please. Do you not remember the 8 pages it took before someone manage to convince me that that arguement had any merit whatsoever?
Worst analogy ever.
But with regards to the post above.
I agree. It is hard to see how Britain could get itslef out of this situation. Whatever action NEEDS to be taken will result in pissing off a huge portion of the coutnry. None of the parties will want to be the ones to take that action though, as (due to the short-sightedness of the British public) it would be political suicide!
Edited by Spiritual_Beggar on Monday 10th August 15:20
rhinochopig said:
Jimbeaux said:
Our current leadership is flirting with very similar courses of action. 
Flirting? It's a full blown torrid sordid affair, meeting in dirty motel rooms, with bleeding bumholes and everything.Jimbeaux said:
What one person
receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving.
I like the sentiment, but isn't that a tiny bit hypocritical coming from a country taken by force from its natives and then built for the next hundred years on slavery, where people who work receive nothing and those who own them receive everything without working?receives without working for, another person must work for
without receiving.
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff